Chalcedon in the Assyrian Church: A Third Helping

This is my third and final posting related to the Church of the East’s reception of Chalcedon. I’ve spent a great deal of time on Chalcedon because it allows the canonical tradition to speak for not only the place of this important Christological (theology on Christ) statement in the Church of the East but it also allows us to understand where the Church of the East places herself within the scope of Apostolic Christianity. Therefore, we’re going to conclude our study of this council by examining the way the documents of Chalcedon were received by the Church of the East, as well as stating a few questions that arise from our study of Chalcedon as an Assyrian Church heritage as well a reflection of the larger ecclesiological reality.

The Assyrian Church of the East, according to her canonical tradition, forms her canonical structure as a patriarchal and local church of the one Church of Christ; this is a universal Christian structure. The Collection of Synodical (Canonical) Documents of the Church of the East or the Synodicon of the Church of the East demonstrates this by how it prioritizes its three sections: 1. Canons and Decrees of the Ecumenical (Western) Councils; 2. Canons and Decrees of the Patriarchal (Assyrian) Councils; 3. Letters and Questions and Answers regarded as canonical binding. There is a clear priority in the structure of this document and it reflects the basic self-understanding of a local Church in orthodox faith: what is universal is expressed by what is local. Simply, an ecumenical council accepted by the Church of the East (Nicea or Chalcedon) is superior and structural to the patriarchal councils of the Church of the East (Mar Ishaq or Mar Aqaq).

The Synod of Chalcedon forms the bedrock of Christology for Chalcedonian Christianity and thereby forges the Orthodox identity we know today. It is the last “Western” and Ecumenical Synod entered into the record of the Church of the East. Therefore, it represents the last time that a full and complete sense of Christian unity was shared between the Church of the East and apostolic churches west of Persia—Rome, Constantinople, etc. Of course, it also cleaved ‘one-nature’ Christianity away from ‘two-nature’ Christianity. Chalcedon also offers a powerful statement in response to the central controversy that ended up being the cause of division: how do we speak of Christ as fully God and fully man.

W.A. Wigram, in his awesome book, An Introduction to the History of the Assyrian Church or The Church of the Sassanid Empire 100-640 A.D (full text available here) provides us with the Assyrian version of the Definition of Chalcedon, as found in the Mosul manuscript:

Joining ourselves therefore to the holy Fathers, we all confess alike and with one accord-one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in His Godhead,. and, the same, perfect in His Manhood, of reasonable soul and body. Of one nature with His Father in His Godhead, and, the same, of one nature with us in His Manhood, in all things save sin; begotten of the Father before the worlds in His Godhead, and born in these last days, the same, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, Mother of Christ who is God and Man; One and the same Christ, Son, God, Lord Only-begotten; to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without mixture, without separation; the distinction of the two natures being by no means done away by the union, but the individuality of either of the two natures being rather preserved, and running together in one Person and two Qnumi; not to be divided or separated into two Sons, but there being one and the same only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. (Wigram 297)

Notice two differences from the original form of the Definition of Chalcedon: Theotokos is rendered “Mother of Christ who is God and Man” and the phrase “one person and two qnume” where the original has Theotokos and just “one person”, respectably. The term Theotokos is not used by the Church of the East on grounds that it is unclear rather than strictly theologically wrong. The first reason Theotokos, Yaldath Alaha in Syriac, seems unclear to the Church of the East is that Alaha (God) refers to the God-head or the Trinity so the Church of the East rejected the sense that the Blessed Virgin is the “Mother of the Trinity”. 

Also, Mshikha (Messiah or Christ) is overwhelming defined as the God-man, Jesus Christ. Indeed, in all my reading of Assyrian Christological documents and having chanted through the services growing up, I have never seen Mshikha used in any fashion other than the God incarnate. Therefore, the Assyrian theologians wonder, why would one not prefer the name of the Second Person of the trinity, Mshikha, to the name of the whole trinity, Alaha, when describing whom it was the Virgin bore? Here’s a nice example of Assyrian thinking on the subject:

 

It is just and right and proper that Mary should be called "Mother of Christ," for that is the name that shows that there was one Person of unity, who in His human nature was of her nature, and in His Godhead, not of her nature. But seeing that from the first moment of the conception of the Manhood of our Lord, that He took from her, God the Word dwelt in it temple-wise and unitedly, and made it with him one Son eternally, we do say that she was thus "Mother of God" and "Mother of the Manhood." Mother of the Manhood by nature; Mother of God, in that He was united to His manhood from the first moment of its conception; and it is His temple eternally, and He is God and Man unitedly, one Son, one Christ (De unione, VII:22; Wigram 288).

Basically, Mother of Christ is preferred for it is seen as encompassing both Mother of God and Mother of Manhood and both latter terms are seen as insufficient. Indeed the term Mother of Manhood, Yaldath Barnasha, was rejected in the AD 612 Synod of the Church of the East as equally objectionable as Yaldath Alaha. Simply, there is an Assyrian Church allergy to phases that could be misinterpreted as eliminating the human nature of Christ. Of course, caution is taken to preserve the sense that Christ is one and that the Messiah is one person: God incarnate.

Furthermore, Chalcedon’s careful expression of Christ as both one person and two natures, with the added and strong emphasis “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably in one person” is reflected in the Christological formulae used in synodical decrees of the Church of the East. The Assyrian Church of the East expresses Chalcedonian theology with great ease. Indeed, the theology and language of Chalcedon is repeated and restated not only in the Synod of Mar Aqaq (as referenced in my prior post), but also those of Mar Isho-Yahb (AD 587); Mar Sabrisho (AD 596); and Grigor (AD 605).

It is intriguing to consider the Christological reality of a Church that accepts Chalcedon (the fourth Ecumenical Synod), but has not responded, officially, to the teachings and canons of the 3, 5, 6 and 7^th councils—putting the condemnations of Theodore and Nestorius aside. Would the Church of the East find these councils expressive of what she herself believes? This question is further imposed by the reality of the Synodicon itself. Clearly, the fact that ecumenical councils are given the spot of honor at the head of the document speaks of the ecclesiastical reality that the Assyrian Church saw herself as properly belonging as the Patriarchate of all the East of the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Could this vision of ecclesiological unity expressed in canonical reality be conceived of again, if certain dialogues bore fruit?