ACOE Fathers

Category: Theology

  • The Church of The East and Papal Supremacy, Accepted or Rejected?

    Greetings to my fellow readers, and beloved faithful, recently I have come across a claim that has been made which directly attacks the position of the Church of The East. It is a claim that I have never seen been made formally, however, according to a recent lecture done by a specific individual, he has argued that the Church of The East has never formally rejected the Papacy, or in other words, the idea that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is the supreme head of the entire universal Church, and that he is the true successor of Peter, who holds the keys to heaven, and holds universal jurisdiction amongst all of the sees of the 4 corners of the world, as formally defined by Vatican I and The Council of Florence, specifically in its decree Laetentur Caeli (1439). See the below references:

    “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. To which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those concerning the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

    – Pastor Aeturnus, Chapter III

    “We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy over the whole universe; that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, he is an authentic vicar of Christ, head of the whole church, father and doctor of all Christians; that our Lord Jesus Christ has transmitted to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, the full power to graze, hold and govern the universal church, as is also attested in the acts of the Ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”

    – Laetentur Caeli

    According to the gentleman, who also is currently writing a book based on this thesis, argues that the Church of The East never formally rejected this as being dogma, and instead, according to its patristics and theology of the liturgy, has accepted it. My purpose in this article is to demonstrate that the Church of The East rejects this idea, and has always rejected this according to its patristics and liturgy, and that to be “Catholic” means something different to us rather than being in communion with the Roman Pontiff. I will be going one by one of each claim that has been made and offering a rebuttal to it along with the sources to properly demonstrate the Church of The East position. Let us begin with claim #1.

    Claim #1: The Church of The East has been Catholic since Day 1

    First we must establish what does it exactly mean to be catholic? Based on the topic of discussion, the person presupposes that to be catholic means to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff, but let us first look at what patristics say. The word “catholic” in of itself just simply means universal, as defined by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in which the “catholic” Church is the Church that spreads across the whole world, and does not discriminate amongst its members, rather it is meant for all. After all, this is the biblical understanding which Saint Paul says:

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    – Galatians 3:28

    And here is Saint Cyril of Jerusalem along with Saint Ignatius of Antioch:

    “It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

    – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 18

    So for Saint Cyril, what Catholic means is, that the Church is not confined to a single city or nation, but its message extends throughout the whole world. It means that the Christian Faith is taught in its entirety and fullness, and not just in some manners of dogma. And it means that the Church is the hospital for the faithful, and serves as the body which addresses all sin and offers its Sacraments for healing. None of which has anything to do with the idea of Roman Supremacy. Now of course, this doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church rejects this position, however for the sake of this argument and article, I am using it to demonstrate that saying the Church of The East has always been catholic, is not at all diminishing to our position, as we are in agreement that we are Catholic according to the patristic definition, but rather we disagree with the presupposition that catholic means to be in communion with Rome. Let us as well look at Saint Ignatius:

    “ See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

    – Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

    So for Saint Ignatius, to be catholic means to have Christ in the Church, as he is the pillar, and ground of its entire foundation, and so unity with the Catholic Church is thus unity with Christ. That is why he gives the example of the Bishop being the head of the Church, just as Christ is the head of his body (which is the Church), and so Christians gather around the Bishops for sacramental unity.

    I can give much more patristic citations such as the Council of Constantinople I and Saint Augustine (very revered Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church) who all define and are in agreement with this, but for the sake of moving on to the rest of the claims, I will concede with this point that to be “Catholic” is not submission to the Roman Pontiff.

    Claim #2: Peter, Rome, and the Pope are Icons of Communion

    To be in communion with Peter is absolutely a sign of communion, after all, he is the head of the Apostles which believe it or not, the Church of The East does not reject and neither does any other Apostolic Church, but what exactly does it mean to be the head of the apostles? We reject the notion that this implies Papal Supremacy, especially on the grounds that Peter is exclusively tied to being the Bishop of Rome. Therefore we would reject that the signs of communion are to be in communion with Rome and the Pope. The question I would simply pose is, why must communion be symbolized by one bishop who possesses supreme jurisdiction over all other bishops? Vatican I would place the other Patriarchal Sees below Rome, yet Peter himself established more than one See, such as Antioch, which Rome places as the 3rd See. Let us examine what Saint Basil has to say:

    For you yourself understand more exactly than anyone else that, after the manner of the most learned physicians, you must give your first care to the most vital parts. Now what could be more vital to the churches of the world than the Church of Antioch? If it came to pass that this church returned to a state of concord, nothing would prevent its affording health, in the manner of a sound head, to the whole body.
    – St Basil, Letter 66 (to Athanasius)

    Saint Basil himself argues that Antioch is the most vital See in the world, meaning if anything, Antioch deserves primacy. So what exclusively puts Peter and Rome first when he also established Alexandria, Antioch, and arguably we would say that Seleucia – Ctesiphon itself is a direct successor of Peter on account of his faith, as Mar Abdisho of Nisibis places Saint Peter as the first Patriarch of Seleucia in his appendix of the Marganitha, meaning that Peter is a successor for us too, which ties in to other ecclesiastical sources such as the Synod of Mar Dadisho of 424 and Mar Isaac of 410 that demonstrates that the Catholicos Patriarch, is Peter to us. Whether or not Peter actually went to Seleucia is up for debate, rather this still does not diminish our argumentation that on account of Peter’s faith, we maintain his succession, such as in Matthew 16:18 which is quoted alot in reference to Papal Supremacy:

    “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
    ‭‭– Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭18‬

    And for those who would disagree with this interpretation of the verse, let us see what Chrysostom defines it as, who is as well a doctor of the Catholic Church:

    “And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, that is, on the faith of his confession.”

    – Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 54 on Matthew

    I can even demonstrate the same interpretation from our own Syriac Fathers, not that it would make any difference as Saint Chrysostom is a great Saint for us as well, but just to show that this interpretation is found in the Syriac Tradition of the Church of The East as well and not an outside tradition, but even Mar Isho’dad of Merv would be in agreement with Chrysostom:

    “He calls Cepha [= a rock]; not the person of Simon, but the confession and the right faith that were in him, which the Father had caused to flow into his mouth, which [confession] is incorruptible and immoveable for ever.
    …
    He calls the gates of Sheol the persecutions that lead people to death.

    This, that I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. By means of the person of Simon He promised [this] also to all congregations of believers, those that share in his confession; for his power is one with that of all priests and orthodox persons.

    – Mar Isho’dad of Merv, Commentary on Matthew 16:18-19

    So for us, to be in communion with Peter is absolutely necessary, yet this is on account of his faith most importantly above all and not just episcopal succession, as history has proved that episcopal succession is not the sole factor in deciding where the Church is. Take for example every crisis the Church has faced against any heretics; the arians, the eunomians, the apollinarian, the docetists, the gnostics, the marcionists, and etc. These were all “apostolic” faithful who fell astray yet maintained an episcopal succession, but it is on account of the faith that you find where the true Church lies, which is most important above all. This then moves us on to the third claim that was made, and we will now examine what this leads to.

    Claim #3: The Church of The East never rejected Rome and never denied that Peter was the rock.

    Since we defined what it meant for Peter being the Rock, let us look at what Peter means for us as defined by The Synod of Mar Dadisho who defined the Catholicos Patriarch in this way:

    “All of these bishops offered a petition to the chief, head, and leader of all the bishops of the East, the venerable of God and holy Mar Dadisho‘ the catholicos. They asked of him that he return to his see and stand at the head of the church of God, ruling and leading the flock of Christ in all the lands of the East, which had been committed to him by Christ in the high priesthood which he had received, as (it had been committed) to the head of the apostles, Peter.

    …

    “Mar Dadisho the catholicos, who is Peter for us, the head of our ecclesiastical council.

    For no reason should anyone think or say that the catholicos of the East may be judged by those who are under him, or by a patriarch like himself; but he shall render judgment upon all who are under him, and his judgment shall be reserved to Christ, who chose him, raised (him) up and placed him at the head of his church, for so it pleased his eternal Lordship that his own all-governing Lordship should be entrusted to and honored in the primacy of his church.

    – Synod of Mar Dadisho, 424

    The first quote is very interesting to me. If the Church of The East never formally rejected the Papacy, then can one explain why the Synod of Mar Dadisho articulates the first quote in a way where it very specifically contradicts Papal Supremacy? If one of the core premises of Papal Supremacy is supreme and universal authority over every jurisdiction, then why is this Synod saying that no other Bishop or Patriarch may exercise his authotity over the Catholicos, as his jurisdiction is reserved to himself? As well, why does the Synod define the Catholicos as being Peter for us? It is because just as Peter is the head of the apostles, likewise is the Catholicos the head of his flock and Synod of Bishops, again on the account that his faith is in communion with Peter, and thus has the succession of Peter which leads us to claim #4.

    Claim #4: The Church of The East never rejected in its Church Fathers or liturgy that the See of Peter is first and the head.

    The response to this would be that, we absolutely agree, but again, this needs to be qualified on what it means to be the See of Peter. We also are in absolute agreement that Peter is the head of the Apostles, hence why in our Night Prayers he is constantly referred to as “Resh Talmeedeh” (head of the Apostles). So again, for us, we believe that the heir to Peters throne is reserved to the one in communion with him as he is in communion with Christ, and on account of his faith do we have his succession. This is even redefined and again established in the Synod of Mar Khnanisho of 776 A.D:

    “For Peter was the head of the Twelve, and he who sits upon this catholic throne is Peter inasmuch as he is heir to Peter, and if one who seeks to be Peter wishes to become Peter, he (really) ought to be Peter. For if he who is Peter is not of Peter, he cannot be Peter, for it is written in the Scriptures of the Lord of Peter, ‘I am the vine and my father is the vine-dresser,” and again, ‘I am the vine and you are the branches. A branch is not able to bear fruit unless it remains in the vine.” Therefore it is clear that Peter is a portion of Christ, as a branch is a portion of a vine, and whoever inherits this throne is Peter and is a portion of Christ in the likeness of Peter, and a portion is not able to be a portion of anything to which it belongs unless it possesses the fullness and disposition of that to which it belongs, according to the definition which reason has ordained. For this is the fullness and disposition of one who is Peter’s portion: an entity who possesses love, peace, and long-suffering, as well as justice.”

    – Synod of Mar Khnanisho 776

    Now the whole point and idea of this quote, is that the Synod is understanding that the character of Peter and communion with him means sharing in his spiritual relationship to Christ in order to be the true heir to his throne. This also does not imply in any way that Peter holds any special authority over the rest of the Apostles, as we read in Matthew 18:18 where the rest of the Apostles, on account of their faith, are given the same keys to bind and loose as Peter did, that is on the account of their faith, but rather for this argument we are demonstrating instead that the Primacy of Peter is not something the Church of The East rejects, and neither does any other Apostolic Church, rather we believe this does not imply a Roman Supremacy. The one who is making this claim would need to demonstrate on what premise does Peter have authority and how does this imply to the Church of The East, a sort of Roman Supremacy when the Church of The East holds steadfast to the doctrine that we hold in communion to Peter and are his true heir, since the entire claim is that the Church of The East never rejected the Papacy. That is why in the reference to the Synod above, there is an extent in which the office of Peter is attributed to, and that episcopal succession does not automatically establish the authority of the See, rather instead the Synod distinguished between occupying Peter’s throne vs being his successor. In other words, one cannot simply just occupy Peter’s throne to be his heir, rather he must be of Peter himself, and possess the same qualities, which is, being in communion with Christ in regards to his faith and that is exactly what the Church of The East holds to. This is also why the Synod gives the analogy of the vine and the vine-dresser, referring to John 15. The analogy would establish that Peter’s identity and authority cant be separated with his communion with Christ, just as Christ is the Vine, Peter is the Branch and this is not apart from Christ. So instead of implying a special sort of ecclesiastical authority, it instead demonstrates the identity one must have in Christ to be the heir of Peter’s throne, which leads to the strongest succession of the passage that says “whoever inherits this throne is Peter and is a portion of Christ in the likeness of Peter”. You will also never find any other contradicting interpretation anywhere else in our liturgy or in the writings of our Fathers that would demonstrate otherwise. I would also like to add, that again, episcopal succession is not by itself a complete definition of what it means to have Papal Supremacy and Petrine Succession, however, to establish the latter, one would still have to demonstrate evidence of jurisdictional authority inherited by the successor of Peter and the extent of those powers over other See’s, especially when the Church of The East itself believes to hold this throne, yet does not hold to this interpretation over authority. Since the claim is that the Church of The East never formally rejected the Papacy, this rebuttal is to demonstrate that there is a misinterpretation of the meaning of the office of Peter, and since we believe to hold to this office, one must differentiate between us and Rome and why Rome must hold the special authority and not Seleucia. Let us move on to Claim #5.

    Claim #5: The Successors of Peter were always loved and accepted by the Church of The East

    This claim alone does not even establish the conclusion it would seek to achieve. Number 1, it presupposes again that the successors of Peter are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and Number 2, even when granted that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, it conflates recognition of that See with acceptance of the doctrine as a whole. Many different patriarchal see’s in the history of the Church have loved and accepted Rome and even appealed to Rome in times of trouble, but this can’t possibly be a premise to establish the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, because then the argument would need to be made for other See’s, such as Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Seleucia. To say that respect to the officeholder would imply the papacy, would be a fallacy of equivocation. Again, the Synod of Mar Dadisho in 424 reinforced the idea of the autonomy of the Church and it’s independence from other ecclesiastical leadership. It directly states that the Catholicos is to maintain his own authority, episcopate, and synodal order, that is rightfully only reserved to his seat and nobody else, which certainly contradicts Vatican I. You would need a very thorough examination of Church history to establish this premise that it implies Roman Supremacy. Consequently, this claim would force a non sequitur, in that it moves the idea of the alleged recognition of Peter’s successors to the acceptance of Papal Supremacy without establishing a necessary connection between these two ideas. Remember, what is relevant to establish here is whether or not the Church of The East recognized this supreme and universal jurisdiction through its Synod’s, Church Fathers, or Liturgy, and all of which I have demonstrated to contradict Vatican I’s doctrine of the Papacy. Let us move on to Claim #6.

    Claim #6: The Church of The East and Roman Catholic disagreement and separation was geographical, not dogmatic.

    This claim in of itself is just simply disingenuous and does not tell the full story of the Church of The East. The argument that is being made here is one based on location, arguing that because the Church of The East was outside of the confines of the Roman Empire, and located in a rival empire in the Persian Empire, this implies the Church of The East thus never formally got to recognize and understand the papacy, yet also never formally reject it. And if that is also the case, why may it be so that It formally recognized and received the canons of Nicea and Constantinople I according to the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 and Mar Yahballaha 420? See the reference below:

    Mar Acacius the bishop, has also come down on an embassy to this place, and has agreed with your honorable priesthood and with us upon all that is proper to the order of the priesthood, it is incumbent upon us that we ask for, write down, seal, and ratify with our seals and signatures the glorious ordinances which, through succession from the blessed fathers, the apostles, were fittingly established for the administration of the priesthood, as weil as the steadfast laws and canons which were established in the synods of bishops which took place in the West at various times during the years of the truly God-loving Constantine, the victorious king, when the three hundred and eighteen bishops gathered in the city of Nicea, and the other canons which were established by the synod which took place in Ancyra of Galatia, and in Syria and Cappadocia, and the additional canons which were established by the synod [which took place] inthe city of Caesarea, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Gangra, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Antioch at the dedication of the church, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Laodiceaof Phrygia.

    – Synod of Yahballaha, 420

    …

    “If our Lord is pleased to hear our petition, and the victorious King of Kings commands, and the bishops gather and a synod takes place, we now have sent you all the appointed canons which were established in the great synod which took place in the city of Nicea in the days of the just and God-loving Constantine the victorious king, when three hundred and eighteen bishops gathered and, according to the fear of God which was in them, established and set forth steadfast admonitions, chaste laws, upright rules, glorious canons, andenlightening ordinances.”
    When we heard this passage from the letter of those honored members, immediately our holy father, worthy of a good memorial, in whose days our bent head was lifted up and tranquillity and peace came to us, Mar “Ishaq, bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon and catholicos (and) chief bishop, was the first to open his mouth, as the head of his members. He said to his brother, joined in his love and in the concord of Christ, Mar Maruta the bishop: “Let them bring the volume in which the canons are written, and let it be read before the whole synod of these bishops.” And when they had brought it and read it, and when we had heard from it all the provisions which were needed for the upright order of the ministry of the church of Christ and had learned from it all the canons which were composed in the wisdom of God by our fathers, the bishops in the great and holy synod of the West, our soul was exceedingly gladdened with perfect joy. First Mar “Ishaq the bishop, as the elect head of his members, said, “Anyone who does not agree to these glorious laws and upright canons and does not accept them shall be considered anathema by all the people of God and may not hold authority in the church of Christ.”

    – Synod of Mar Isaac, 410

    My question would thus be then, if matters of Dogma were not accepted on the basis of geographical exclusion from the West, then how is it that the Church of The East formally received the canons of the West as established by Nicea under the appointment of the King Constantine? Surely would it also not be a geographical issue? Another point of contention I would like to bring to the table, is that Mar Abdisho of Nisibis in The Book of The Pearl, addresses the differences of theology in the different “sects” of Christianity, in which he names the “Franks” (Roman Catholics) amongst one of the Churches with a distinct confession of faith from the Church of The East. Here is the reference:

    “The Second sect are those who confess the doctrine of two Natures and one Qnuma in CHRIST, and these are called “Malkaye” (Royalists) because it was imposed forcibly by the king. This is the Doctrine which is received by the Romans called Franks, and by the Constantinopolitans who are Greeks and by all the northern peoples such as he Russians, Alani, Circassians, Assai, Georgians md their neighbours. But the Franks differ from he rest of these in maintaining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in their use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. These two sects also accepted the appelation “Mother of God”; but the Jacobites have added to the canon; “Holy God”, etc., “who was crucified for us.”

    – Mar Abdisho of Nisibis, The Book of Marganitha, Chapter IV

    Now despite Mar Abdisho not listing the Papacy as a formal doctrine of difference, does not necessarily mean that there was a shared agreement between the understandings of it. The purpose of this reference is to demonstrate that there were real theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of The East, and the differences were not something of a political or geographical background, but rather these two groups understood each other’s positions and rejected each other fully. It is to demonstrate that absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, and this would be fallacious to say that because the Church of the East never formally rejected the papacy, that would conclude that it would, and has accepted it in its history. If anything I would argue that because there was not yet a formal doctrine established in regards to the papacy, that there was no reason for the Church of The East to formally reject it and use it as a means of discussion in its dialogues, which is why Mar Abdisho does not cite it as one of the differences between the Churches. And even aside from that, just the very later idea of the Papacy has already been proven to have been rejected by the Church of The East as early as the 5th century, even though it is an indirect rejection. We can even point to Western Councils that indicate that despite being on two vastly different geographical planes, the two Churches in some way shape or form have crossed paths in understanding and defining each other’s faiths for the purpose of rejecting one another, such as the Council of Constantinople II, which formally condemned the person and teachings of Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia as a heretic (unfortunately) which the Catholic Church accepts, meanwhile 40 years later, the Synod of Mar Sabrisho in 596 formally accepted and authorized the teachings and person of Saint Theodore. This is a direct contradiction to the point that our differences remained of geography and not theological, as one would have to explain, why the two Churches chose to address all these differences and issues yet chose to abstain from addressing the papacy? The burden of proof is on the one taking the affirmative position that the Church of The East never rejected the Papacy, to demonstrate a formal acceptance of it. Therefore the assertion that the differences between the Church of The East and Rome were merely geographical is historically inadequate to say, and disingenuous to the thousands of years of crisis and controversy that our beloved Saints have died trying to ward off, which is the reason why we ask for their intercession in the daily canonical offices of the Church. Geographical and political differences undoubtedly played a role in the way that the ordinances of Church History played out, however to dismiss everything as just being that is not being academically honest enough to the true issue behind the controversies. Let us now move on to claim #7.

    Claim #7: The premise of the Papacy is Matthew 16:18

    This in of itself is a bad argument and alot of well read and knowledgeable Catholics will avoid this type of argumentation as they understand that this is not the deciding factor or sole premise of the Papacy, but nonetheless we have already demonstrated the proper interpretation of what this means in our previous correspondence of the gentleman’s claims. Let us offer up some more Church of The East patristics to understand the meaning of this quote.

    “This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaining to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed beforehand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter. This then is what he says, that in the church would be the key of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance.

    – Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragment 92

    Here we have Saint Theodore, who is a very important Saint for Church of The East patristics, also arguing that Christ named Peter the “Rock” because he was the first to make the confession, indicating his status of holding primacy over the rest of the Apostles, not supremacy, but yet this confession would become a common possession of all believers, including the Apostles as I mentioned happens later on in Matthew 18:18 when they receive the same authority on account of their confession of Faith, sharing in communion with Peter. Theodore even says that this was not on the property of Peter alone but rather something that came along for everyone, which establishes that the Church is thus founded on the Rock, the confession of faith, of Peter, who’s authority is not uniquely inherited by the Roman Pontiff but rather all who share in communion with Peter.

    Conclusion

    With the arguments that I have now demonstrated along with their rebuttals, I believe have accurately demonstrated that the historical relationship between the Church of The East and the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be properly defended in a way where we, along with patristics can confidently say that there was an acceptance of the Doctrine of the Papacy, rather instead if anything, we find the complete opposite, that there is a clear difference in understanding of what the character of Peter really means, and how the Church of The East interprets him as being the head of the Apostles. My aim for this article was not to refute or argue that the Papacy is true or not, as that can be left up for debate and another article in of itself, rather my goal was to demonstrate that nobody can confidently say that the Church of the East was ever “Papist” in any sort of sense ever in its history. This separation and difference is not one of geography, or that the Church of The East has always accepted the successors of Peter, or that its recognition of Peter’s authority is an indication of Papal Supremacy, rather we have defined our own understanding and interpretations that we believe hold steadfast to the traditions of the Holy Fathers who came before us, and the Faith in which is preserved by the Holy Spirit that was transmitted by Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Any such claims against our position would require the affirmative to accurately demonstrate, without isolated and out of context quotations, the very conclusion that they are trying to establish, and it must be demonstrated using the Church of The East’s own authoritative sources such as the ones I have provided today, and understood with their respective theological and historical context. Everything that I have demonstrated today is that the Church of The East has established a clear distinct ecclesiastical hierarchy, and a confession of faith that can not be harmonized with what Vatican I teaches in regards to the Papacy. Likewise, our vast respect for the Apostle Peter, and recognition of his prominence amongst the Apostles, does not automatically establish acceptance of papal supremacy. These are distinct propositions and to move from the first to the last requires evidence that the Church of the East recognized that the bishop of Rome maintains this specific universal jurisdiction that is claimed. The distinction is essential to maintain that the primacy of Peter is different from the historical importance of Rome, and the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Roman pontiff, which cannot be treated as interchangeable concepts. My purpose, therefore, is not to deny Peter’s importance or to dismiss the historical significance of the Roman Church. It is to demonstrate that the testimony of the Church of the East must be evaluated on its own terms, without confusing primacy with universal jurisdiction, or reading it into our patristics. Only through a careful examination can the historical and ecclesiological position of the Church of the East be represented fairly. I would like to thus end this article with a quote from one of our own Patriarch, Mar Timothy I, and what he believes about the Patriarchate of Seleucia – Ctesiphon.

    Patriarch Mar Timothy I, Letter 26

  • Saint Isaac of Nineveh, Universalist or just misunderstood?

    Saint Isaac of Nineveh, is an important monastic figure and Saint within the Church of The East tradition, and has been subjected to many criticism from scholarship in regards to a supposed doctrine that he is accused of teaching, being “universalism”. This is the idea that all of humanity, will eventually be reconciled to God, and achieve salvation, regardless of the state of their sins, or faith. This is most obviously considered heretical for the Church of The East and the overall Christian faith, as the consensus of the Saints for all of Christian history believe that there is an eternal hell, and a damnation for those who have not lived faithfully according to God and his Church. This is the entire reason as to why The Son of God became incarnate, which is to die for us, and that for those who BELIEVE in him, will have eternal life meaning that those who reject him and his offering up of himself for us, are actively choosing an eternal life away from him in heaven, that is hell. This would be contrary to the universalist position, which likely first became influential with Origen, an early Church father in the 2nd century who held to this belief, who had a strong influence on alot of later fathers as well. Some even make the argument that another extremely important Saint in our tradition, in the figure of Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia, also was a universalist, and that since Theodore was the main authority and most important Saint for Saint Isaac, likewise Saint Isaac also has been considered to be one as well due to their tight connection in theology. This could not be any more further from the truth and this article will be dedicated to refuting this idea that is led by misguided scholarship, that Isaac held to this position, which will as well vindicate Theodore, and God-willing one day I will make an article as a refutation to the supposed universalism that was taught by Theodore. Let us now get into where these accusations come from.

    Textual references of Saint Isaac

    We will have to first start off by examining where do these accusations begin with, by reading into some of the quotes that are typically cited when talking about Saint Isaac and his supposed universalism, along with some of the arguments made as to what exactly he is saying, and then providing the refutation to them. The sources that we will be mainly pulling from are going to be as follows:

    – Mystic Treatises of Isaac of Nineveh, By A. J. WENSINCK (A complete translation of Part I of the Homilies of Saint Isaac)
    – The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian, By Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev (A Study on Saint Isaac by a Russian Orthodox Metropolitan)
    – The Book of The Bee by Solomon of Basra (A collection of Church of The East traditions and interpretations by a Church of The East Bishop of Basra)
    – St. Isaac The Syrian and His Understanding of Universal Salvation (Sebastian Brock on Saint Isaac’s understanding of Gehenna)

    These texts will be critical in doing a full examination of the accusations of Saint Isaac, since the majority of the references come from his writings, in which they all share quotes and writings from Saint Isaac himself, where he speaks on important matters of faith such as salvation, and the love of God, both of which will be tying in to the theme of how Saint Isaac views salvation as being ultimately being a form of love from God, who like any other Christian who has an orthodox faith, believes that God is love himself, and that anything that is done by God is out of love.

    Saint Isaac and Universal Salvation according to Dr. Sebastian Brock

    Let us now give the citations of the quotes that are typically used to affirm that Saint Isaac of Nineveh was a universalist and break down what the argument is, and why it is a misinterpretation of the text, and a disregard to his other works which we will also examine later on. The first reference we will be examining is by Dr. Sebastian Brock, a prominent and world renowned Syriac Scholar who has multiple works written on Saint Isaac.

    “And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind.”

    To begin with addressing this accusation, I would first like to note that Dr. Brock mentions in the very beginning of writing his article, that “Isaac’s teaching lays great emphasis on the love of God, and of the need for human response to this, by way of reflecting this divine love. For Isaac, the whole aim of the Incarnation is to disclose the extent of God’s love:” Brock would be absolutely correct in mentioning this as a way to first interpret Isaac’s view on salvation, however his particular interpretation is a misunderstanding of the text. He argues that in regards to this quote, “ultimate salvation is indeed universal, involving all rational beings (thus including the fallen angels). Thus his argument is that at its face value, Isaac appears to teach the eventual restoration of all rational beings — including demons and sinners — into a perfected state of union and love before God. This would then theoretically strongly suggest that evil itself is temporary and that no creature will eternally remain in a damned state. That is one of the foundational ideas of universal restoration (apokatastasis). My response to this accusation goes as follows:

    St. Isaac when speaking in this quote, is not saying that all rational beings will be reconciled, rather that his burden is that Gehenna should not be understood as being God’s revenge, and that when saying God essentially punishes sinners by eternal damnation, it should be viewed according to God’s unchanging love, as I stated earlier in the article that the very being of God’s essence is love which Brock agrees with as well, which is why in alot of his passages, he writes that Gods love is damaging to the sinner, because they’ve hardened their hearts to Gods love, thus their punishment is without a “known end” and a free will choice by sinners who choose to be away from God’s love. So whenever we even read of any use of biblical speech about “wrath,” “fire,” or “punishment”, it must be read in the context of the goodness of God Himself. The torment of Gehenna is not a change in God but a change in the state of the sinner who has made himself incapable of enjoying divine love as joy. So the best way to understand this passage, is that when St. Isaac says that demons will not remain in their demonic state and sinners will not remain in their sins, the cautious and correct interpretation of the text is that he is declaring that evil will not have the last word, in the sense that they don’t exist as a principle beside the Heavenly Kingdom or is present in it. Let us look at another quote referenced by Dr. Brock that is used to demonstrate Isaac’s universalism:

    “I say that those who are scourged in Gehenna are tormented by the scourging’s of love. The scourging’s that result from love – that is, the scourges of those who have become aware that they have sinned against love – are harder and more bitter than the torments which result from fear. The pain that gnaws at the heart as a result of sinning against love is sharper than all other torments that exist”

    Now here when Dr. Brock is referencing this quote, he is stating again the overarching theme of Isaac’s interpretation of salvation, as fundamentally being God’s love as the source of all things. He states in his article. “The contrition that comes from the realization of God’s love is itself the harsh punishment.” and “As Isaac stresses, the idea that the torments of Gehenna are retributive punishments is in fact blasphemous, for it attributes to God motives and actions that belong solely to the realm of human beings.”

    Brock is absolutely correct in making this assertion, that for Saint Isaac, speaking of God in any way where he punishes and torments sinners, is something that is blasphemous and contrary to the very fact that God is love. What Saint Isaac is trying to reconcile again, is how can an all loving God, allow torment and punishment for sinners, which in today’s day in age, you will see this as a commonly brought up objection from even atheists who reject the idea of God because of this very excuse, a sort of “If God is good, then why does he allow bad things” type of argument. Saint Isaac in the 8th Century was already thinking about these things and refuting these ideas. Now from a universalist perspective when reading this quote, the typical argument that will be made is that for Saint Isaac in this passage, is arguing that hell is not something eternal but rather temporary, and that it implies that since God is all loving, the conclusion they would draw would goes as follows:

    P1. God’s essence is Love
    P2. God never ceases to love any creature
    P3. Gehenna itself is an experience of Divine Love
    P4. The Divine Love overpowers sinners and seeks restoration
    C. Therefore Gehenna ultimately has a restorative end

    The refutation for this goes as follows:

    Again this quote is simply only rejecting a crude, retributive view of eternal punishment, this does not prove that all will be eventually saved, rather it would go back to what I said about St. Isaac viewing hell as built upon love rather than revenge, and those in hell rejecting His love lack the presence of God, because their hearts are hardened. This scourging of Love that Saint Isaac mentions so often does not necessarily mean that repentance and thus ultimate reconciliation is thus guaranteed. Saint Isaac as well due to his nature of being a monastic figure, speaks very mystically in regards to these things and the quotes when taken out of context and read at face value are ambiguous and does not do Saint Isaac justice unless you read the rest of his works to get the overall idea of his faith. Given the context of St. Isaac, the proper interpretation would be that there is a purification after death for believers in Christ, and those who are “scourged by Love” reject God in their hearts and do not attain the “happiness prepared” which St. Diodore also speaks about. This in no way defends the idea that all are to be saved as P4. in the above formal syllogism I provided would be rejected, because the damned and their hearts can remain hardened, their suffering comes from the refusing of God’s love, and nothing in the text explicitly says this condition ends, thus granting the idea that for Saint Isaac, Gehenna is still eternal despite the above quotes which speak about God’s love ultimately overpowering sinners in Gehenna, and that demons will be restored by not remaining in a demonic state. So the quote is just simply talking about the nature of what this punishment is, not whether or not it is eternal. Saint Isaac can still confidently accept that God loves the damned eternally, while simultaneously affirming that the damned still have chosen to eternally reject his love.

    This can also be connected to even Biblical passages which speak this way, and so if you choose to argue that Saint Isaac is a universalist for his rhetoric in these passages, you must also remain consistent and say the Bible does the same thing and thus contradictory, which obviously nobody will say as this is blasphemous. These quotes only becomes universalism if you force “healing,” and “perfection” to mean the guaranteed final salvation of every rational creature, which is just simply not a fair reading of the text, because biblical and patristic language often speaks universally and rhetorically about God’s will and God’s mercy, such as in Colossians 1:20 , the verse says God reconciles “all things”, yet reconciliation can mean the restoration of cosmic order under Christ’s lordship, not the salvation of every single person/ creature. Another passage in scripture that can be pointed to is 1 John 3:8 which states that evil is “destroyed,” death is “destroyed,” and all things are “reconciled” to God so Scripture itself also speaks of an eternal punishment. So what Saint John is saying then, is that sin’s dominion is destroyed, not guaranteeing the restoration of Satan and his demons or sinners, and this can be exactly applied to the above two quotes. The issue then becomes into a situation where in Saint Isaac truly is a universalist, then we would have to say that universalism is scriptural because scripture itself uses this language, it says God desires all to be saved, draws all, has mercy on all, and reconciles all things to Himself, but that language exists alongside judgment eternally. St. Isaac speaks about how people who are hardened to God, can’t receive His love, His love feels like punishment. So the fathers can thus speak maximally about mercy without that becoming a clear denial of an eternal Gehenna. This now concludes the portion of our examination on Dr. Sebastian Brock’s analysis of Saint Isaac and his view on salvation.

    Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev and The Spiritual World of Saint Isaac

    We will now be examining what a well known scholar, and Russian Orthodox Metropolitan, Hilarion Alfeyev has to say in regards to the view of salvation in the world of Saint Isaac, where we will be providing citations from his book that I referenced above. Like Dr. Sebastian Brock, Metropolitan Alfeyev begins off the discussion of Saint Isaac on Universalism mentioning that attributing retribution to God is blasphemous, and just like Brock, he is correct in making this assertion that Saint Isaac does believe this, as the Metropolitan states:

    “Isaac emphasizes that God does nothing out of retribution: even to think this way about God would be blasphemous.*? This opinion is all the more unacceptable in view of God’s foreknowledge that humanity would sin and fall even before he created human beings, yet still he created them:”

    “To suppose that retribution for evil acts is to be found in him is abominable. By implying that he makes use of such a great and difficult thing out of retribution we are attributing a weakness to the Divine Nature. We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will—let alone believe of God that he has done something out of retribution for anticipated evil acts in connection with those whose nature he has brought into being with honour and great love. Knowing them and all their conduct, the flow of his grace did not dry up from them: not even after they started living amid many evil deeds did he withhold his care for them, even for a moment.”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,2, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    So as we saw in Dr. Brock’s analysis, we see the exact same approach being taken here towards Saint Isaac’s soteriology, as he establishes the fundamental idea that for Isaac, any sense of “revenge”, or retribution about God is a complete contradiction and blasphemy to say, considering the fact that because God had foreknowledge of the fall of Adam and Eve, then why would he create humans in the first place? This is again exactly what Saint Isaac is trying to reconcile, and being very careful as he understands that the basis of all things in God is good because God is love. The only mistake that can be made when reading Saint Isaac, is by forcing universalism upon him in his writings, without a thorough exegesis of what he is actually saying. So what we have read so far, is nothing sufficient to say that Saint Isaac was a universalist as everything in the above responses to Dr. Brock’s article still applies. We will continue on however analyzing the rest of the references provided in this book that can be misinterpreted wrong, as Metropolitan Alfeyev says this:

    “In the establishment of death, God’s ‘cunning’ was revealed: he concealed his true intention under the guise of punishment for sin. The same ‘cunning’ explains the establishment of gehenna as a punishment whose aim is the profit which humans may derive from it:”

    The only problem with this explanation, is that Metropolitan Alfeyev is using this to setup the idea that for Isaac, Gehenna is a temporary state sort of like purgatory, where mercy can be obtained and thus a disguise of the Love of God hidden in the form of suffering, despite it not being retributive. This is a problem, because he is saying that the punishment in a way profits the sinner according to Saint Isaac, and thus the goal of Gehenna is healing and purification which eventually leads to universal restoration, that is, if you misinterpret it this way. So people then will conclude based on the theme of Isaac’s writing, that because God’s love is unchanging, God does not act out of wrath or revenge, and Gehenna even is an expression of Love, that this concludes universal salvation.

    The refutation for this goes as follows, this sort of line of argumentation employs a fallacy of equivocation, by saying that because Gehenna benefits the sinners, it is guaranteeing universal salvation. But that is simply not justified or even explained in any of Saint Isaac’s works, its too ambiguous to conclude that and is not a fair reading of the text to read that into his writings. Isaac is only affirming the premise that Gehenna is the absence of God’s love but an experience still of that love scourging the sinner because everything God does is out of love, and that Gehenna is not retributive but a choice from a sinner to be away eternally from God, and thus away from his love, yet that love still overcomes all and is experienced not directly but due to the absence of it. This is why Gehenna can be properly interpreted as being both therapeutic in a sense for the sinners, yet also subjectively tormenting and unending for those who refuse God. The main thing to focus on the reference by Metropolitan Alfeyev, is his use of the word cunning as being a way of saying God brings good out of what is severe. This is indeed true, however, to assume universal salvation is the good that comes out of this is just another assumption as I can give some other examples of what it exactly means for God to bring good out of something severe. Such as how death is something that restrains the sinner, or that suffering leads to repentance, and the will to seek God, as we see in the Scriptures in the book of Job. All this just means is that judgement serves a purpose of mercy, and its a state that the human soul and will remains in. So the entire argument hinges on an assumption that it automatically means universal salvation which it does not. The more proper understanding is that God always acts out of the purpose of love and healing even in judgement but this healing is not forced upon one as they remain in free will, and must not be resistant to it. But do not take my word for it, take what Saint Isaac says himself:

    “You should see that, while God’s caring is guiding us all the time to what he wishes for us, as things outwardly appear, it” is from us that he takes the occasion to providing things, his aim being to carry out by every means what he has intended for our advantage. All this is because he knew beforehand our inclination towards all sorts of wickedness, and so he cunningly made the harmful consequences which would result from this into a means of entry to the future good and the setting right of our corrupted state. These are things which are known only to him. But after we have been exercised and assisted little by little as a result of these consequences after they have occurred, we realize and perceive that it could not turn out otherwise than in accordance with what has been foreseen by him. This is how everything works with him, even though things may seem otherwise to us: with him it is not a matter of retribution, but he is always looking beyond to the advantage that will come from his dealings with humanity. And one such thing is the matter of Gehenna“

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,5, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Metropolitan Hilarion goes on to say this: “Thus Isaac gradually arrives at his key idea: the final outcome of the history of the universe must correspond to the majesty of God, and the final destiny of human beings should be worthy of God’s mercifulness. ‘I am of the opinion’, Isaac claims,” and then quotes from Saint Isaac saying:

    “that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of Gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more—and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them— and whom nonetheless he created. All the more since the foreplanning of evil and the taking of vengeance are characteristic of the passions of created beings, and do not belong to the Creator. For all this characterizes people who do not know or who are unaware of what they are doing .. . for as a result of some matter that has occurred unexpectedly to them they are incited by the vehemence of anger to take vengeance. Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings.*”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian Part II/39,6, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Again he is taking this as being a reference to Gehenna’s torment being temporary and not everlasting, because he is inferring that if there is a good to come out of this torment, that goodness will be salvation, not giving a fair reading of the text which we already have established a refutation of. The key reading however in this text by Isaac is “It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned”. Again, all this is saying is that you can not ascribe to God, as being vindictive, or retributive, as these are all things that apply to humanity, not the Godhead. So here, all Saint Isaac is saying is that it was never God’s intention to create mankind just to one day condemn those who disobey, that is not in line with the will of God, and so this also does not logically imply that he also created them with the intention of saving them as well. Instead, he wills for salvation for all, but not that he will inevitably save all, so his foreknowledge of the fall of man is not equivalent to determining universal salvation. And since free will exists, that then leads to a choice of rejecting God or not, and by choosing so is an eternal choice to spend eternity away from God, otherwise now there is no free will if there is no choice to choose between being with God in eternity or being away from him for eternity.

    Metropolitan Alfeyev then goes on to say this about Isaac:

    “The idea of love contradicts the idea of requital, Isaac insists. Besides, if we were to suppose that God will punish sinners eternally, this would mean that the creation of the world was a mistake, that God proved unable to oppose evil, which is not within his will. If we ascribe requital to God’s actions, we apply weakness to God:”

    “So then, let us not attribute to God’s actions and his dealings with us any idea of requital. Rather, we should speak of fatherly provision, a wise dispensation, a perfect will which is concerned with our good, and complete love. If it is a case of love, then it is not one of requital; and if it is a case of requital, then it is not one of love. Love, when it operates, is not concerned with the requiting of former things by means of its own good deeds or correction; rather, it looks to what is most advantageous in the future: it examines what is to come, and not things of the past. If we think otherwise than this, then according to the resulting childish view the Creator will prove to be weak . . . for after what he had established had become corrupted against his will, he devised some other plan, preparing ills in return for its corruption. Such are the feeble ways of understanding the Creator!”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,17, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Metropolitan Alfeyev then goes on to make the claim that for Isaac, love contradicts requital, and that if God truly loves us, he would not condemn us to eternal damnation. He is saying that since this is not in God’s will to damn all, that Isaac is clearly coming to the conclusion of a temporary Gehenna, and this is again false. Again, all Saint Isaac was doing in this explanation is reconciling that God can not be attributed as a being of retribution or crude punishment. Again I can simply point to many instances in Scripture that universalism can be read into but is obviously not the case, such as Matthew 18:14 “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” So let us remain consistent in our interpretations of these passages, as we are in the Scriptures.

    Solomon of Basra and The Book of The Bee

    The Book of The Bee is a book written by a medieval Church of The East Bishop by the name of Solomon of Basra, which is a collection of different theological opinions, and interpretations of scripture and traditions that have been passed down and believed in the Church of The East. We will be examining a small reference to Saint Isaac in this book, due to it’s notoriety of being considered as one of the strongest pieces of evidence in regards to Saint Isaac and his supposed universalism.

    It is important to note first off when getting to the reference, is that Solomon of Basra was indeed a universalist. This is something that I personally believe, there is no denying, and my goal in this article is not to argue that universalism did not exist in the Church of The East fathers, as it certainly did, but rather to vindicate Saint Isaac and Saint Theodore indirectly from this theological error, since they are the most important and dogmatic figures for us in the Church of The East, and I firmly believe that their soteriology has been misinterpreted. It’s important to note that Solomon of Basra was a universalist himself, because naturally what this means, is that Solomon is falling into the same mistakes as others, by reading universalism into Saint Isaac, however in his case the error is bigger due to his own personal belief of universalism, which is what convinces him of the conclusion. Lets take a look at the quote that is always used.

    “Mar Isaac says thus: ‘Those who are to be scourged in Gehenna will be tortured with stripes of love; they who feel that they have sinned against love will suffer harder and more severe pangs from love than the pain that springs from fear.’ Again he says: ‘The recompense of sinners will be this: the resurrection itself will be their recompense instead of the recompense of justice ; and at the last He will clothe those bodies which have trodden down His laws with the glory of perfection. This act of grace to us after we have sinned is greater than that which, when we were not, brought our nature into being.”

    Again we see the same theme in Saint Isaac’s first sentence, as he brings on the topic of love being the thing that will scourge those in Gehenna and tortured by it, indicating to us the effect of Gehenna, and why they will be suffering this way, not the duration of it or if it will be temporary. Because God loves all sinners, even those who will be tormented in Gehenna, this does not mean that those sinners will eventually be reconciled, as we already have refuted the idea of a contradiction that if God truly does love sinners, he would save those whom he loves from being tortured, which would not follow because this eternal damnation is a choice and a result of free will in human beings to being away from God, and we know that God in his perfect knowledge, wisdom, and judgement, will not force an action or decision upon anyone to choose aside from their own will, otherwise this would not be love. Another thing to point out in this verse is the mentioning of a resurrection. Some might say that this is evidence that the resurrection Saint Isaac speaks of is the resurrection unto heaven into a glorified body, however I say otherwise, and would point the reader to what the Holy Scriptures say, such as in John 5:29: “and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” So even the Bible makes it clear that there is a resurrection to come even for those who have sinned and are condemned, not just for the righteous who will receive the resurrection of life, so let us be consistent in our readings. Another might mention in this passage that Saint Isaac talks about an act of grace, being bestowed upon the fallen as a means of perfection, and say that this perfection is what is the salvation to come. But instead, we can read this as Saint Isaac expressing that in either resurrection, both will be perfected in a state of being that they were once before, however, this does not mean both will enjoy the Divine Gift that is heaven. It is just the restoration of God to all beings, which is why Isaac talks about this state of being perfected, and how it relates to being greater than our state before the fall (of Adam and Eve). This just demonstrates the love that God has for all and that he still will not abandon creation, and even in condemnation, we will no longer be in a state of sin, rather we will be suffering the fate of our choice, to be away from God. So if anything this passage affirms Gehenna very clearly as still being a state of torment, however this torment is the feeling of God’s love, not wrath, and therefore not an experience of God’s Divine revenge, but a painful experience of his love.

    Mystic Treatises by Saint Isaac

    After during a thorough study and examination of some of the works of Saint Isaac that are used to affirm his soteriology as being that of a universalist, and have provided the refutations and the proper interpretation of his works, and an exegesis of Scripture, let us now examine some of the works of Saint Isaac that say otherwise in regards to his supposed universalism. After all, we must always be reading the fathers into their overall theme, and context of their passages, and examine all their works to really determine if their viewpoint is consistent or if there are any contradictions. What I will be showing from Saint Isaac will demonstrate that from a universalist perspective, they would be making Saint Isaac contradict himself when he speaks on certain topics, however from our viewpoint, he would be consistent and without error.

    “The encouragement which our Fathers give us in their writings and the help towards repentance which is in the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles, should not be taken by us as a reason to disregard the threats of the divine acts of judgment, nor the punishment which God has decreed firmly against the transgression of the borders which should not be passed, through the mouth of all His saints and by means of all kinds of laws, in order to eradicate sins. As if the hope of repentance could be reason for us to strip from ourselves the feeling of fear in order to sin more freely and without dread. These [threats] are confirmed by the seals of the word of God, in all the scriptures of our salvation, and by the [divine} decrees fixed against them, [threatening] all kinds of terror.”

    The key thing to understand about this passage from Saint Isaac, is that he is carefully warning the readers, to take heed to the Holy Scriptures and follow what is said in regards to repentance and the Divine Judgement. He emphasizes that repentance is an absolute means of salvation and is needed for all those who have transgressed against God, and that there is a punishment for those who don’t. Now the universalist position would acknowledge that there would of course be a punishment for sinners, but that ultimately this punishment is temporary. My question to that position would simply be this; why is he putting such an emphasis on the means of repentance, and not to disregard the Divine Judgement? If it were something not so serious, which the universalist position would inherently have to take, then why is he telling us to not disregard it? After all, if all who have sinned and are destined to fall, should they not just disregard it because they will expect salvation at the end? Yet Saint Isaac says otherwise, he emphasizes that repentance is necessary, as it is found in the scriptures, and that what is confirmed in the Scriptures is sealed by the Word of God. So if Saint Isaac affirms the Holy Scriptures, and tells us to take heed to what it says, and the Bible affirms an eternal Gehenna, should we not come to the conclusion that Saint Isaac believes in this as well? He even goes as far to say that we should not hope for salvation, and that it is not a means to strip us from fear, meaning that salvation should be feared. If all will eventually be saved, he should be logically arguing the opposite, that there is nothing to fear if salvation should be the end all be all, but instead he says the opposite, and to be afraid and worried almost about whether or not we will make it to heaven. Even the language of the passage implies that God has decreed what he has decreed, and this is something that is firm, not just being pedagogical for the sake of learning and for sinners to be called to repentance, but to understand that what is said by God will not be changed by God, all of these which contradict the universalist position yet remains consistent with ours that God is loving and Saint Isaac is reconciling Love with the result of eternal damnation.

    “When the brilliant clouds will bear on their backs the bodies that have become splendid by purification and that enter the great gate of heaven. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, because their work is already judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous, in the resurrection before the judgment, nor the impure in the ranks of the saints.”

    Another very interesting passage from Saint Isaac, where in this quote, we see a heavy emphasis on those who are righteous, being separated from those who are in judgement. So essentially he is distinguishing between two different resurrections, which we already established previously in the article that he believes there will be a resurrection for the sinners and those who were righteous, as it says in the Scriptures. One group is being named as the one who will not stand in the judgement, because their work is already judgement, and one will be splendid by the means of purification and enter the gate of heaven. Another question here can be posed to the universalist; If Isaac believed all would eventually be saved, why describe a final distinction between the righteous and sinners? Would not all be eventually saved anyways even if it will be at a different time? He clearly is saying that even during those who will be judged as righteous, the ungodly will not be in their presence, so where will they be, even if assuming their resurrection is to come at a different time, as either way he still implies it will never happen. Would the universalist have to argue that the sinners will also be in their own group when their time comes for their resurrection into heaven? The universalist would have to say that this passage has to mean eventual inclusion yet the passage itself emphasizes exclusion, and is not consistent with their reading. Saint Isaac even says explicitly that those who will be purified will enter heaven, and that the impure will not be in the ranks of the Saints, so does this not imply that only the purified will enter heaven? Yet the universalist would then have to argue for the eventual purification of sinners in Gehenna, but again if that is the case, then that means the ones who become purified are now among the righteous, so why does Saint Isaac say there will still be a separation between the righteous and the not righteous? If he was really a universalist, his passage should have been more inclusive and indicate that even those who are not among the congregation, will eventually be apart of that, but no where can we find that in his texts. The universalist could also argue that of course sinners are excluded from the congregation of the righteous while they remain sinners, which is almost tautological to say, but then the question is will they always remain sinners? In our previous passages we have understood the texts of Saint Isaac that even Gehenna will be purification of the sinner, where they will no longer be in a state of sin, which then brings us back to the point of, so why and how are they still excluded, and where can we find this eventual inclusion of the once fallen, to the now purified sinner, to entering heaven eventually, in any of the texts of Saint Isaac? This passage certainly does not answer it, remaining only consistent with our interpretations. Especially since the need of repentance is heavily emphasized, which why would there even be an emphasis if all will eventually be restored.

    “The saints of the Lord and those near to Him are good works and a pure heart. But when they reject the ways of the Lord’s will, He also rejects them and puts them away from before Him and takes His grace from them.”

    At face value this quote in of itself is difficult to reconcile with universalism. This is not just about a self inflicted consequence of a sinner, but it literally affirms a Divine Response to a human action or choice, meaning God quite literally rejects those who reject him. Is the universalist then saying that God would have to at first reject the sinner and then allow them into heaven? If Isaac believed all people were destined to be universally restored regardless of their choices, why would he talk about God rejecting those who rejected Him? Again, another passage that is heavily exclusive of those who will be fallen. He even says that this grace can be lost and taken away from those who have fallen. If grace is taken, does God magically restore it back to them eventually? Where can we find this in any of Saint Isaac’s works? It very clearly means that participation into heaven is not simply unconditional but rather conditional and contingent on those who have closely followed God and his commandments, such as repentance, the sacraments, the good works, the Church, and etc. Again this most closely aligns with our interpretation as grace can indeed be forfeited, but the universalist would need to argue that it can’t be, and the passage stresses for us to be morally responsible for ourselves and align our will with the Lord’s will. The difficulty of this text is that God does not say whether this rejection is permanent, but the burden of proof is on the universalists to demonstrate that, not us, as the correct reading of all of these passages more closely align with the language, theme, context, and the Holy Bible and their interpretation does.

    “As a grace beyond a grace has repentance been given to man. Repentance is being born anew in God. That of which we have received the pledge by baptism, we receive as a gift by repentance. Repentance is the gate of mercy which is opened to all who seek it. Through this gate we go in to divine mercy. Apart from this entrance it is not possible to find mercy. Because all have sinned, according to the words of scripture, and are justified freely by grace. Repentance is a second grace; it is born in the heart from faith and fear.”

    This might be one of my most favorite passages to point out in the soteriology of Saint Isaac. There is one key sentence to focus on in this passage that is very explicit. That is, when Saint Isaac says, “Apart from this entrance it is not possible to find mercy.” Do I even need to explain this any further as to how this is unreconcilable with universalism. This is Saint Isaac affirming John 3:5 which says; “Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” If the universalist position is consistent, this premise needs to be rejected, that even despite all conditions, one may still enter the Kingdom of God regardless of baptism. Yet both Scripture and Saint Isaac are agreement that there is clearly something conditional to enter heaven. The universalist would need to argue otherwise that regardless there is still salvation for all, even the unbaptized, the unrepented, the ones deep in sin, the ones who have rejected God. Saint Isaac here in this passage is clearly not saying all will enter heaven, instead, he says that apart from this entrance it isn’t even possible to find mercy, and therefore you should throw away this idea of being saved without being baptized, and if you do, then congratulations as you have conceded that universalism has been falsified. I rest my case as this passage in of itself proves enough.

    “When, however, we have found love, we eat the heavenly bread and we are sustained without labour and without weariness. Heavenly bread is that which has descended from heaven and which gives the world life; this is the food of angels. He that has found love eats Christ at all times and becomes immortal from thence onwards. For whoever eats of this bread shall not taste death in eternity. Blessed is he that has eaten from the bread of love which is Jesus. Whoever is fed with love is fed with Christ, who is the all governing God.”

    And finally, for the cherry on top on this article, I present Saint Isaac affirming that there will be an eternity of death for those who do not eat of the Bread of Life, the Eucharist, which is Christ’s body shed on the cross for us, and for our salvation (Luke 22:19). There is absolutely no way of getting around this, he explicitly affirms an eternal death yet not once do we see in his works, an affirmation of a temporary death or a temporary Gehenna. What else would he mean by a temporary death? Again in this passage he is saying and affirming in the Holy Scriptures themselves, that the path to heaven is through God, his Church, and his sacraments, and the rest of the Divine Gifts that are given to us. Surely the universalist would not say these are all still necessary for salvation, because if that is the case, then they have just conceded they are not universalists. The Eucharist gives us Divine Life, an eternal life, and to be without it is to be without this Divine Life, and thus not an eternal living with the One True God, therefore affirming an eternal death, one in separation from God and his congregation of the Saints and righteous men.

    Conclusion

    With that being said, we have now successfully demonstrated the case that is the opposite of what all the scholars have said in regards to Saint Isaac and his soteriology, and one that is overlooked upon and dismissed for whatever reason. We have not only demonstrated that the claims of universalism are erroneous, but that it is extremely inconsistent, and misinterpreted in the works of Saint Isaac, as everything that he writes about points towards our view and our interpretation of his soteriology. Mainly that is affirming an eternal Gehenna, but also that God is love, there is a judgement, there are moral distinctions, that sinners will not be counted among the righteous, that purification is necessary in both resurrections of those condemned and those not, that there is a real fear of Gehenna, that nothing in God contradicts himself, that nothing in God is out of wrath or retribution, that God is merciful and near to his creation at all times, that what is decreed by God is decreed eternally, and that with all of this, we can be confident in our interpretation that when Saint Isaac speaks on soteriology, he aligns perfectly with what the Holy Scriptures say, and what the rest of the Blessed Saints say in their works. The burden of proof is still on the universalist to take the opposite position and demonstrate that none of these are the case in any of Saint Isaac’s writings, and with that I will conclude, as Saint Isaac has been vindicated. May he pray for all of us sinners, and pray that we may attain eternal life with him among God and the rest of his Saints. Amen.

  • The Triadology of Mar Babai The Great

    In my most recent blog post, I had written an article talking about a general introduction to the Christology of the Church of The East and had promised that I will later do a dedicated post in regards to Triadology as well. With that being said, this article will be dedicated to now explaining the Holy Trinity, and having a continuation of the prior topics in regards to our formulations and terms that we use to describe these Divine Realities, such as the Incarnation, but now with the Trinity. It was important to separate these into different posts because as I reiterated in the past, the way we use terms such as Kyana, Qnoma, and Parsopa, will differentiate according to different topics and it is important not to conflate categories with each other and end up falling into a heretical view. Let us now examine the Triadology of the Church of The East according to a very important theologian and Saint of our Church, Mar Babai The Great, who is writing his treatises on the faith in the mid 6th century.

    The Theological Framework of The Trinity

    To understand our Triadology, we must begin by examining how our Saint’s use the terms we went over prior – that being Kyana, Qnoma, and Parsopa, in regards to The Holy Trinity.

    Kyana – refers to the divine essence — the one, indivisible reality of God. For Babai, there is only one kyana in the Trinity. This is the foundation of divine unity. God is not composed of parts, nor divided into multiple beings; rather, the divine essence is singular, simple, and infinite.

    “So too, he is named “Spirit”, a designation [which] indicates to us—to the exalted likeness of his nature—his infinitude, and that he is present to all but is above all in his Being, and from him and in him is the breath and subsistence of all, and his power is indomitable, and the infinitude of his nature is incomprehensible. So too “Light”, for he is named “Light” because of the sublimity of his nature, for there is nothing in the visible realm which is more exalted, resplendent, and glorious than light, and it “lightens” all. So too God enlightens all with his knowledge and is resplendent in his Being, and all things belonging to him are glorious and exalted. He is above all and not divided into parts, and he is not cut off from his infinitude by those in whom he dwells and makes his habitation impalpably.”

    Book of Union – Treatise 1.13

    Qnoma – The term qnoma is more complex. In Babai’s usage, a qnoma is simply something that exists concretely but is not necessarily identical to the modern notion of “person” as used in us creatures. Instead In the Trinity, we can say that the Qnome are Persons that are ontological and exist concretely and are distinguished by their relations of oppositions, being that there are three qnome: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    However, these are not three separate beings. Each qnoma fully possesses the one kyana. Thus, the plurality of qnome does not compromise the unity of essence as everything within the Holy Trinity is identical to the One Divine Essence, thus preserving the notion of Absolute Divine Simplicity that God is not composed of parts, and that these 3 Divine Persons Subsist in the 1 Divine Essence. So for Babai, the Qnome are not instantiations or particulars of the Divine Essence, rather he says they ARE, not they HAVE.

    But if God were not as the Cause and Giver of all excellent things, but as the “titles” by which he is called, the concepts of him would impress the mind in the same way as [those] concerning the rest of the created things, and that he exists as a composite of such things. It would seem to everyone that God is composed of parts, as in the thinking of the Naturalists and heathen wise men who foolishly [claimed] that God is the | cosmos, compounded of parts into one body from being, life, and light, and other things such as these, and that there is nothing else except the cosmos, and that it returns to itself and gives birth and is born, and the rest of the pagan impieties. But God forbid that we should think such things concerning God the Creator and Cause of all, for he is higher in his worshipful Being than all creatures and the names which refer to them. He is invisible and not divisible into parts, and he has no end and is not composite. A rod?? is simple, and its essence is not something else, or its life something else, or its light something else, although [such things] are said about it according to the human fashion—that it “possesses” and “has” [them] in its qnoma as though it were “something other” that “possessed” them. But how is it? He is called “Being” but not that he “has” being??, and he is called “Life” but not that he “has” life, and he is called “Light”, but not that he has” light, and “God is Spirit’, but not that he “has” spirit. For he is true Being, and he is true Life, and he is the Light lighting all, and he is infinite Spirit, and moves all, and is present to all, and is above all. He is not the whole of them as though a whole in parts, and they are not the whole of him as though parts in a whole, but he is one in a singular way—ineffable, unsearchable, and indivisible. He it is who created such things as in their being are fore-ordained. The same gives life to those who live, and the same gives knowledge to the knowing
    Book of Union – Treatise 1.14

    Parsopa – refers to the identifiable expression or manifestation of a qnoma by their relation of oppositions. In the Trinity, each qnoma is also a distinct parsopa. Thus, Babai affirms three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus he would formulate the Trinity as being:

    Father – Unbegotten

    Son – Filiation

    Holy Spirit – Proceeding / Procession

    So also, after his resurrection, while he was teaching his disciples to preach in all the world and to turn the nations from a multitude of gods to the true knowledge of the one God who is known in a Trinity of qnome—that as he created and brought all into being from nothing, the same renews all by the power of his eternal Trinity—he said this to them: “Go forth and disciple all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? that is, the one Essence. And if you say “nature”, and it is infinite and the Cause of all, which in three infinite qnome is differentiated by way of their parsopic properties, in this way too is manhood the Son, in union with the eternal Son, one Son. But the eternal qnome are one infinite nature, for while they are distinguished, they are united in Essence, and while they are infinitely united, they are distinguished in their qnome eternally, without confusion, infinitely, invisibly. Among them one does not precede another in its qnoma, as also one does not follow in its parsopa, the Father being the Father alone, the Son being utterly singular in a different way which is unsearchable— the Simple from the Simple—and in his property being singular, and there is no other. The Father exists eternally | and for ever and not by stages as with us, nor with another Son, but remains eternally the Father—the Father alone of the Son alone, a whole natural Son of a whole natural Father in a distinct, incomprehensible way and with a singular property. Again there is no other Son consubstantial with the Father, eternally Son and eternally Father. The Son did not begin in [his] Sonship, as the Father did not begin in [his] Fatherhood. The Father is not able to be the Son, nor is the Son able to be the Father, and never do these properties change into one another, but the Father remains eternally and for ever, and the Son remains eternally and for ever. And the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, but eternally, perpetually proceeds from the Father. He did not “begin” in his procession, as neither did the Father in his Fatherhood nor the Son in his Sonship. The proceeding remains eternally and for ever, and there is no other Holy Spirit going forth from the Father in the manner of a procession, as there is no other begotten in the manner of “the begetting of the Father”. The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father alone, is not “later” just as the Father does not precede the Son who is eternally begotten from him. In the same way the Holy Spirit is not after the Son, as he is not after the Father, for the Father does not leave his eternal Fatherhood, nor the Son his eternal Sonship, nor the Holy Spirit his eternal procession. They did not end or begin: eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the proceeding Holy Spirit remain in one united and sole nature of eternal Being.
    Book of Union – Treatise 1.37

    The Unity of God

    After going over some of the quotes from Mar Babai, we can see that the overall framework in his formulation of the Trinity is that:

    • God is singular, ineffable, and indivisible, ultimately 1 in Essence, which is in regards to the very being of God.
    • The 3 Qnome in which are enumerated are modes of subsistence, and exist concretely, distinctly, and are really identical to the one Divine Essence, meaning nothing pertaining to them in regards to natural properties are distinct rather only their modes of subsistence is distinct, in other words their “relation of oppositions”
    • The 3 Qnome which are enumerated and exist concretely are identified according to their Parsopa, which is how we know that The Father is The Father, The Son is The Son, and The Holy Spirit is The Holy Spirit, as the Parsopa is what manifests that which ontologically exists as a real identity and expression of what exists.
    • These 3 Qnome are not thus not “parts” of God, as God IS being, IS existence, and IS will and power and operation. This is why all 3 Qnome are identical to the One Divine Essence because if they weren’t, then it would follow that they are distinct in Essence as well and thus 3 Gods which is precisely what Mar Babai rejects.

    Three are the adorable hypostases (qnomé) of the eternal Trinity identical in everything: in one glorious essence (ithuta), cause of all creatures. However, if you want to distinguish through reason the one [hypostasis] from the other, you cannot [do it], except through the property of their persons (parsopé). The name ‘Father’ is, in fact, the person (parsopa) of his hypostasis [qnoma]: He is unbegotten; from whom the Son, already since eternity, was begotten. And [the Son] is distinct through the person (parsopa) of his hypostasis, so He is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the begotten from the Father before the ages. And so we distinguish the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit through its singular person (parsopa) that He possesses, for He is from the Father since eternity, that is, from the nature of Him through the way of the procession, so He is neither the Father nor the Son. This means that these [hypostases] are distinct through the distinct persons (parsopé) they own through their properties. These adorable persons (parsopé) can be given and received; the hypostases (qnomé), on the contrary, can neither be given nor received. Because of the fact that this hypostasis (qnoma) cannot be received, to become one hypostasis with another [different] hypostasis is impossible. But what inheres permanently in one hypostasis (qnoma) is the thing by which it is distinguished, so that is not another hypostasis, i.e., the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. These names, as they are persons, not in the [domain of hypostases, can be given and received. The hypostasis (qnoma), however, shows only that this is this and not that. [For example], when two men come forward us, it is known that they are two hypostases, but it is not yet known who is the one and who is the other, i.e., yet the property of the hypostasis (qnoma) is not manifested as person (parsopa)”.
    Babai The Great “Liber De Union” (Book Of Union)

    What is most important here to note, is that for Babai, Parsopa and Qnoma have different metaphysical concepts as I stated earlier in the section on Qnoma. We see Babai using Parsopa in a way that is a manifestation of the personal properties of a singular Qnoma, such as in regards to the Father being Unbegotten and the Fountainhead of the Trinity, meaning that from him is the Eternal Cause of the Son and Spirit. We can explain it by saying that the person (parsopa) is called “Son” since His Qnoma received the property of Sonship, i.e., being generated from the Father, and that by this we understand that Person is an identity in which we can distinguish one Qnoma from another as being distinct modes of subsistence, and not that Parsopa is just a property, but instead an expression that indicates the Qnoma.

    Relations of Opposition

    When we speak about relations of opposition, I would just like to clarify that what we mean is: the way divine persons are distinguished by being relationally opposed to one another. To make it more easier to understand, I will provide a general summary of how we can understand the Holy Trinity, along with an image from a book I linked earlier.

    The Father = Divine Essence as subsisting in Paternity.
    The Son = Divine Essence as subsisting in Filiation.
    The Spirit = Divine Essence as subsisting in Procession.

    This would be why:
    Father ≠ Son Because begetting is opposed to being begotten
    Spirator ≠ Proceeding one
    And is ultimately why we can speak of 3 persons within the Trinity and it not being 3 Gods, because it would only imply Tritheism if these 3 persons were subsisting in something other than the 1 Divine Essence.

    Conclusion

    The triadology of Mar Babai the Great represents an extremely detailed and expressive comprehension of Trinitarian theology in the Church of The East. As I demonstrated in this blog post, kyana, qnoma, and parsopa, are used distinctly when speaking about the Holy Trinity, compared to when we use these terms in regards to creatures or even in the Incarnation of our Lord Christ. Babai’s articulation ultimately demonstrates an understanding of the Trinity as being Absolutely Simple, hence the name Absolute Divine Simplicity, that God is One and not composed of parts, which I may or may not do a separate blog post later in regards to it.

    His theology avoids collapsing the Trinity into modalism and tritheism, by grounding the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternal relations of origin while affirming the absolute unity of the divine essence. With this article, I believe that Mar Babai does an excellent job demonstrating the Trinitarian position on his own, which is why the majority of this post is quotes from him.

    Thank you all, and for any questions in regards to the topic or any of my previous blog posts, or if you have any questions that need to be clarified more, feel free to submit a question down below and I can possibly make another blog post dedicated to answering it. God bless and all Glory to the One True God.

  • The Christology of Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    Today I will be going over a question I get asked alot, and that is, what exactly is a Kyana, Qnoma, and a Parsopa, what do these mean, and how do we use these terms when formulating our Theology / Christology to properly understand both the Trinity and the Person of Christ through the Incarnation. Since this is such a meaty topic, I am going to split this up into different posts, each addressing different topics. One will be today, which is a general understanding of these terms and how they are defined according to our theologians and their Christology, such as Mar Babai the Great, and Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi. The other posts will be about how we actually formulate these terms to understand the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore I will dedicate a post to each of these concepts to give a proper understanding of what exactly we mean.

    The beauty of this particular topic, is that we have all the material and writings given to us in the works of our Saints. All we have to do is read what the Fathers say for themselves. They have laid out all of the information for us and its now just up to us to familiarize ourselves with what it is that makes up the core doctrines of the Church of The East. In fact, much of the controversy of the early Church, particularly the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ecumenical councils (Which we do not accept as being ecumenical or dogmatically binding due to their depart of the orthodox faith) revolves around these formulations specifically in regards to Christology.

    How can we translate these terms?

    To put it very plainly, these words are very hard to give a direct translation into english for the most part. At the end of the day, these are Syriac terms, and we should more so focus on what exactly they mean rather than what they can be translated into, and nobody else can tell us what these words mean to us, especially if our own Saints have already given you the definitions, and to read into these terms through another Christological lens or tradition is being disingenuous and imposing a presupposition on what we mean when we say this. This is exactly why when dialoguing with other christians regarding Christology, we need to clarify what we mean when we use these terms to be absolutely clear about what is being explained and not that we are using them in the same sense, cause we most likely arent. Nonetheless I will still give what most scholars say, was an overall idea of what these words can mean, but I will later in my other post about Christology, break down the differences between the different traditions and our formulations.

    Kyana

    Syriac: Kyana (ܟܝܢܐ) the English would be Nature
    Greek: Ousia (οὐσία) the English would be Essence/Substance (Sometimes interchangeable with Physis/Nature)
    Greek: Physis (φύσις) the English would be Nature

    As you can see already it might be getting confusing, as these terms have been used in various ways, and have different meanings which is why it is important to read the Fathers within their context to understand exactly what they mean when using these terms. For now though we are just gonna focus on our own definitions and not the greek as that will be expounded upon later.

    Qnoma

    Syriac: Qnoma (ܩܢܘܡܐ) the English would be Individual Nature / Concrete Nature or sometimes even in the Greek as Hypostasis
    Greek: Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) the English would be Concrete / Particular instance of a Nature

    Parsopa

    Syriac: Parsopa (ܦܪܨܘܦܐ) the English would be Person
    Greek: Prosopon (πρόσωπον) the English also would be Person

    To make it a bit easier to read and get the general idea of these terms I made a table down below to help better categorize these terms in comparison to their Greek, Syriac, and English definitions:

    ConceptSyriac TermScriptGreek TermScriptMeaning
    NatureKyānāܟܝܢܐPhysisφύσιςThe nature or kind of being (e.g., divine nature, human nature)
    Individual Nature / Concrete InstanceQnōmāܩܢܘܡܐHypostasisὑπόστασιςA concrete instance of a nature
    PersonParsōpāܦܪܨܘܦܐProsoponπρόσωπονThe personal identity or outward person

    Distinction between Trinity and Christology

    One thing I would like to make very clear about these definitions so far, is that the way they are to be used in regards to Christology, compared to Triadology, will be much more different, which is why I am making 2 separate posts on those topics. The reason being is because, when talking about Christology, you are trying to explain a union where what is Divine, joins that which is Human, compared to the Trinity where we are trying to explain how something that is purely Divine, exists in the manner that it does. The way that we would explain Kyana for the Trinity will not be the same as how we define Kyana in regards to humans, or in the Incarnation of Christ. Its very important not to conflate definitions when doing this because it can result in a view which we do not hold to, and I have seen a lot of people take this sort of approach. That is the goal of this blog post, which is to clarify. This is also why I mentioned reading the Fathers in context of what they are trying to explain because these terms in of themselves can be ambiguous, as Doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity are ultimately mysteries. We have to explain these things only in ways that we can understand them, and make it clear that it is only analogous to philosophical concepts, in which the Syriac tradition does borrow from to explain these things.

    Kyana, Qnoma, Parsopa according to Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    The Church of The East has a very great Saint by the name of Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi who in the late 12th and early 13th Century, wrote treatises in regards to Philosophy and Theology in which he harmonizes both through the lens of the ACOE. His work titled Zqorā mlaḥḥmā (‘Well-woven fabric’) will be used for now to conclude a general explanation of these terms. And in my next posts, I will clarify them in regards to Triadology. I highly recommend anyone who is an ACOE faithful, or trying to learn about our Theology, or both, to read this excerpt that is linked and embedded above.

    What is a Kyana and what is a Qnoma for Bar Zo’bi?

    “Nature (Kyana) is distinguishable from hypostasis (Qnoma), by its essential qualities. Nature is universal but hypostasis is specific. When nature is divided it constitutes its species and Nature is distinguishable also its hypostasis. But when hypostasis is divided it is meaningless; because if you were to divide hypostasis into parts, it will be destroyed and rendered meaningless, and it will not retain its natural qualities. Nature is simple, but hypostasis is compounded. Hypostasis is visible to the eyes, but nature is visible to the mind. When you speak of nature, the mind encompasses all, but when you speak of hypostasis, the mind embraces only one. This is the difference O, Father, between the nature and the hypostasis.”

    What Bar Zo’bi is essentially trying to explain here, is that Kyana, is something that is shared amongst many individuals, hence why he defines it as something being universal. Here we can see him borrowing terms from Aristotelian Philosophy to describe what we mean by these words (again being very careful when explaining this as this would simply be analogous, there is no such thing as a universal or particular relationship in the Trinity). For example: Humanity is a nature and it is something shared amongst all human beings, that is why he says that when we speak of Nature, it is something that the mind encompasses all. In other words it exists conceptually as something common.

    He also says that a Qnoma, is something that can be spoken of in the singular, meaning it refers to a specific concrete instance of a Nature. Concrete as in something that we can perceive and not just conceptialize, just as he says, “visible to the eyes”. We would for example be considered our own human qnome, individuals that are a specific instantation of that general human Nature that is shared amongst many individuals. Us as qnome however, are specific and particular, something that is not shared amongst every single other human being but unique to us specifically. What I am as a human qnoma, is something different then that of another person who is also a human qnoma, namely in the characteristics in which we possess, which Mar Babai also says word for word and I will quote later on in his post on Christology. This is why we can conceptually divide a Kyana into many different instances, which in that case we are left with Qnome, meanwhile to divide a Qnoma will be rendered meaningless as then you would have destroyed that Qnoma. A human qnoma can be said to be made up of “parts” as it would be considered a sort of composition between Body and Soul. This however would not apply to the Divine nature and Qnoma of the Godhead as there is no parts or composition in the Divine Essence.

    So to put into simpler terms, Kyana or “nature” for Bar Zo’bi when speaking on Christology, is something general, abstract, or “universal”. I am a human being because I am apart of the human nature, along with other humans. Qnoma is what is specific, concrete, or the “particular” of that universal. It is specific because it is what constitutes us individually, I am known by my Qnoma, because what I possess in my Qnoma, is different from that of someone else. We would call these “accidents” or “accidental” properties in Aristotelian definitions. Accidental properties in regards to the human nature, are things that are not essential to be considered human, such as hair color, height or weight, or other physical traits. Since they are contingent on the person, they do not define humanity as a whole or what makes someone human, rather it is apart of the Qnoma. Compare this to Kyana, a nature would bear the qualities of what we would say, are essential properties. So to be a human, or apart of the human nature, everyone must possess emotions, a human mind and will, being mortal, having hunger, etc. If these properties are now to be removed from the characteristics of what it means to be a human, you no longer have a human being, however someone with brown hair vs black hair, will not change that they are still human. So humanity in Aristotelian philosophy would be a mix between having the necessary essential properties of being a human and its accidents that are specific to each individual.

    Distinction between Parsopa and Qnoma

    “Let us now speak of the difference that exists between person and hypostasis. Person is unlike hypostasis in the qualities which it possesses, namely, such as beautiful, hateful, hideous and black. But in hypostasis there is only one (attribute), for it is one and the same. But in person there are many, because of the many attributes that it possesses. Of qualities I mean, son of so and so, beautiful or ugly. These characteristics appertain to person, that which signifies hypostasis. Hypostasis has been spoken of as a small part of nature. Person has been spoken of as a small part of hypostasis. This is therefore the difference between hypostasis and person.”

    Now this leaves us with the question of, what then is a Parsopa compared to Qnoma if we all are individual Qnome? Parsopa in this case, or “Person” is defined as an actual identity, personality, or basically something in which we identify the exact WHAT of the Qnoma. For example, with me, my name is Yosip Pithyou, I am a Subdeacon, and I am 24 years old. These are all characteristics of who I am as a person, in which we can use to say that I am me, and not someone else. In other words, Qnoma CAN be seen as the ontological reality of a thing, and Parsopa is the way we can recognize that Qnoma, or an expression of that reality, but this usage of Parsopa as well can carry different contexts as used in the past by our Fathers.

    The Usage of Parsopa

    It is important to note about the word Parsopa, that it has been used in a few different ways according to our fathers, namely such as in Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other fathers in different traditions, including ours. There are 2 specific senses in which he uses it, but generally in regards to our usage, we can say that Parsopa, refers to the personal subject, or the “who” that subsists, acts, and is the bearer of the attribution of Kyana and Qnoma, and possesses all that pertains to both. The two ways in which Parsopa can be viewed according to both Bar Zo’bi and Theodore is as follows:

    First, in an ontological sense, Parsopa, signifies the individual Qnoma, what each of us is as a center of rationality and the concrete subject who exists and acts. We can in other words say that this would be a center of agency, the exact subject that subsists, because of its Qnoma in which it possesses, and not just a manifestation of identity. Qnoma and Kyana in of itself does not act, which would not alone be considered a center of agency, rather it is the Parsopa which possesses these that does, making it an ontological view that it is something concrete which Bar Zo’bi says says in the following quotes:

    “Let us now speak on the difference between face and person. Person is different from face in that it does not possess the concrete image of the mind. Face is impressed (concrete), but person is not concrete.”

    “Let us now demonstrate the facts concerning each one of them – nature in the manner of man, hypostasis in the manner of Adam. Of person as beautiful, as of the age of thirty three years. And the face which is concrete impression of this image, is the manifestation of his person.”

    The second sense in which Parsopa is typically used, is in a doxological sense, it refers to the one who is appearing in honor, glory, and worship. In this context, Parsopa can also carry the sense of appearance, or the manifestation of the one that is revealed (Theodore uses Acts 2 as an example for this), which is why at times certain fathers speak of a “human person,” like Saint Jerome and Augustine. So for Bar Zo’bi, he as well uses “Face” to signify the Parsopa as it is apart of the Parsopa, in the sense that it is concrete, to signify its ontological perception, and as well uses it in a doxological sense following Theodore, to mean the actual manifestation of what is revealed.

    “Face denotes person, but he (person) cannot denote the face. Person denotes hypostasis, but hypostasis does not do the same.”

    With that I will conclude this blog post on the understanding of these terms in the ACOE tradition as demonstrated by Bar Zo’bi, until my next posts which I will then be doing an explanation on our use of these terms in regards to Triadology. God bless you all.