The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
I was wondering what the deal was with Mar Bawai Soro? As was mentioned earlier, Mar Bawai led a significant minority of the Assyrian Church of the East's faithful into full communion with the Chaldean Catholic Church.

However, does anyone know what is his actual canonical status? Among the Chaldeans, he is referred to as a bishop, but I do not see him listed on the Catholic-Hierarchy site. Perhaps I missed it?


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
LibCath,

That's a good question. I'm going to pull it off this thread, so as to not cause confusion between Mar Bawai and the group being discussed here.

Hopefully, we can get an answer as to his status from one of the two experts on matters hierarchical who post here on occasion, being David Cheney of Catholic-Hierarchy.org and Charles Bransom, who researches apostolic succession and episcopal lineages (and to whom I owe a long overdue e-mail).

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 47
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 47
Mar Bawai Soro is currently a bishop in the Chaldean Catholic Church, in the Western USA diocese. As to what his current "see" title is, I have no idea.

http://www.kaldaya.net/2008/DailyNews/06/June06_08_E1_MARBAWAI.html
http://www.kaldaya.net/2010/News/12/Dec04_E1_ccpaStatement.html

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Thank you both for your help. I had naturally assumed that when Mar Bawai was received into full communion with the Chaldean Catholic Church, he was received as a bishop. But when I did not see him listed in any official listing (i.e. Kenedy directory, etc), I had some confusion.

In any case, I did have the privilege of conversing with Mar Bawai, just prior to his "Declaration of Intent," and found him to be extremely personable and dedicated to his ministry.

And now, since we're on the subject, I was wondering about the status of the two "American" Assyrian parishes that reportedly came into communion with the Chaldeans. Namely, the congregation of St. Barnabas in California, and St. Thomas in Washington state.

I peruse through kaldaya.net ("The Voice of Catholic Chaldeans") from time to time, but I never have seen any explicit mention of these communities, although they are both listed (albeit w/o a street address or contact info.) on the list of parishes/missions of the Western Diocese (St. Peter's) of the Chaldean Catholic Church in the USA.

Any info. on these?




Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
I have also been asking myself the same question. I don't think that there has been anything official (at least not publicly) from either the Chaldean Synod of the Holy See. For example, Mar Bawai has not been given a titular see or an appointment as auxiliary bishop. However, if you look at this picture [kaldaya.net] you clearly see Mar Bawai (far left, next, I think, to Mar Sarhad) together with the Chaldean Synod with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome in 2009. I suppose the Chaldean Synod and the Holy See are just threading carefully so as not to upset the Church of the East even more...

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
The more I thought about this thread, after creating it last night, the more I debated what needed to be said. Perchance, a friend and forum member provided me today with 4 links that, taken together, afford a background on which to explain the situation and its implications.

My brother, Latin Catholic, in the last sentence of his post above, subtly phrases the situation

Quote
I suppose the Chaldean Synod and the Holy See are just threading carefully so as not to upset the Church of the East even more...

To be more blunt about it: Mar Bawai is an absolute liability to the ongoing relationship between Rome and the Assyrian Church - a relationship that had been in place for a long time and had, until these events occurred, been marked by extraordinary cordiality and collegial affection between the two ecclesia. (The same can be said with respect to the historical relationship between the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches.) Certainly, none of us here are able to speak with certitude as to the present state of either of those relationships - so, let us not presume to suggest that we can.

The advantage to the documents linked below is that, taken together, they afford a fairly solid base from which to explain and understand the present situation, without the necessity to revisit the original circumstances and the immediately attendant uproar that swirled around it.


The first link
[news.assyrianchurch.com]
is to a November 2010 document clarifying the earlier (2005 and 2008) synodal decrees of the Assyrian Church relative to the presbyteral and episcopal status of Mar Bawai Soro (now 'Ashur Soro' in their eyes). Notably, it was written because the Assyrian Holy Synod perceived that the Chaldean Holy Synod was about to formally embrace Mar Bawai as a bishop of the Chaldean Church, based on his earlier ordinations as presbyter and bishop of the Assyrian Church.

The text of the clarification
  • clearly enunciates the stance of the Assyrian Church with respect to priestly orders, applying a classic Cyprianic interpretation to the matter; and,
  • in its final sentence, urges the Chaldean episcopate not to embrace Mar Bawai Soro as one of them because of the adverse canonical and ecumenical implications that would result from doing so.
No surprises there.

The second link [kaldaya.net] is to a response to the synodal clarification, written by Chor-Bishop Felix Al Shabi, Protosynchellos of the Eparchy of St Peter in San Diego of the Chaldeans.

Chor-Bishop Felix, in his reply,
  • applies an equally classic Augustinean interpretation to the matter of priestly orders, consistent with the theory that the Catholic Church has embraced for a long time past; and,
  • in his final sentence, suggests that, if the Assyrian Church can retroactively dispense with episcopal orders as they claim to have done in this instance, the Catholic Church should question the validity and licity of Assyrian orders generally.
There are notable differences between these two documents:
  • the first is seemingly an official expression of the Synod; the second is apparently a personal expression by a highly placed cleric of the western US eparchy;
  • the Assyrian position is based on the so-called Cyprianic theory, common to the Eastern and Oriental Churches; the Chaldean position is based on the so-called Augustinean theory, historically held by the Western Church;
  • the Assyrian document is relatively dispassionate, professional, and (in its final sentence) warns of possible, obviously foreseeable, consequences; the Chaldean document is condescending, emotional, and (in its final sentence) blatantly suggestive/supportive of adopting a position that would effectively have Rome calling into question the validity of episcopal ordinations in all Apostolic Churches other than itself.
There are two final links.


The first is an Assyrian response to Chor-Bishop Felix
[news.assyrianchurch.com]
. It certainly contains some harsh language, but I think that's not to be unexpected given the content of the Chor-Bishop's letter. Of particular note is a sentence in the final paragraph, which clearly states the point that the Chor-Bishop overlooked while lecturing his audience on Augustinian theory:

Quote
Furthermore, you should know, if your purport to be a canonist, that the Assyrian Church of the East or any other Church not in full communion with Rome will judge canonical matters according to canons proper to that Church’s juridical and theological traditions.

Finally, we have a reply from a Chaldean deacon [kaldaya.net] to the original clarification. It reviews a bit of the history and is emotional in places; it doesn't add a lot to the argumentation, but offers some perspective. There are other comments on the web, principally on Assyrian sites. but you should have a picture now.

For anyone reading this who is unfamiliar with the references to the Cyprianic and Augustinean theories (what follows is a fairly simplistic explanation - a more detailed one can be found by searching either term with my nick as the User Name) ...
  • the Cyprianic view, also held by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, is that a priest, regardless of from whence he may have had orders, is no longer able to exercise presbyteral functions once he is deprived of such by his hierarch or if he attempts to exercise those orders outside the canonical Church in which they were accorded to him.
  • the Augustinian view - once a priest, always a priest - has, historically, been the view put forth by Rome. However, Rome has been backing off that view (and leaning toward the Cyprianic one) as a response to the ever-increasing number of vagante with one or more episcopal lines poyentially valid under the Augustinian view and its unwillingness to have to keep vetting vagantes (some of whom would be very undesirable to have to acknowledge as having valid orders), on the possibility of there being validity somewhere in an individual's lineage.


Now, reality is that the Augustinian theory means that Rome always accepts the orders of clerics from the EO, OO, ACOE, PNCC, and (potentially) a lot of other Churches should they seek to enter communion with it.

On the other hand, strictly speaking, the Cyprianic theory means that no EO or OO Church, nor the ACOE, should ever accept the orders of clerics from Rome or from any Church outside their own Communion should such clerics seek to enter communion with it. Reality here is that they often do so by vesting, citing economia as supplying the deficiencies in orders.

Let's not argue the logic of either stance - they are what they are - both have issues and we aren't going to change either.

The difference here is the high profile nature of the circumstances. I don't claim to be any prophet but, if anyone goes back and looks at the 2005 (?) threads on the Mar Bawai issue, you're going to see posts by me suggesting that Rome was not going to know how to deal with him and that it would have been better had the matter not been played out publicly - so no one had to lose face. Such things (acceptance to communion - in both directions) happen routinely when they involve priests - bishops are tougher, but it can be done. It can't be done when the event is backgrounded by web postings, You Tube videos, public statements, lawsuits; these were not the way to go! I stand by those comments.

Rome cannot deny the validity of Mar Bawai's original orders because it would insult the Assyrians and all the Apostolic Churches. But, recognizing his orders will cause the long-standing ecumenical alliance w/ the Assyrians to go down the tubes. How's that for a vicious circle.

If Mar Bawai is allowed to function as a bishop (or, perhaps even as a priest) on the basis of his prior orders, the Assyrians will assert, rightfully, that their canonical adjudication as to their orders is being ignored, as if Rome has the right to usurp their actions or interpret them differently than they would/did themselves. Otoh, if he were to be re-ordained, it's basically saying that Assyrian orders are invalid. There are no winners here.

I doubt that you'll see Mar Bawai titled any time soon and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been quietly suggested to the Chaldean Synod that it rein in its clergy (assuming that the Congregation has had time to notice this while assuring that no married presbyters cross the Italian border).

As to the parishes about which someone asked. I believe those communities might be more 'virtual' than 'brick and mortar' at this point. I think most, if not all, the lawsuits filed in regard to ownership of the temples were decided in favor of the Assyrian Church.

Many years,

Neil

Last edited by Irish Melkite; 03/08/11 06:09 AM.

"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
If Mar Bawai is allowed to function as a bishop (or, perhaps even as a priest) on the basis of his prior orders, the Assyrians will assert, rightfully, that their canonical adjudication as to their orders is being ignored, as if Rome has the right to usurp their actions or interpret them differently than they would/did themselves. Otoh, if he were to be re-ordained, it's basically saying that Assyrian orders are invalid. There are no winners here.

I gather that a conditional re-ordination wouldn't resolve the matter?

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
I doubt that you'll see Mar Bawai titled any time soon and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been quietly suggested to the Chaldean Synod that it rein in its clergy

In what regard?

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Quote
I gather that a conditional re-ordination wouldn't resolve the matter?


Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think you miss the point. Any move to make this man a public figure in the clergy of the Catholic Church puts the ecumenical relationship down the tubes. Best to simply retire him quietly and let him be a Catholic but not function in orders.

And "reining in the Chaldean clergy"--pulling in the priest and deacon who are lecturing bishops of an Apostolic Church with which we have a long-standing relationship. Since when does a priest and a deacon lecture bishops, especially when they are talking about a view of orders that is not even their historic theological patrimony. As Neil points out, the Augustinian theory presents far more problems in this era than it ever did in earlier times. But, in any event, it does not sit well with the Christian East.

I think we've also got to move along to the point where the decisions of another Apostolic Church regarding the fitness for orders of anyone must be respected. It works now that we are not in communion that a man can move and be received by economia, but if we expect to achieve communion, that will have to go. Otherwise, we'll have chaos as no bishop respects another bishop's judgments.

Bob

Last edited by theophan; 03/09/11 02:08 PM.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Quote
Otoh, if he were to be re-ordained, it's basically saying that Assyrian orders are invalid.


Neil:

I think there is even more than this. If he were re-ordained at any level, it says that the Assyrian canonical and conciliar tradition has no validity, given the early councils and canons cited in the Assyrian response (your first link). It seems to me that this whole area needs to be accepted and taken seriously if we truly want to move toward full communion.

As Father Taft said in another thread about what we could legitimately expect in a future together, communion is about all we can expect. And communion means we have to take into account all the things that have happened not only when we were in communion in the past, but also what has transpired in each Church since that time. I think Catholics have the most to adjust to here since we've lived so long thinking that we have the last word on everything since we claim to have the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and all that we have come to attach to that understanding.

I think that Catholics need to understand that other Apostolic Churches have survived and thrived WITHOUT US for centuries. They don't need us to have a full life in and with Christ. Despite the divisions that have kept us apart, this is a fact that must sink into the thinking of Catholics. I don't advocate this type of idea to cause or support the divisions, but I use it as a wake-up call to those who think that eveyone else "lacks" something by not being part of what we are. If the model of the Eastern Churches under the Oriental Congregation is any indication, they've got a legitimate question in asking why they need any of this or anything to do with us.

Bob

Last edited by theophan; 03/09/11 04:30 PM. Reason: Additional comments
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 388
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 388
The days of "triumphalist" Catholic announcements of Eastern Christians converting to Catholicism are over. We respect religious freedom of belief but must be prepared for occasional (sometimes exaggerated) reversal of memberships such as the following.

http://www.betnahrain.org/bbs/index.pl/noframes/read/36403

Personal decisions on religious affiliation are just that - personal, private and not subject to exploitation.

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
As to the parishes about which someone asked. I believe those communities might be more 'virtual' than 'brick and mortar' at this point. I think most, if not all, the lawsuits filed in regard to ownership of the temples were decided in favor of the Assyrian Church.

Neil,

Thanks for this. I was aware that after the somewhat lengthy legal proceedings between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Apostolic Catholic Diocese (Mar Bawai's faction) the Assyrian Church was granted control of their former properties. However, I was under the impression that the two congregations I was referencing ( Seattle, WA and Wilton, CA) were not part of the original lawsuit.

When I had spoken to Mar Bawai, shortly before the creation of the Apostolic Diocese, he had mentioned that these two parishes, which had both been led by non-Assyrian priests (formerly evangelical Protestants), were in the process of joining up with his unity movement. Since then, I've not heard anything else about them.

Was there not an expert on Chaldean affairs on this Forum? Perhaps he/she can shed some light into this.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Peter J
I gather that a conditional re-ordination wouldn't resolve the matter?
In the history it never happened that a valid bishop of the Church of East when entered in communion with the Catholic Church was re-ordained (conditional or not conditional re-ordination).
For example Patriarch Joseph I, Patriarch John Hormidz (from who all the modern Chaldean episcopate due its apostolic succession) and bishop Ishoʿyahb of Berwari entered in Communion with the Pope without any re-ordination.

And with the famous "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East" of 20 July 2001, the ACoE implicitly recognize the validity of orders of the Chaldean Church, which derives from John Hormidz who was never re-ordered by Catholic, but who was obviously schismatic for the ACoE point of view.

When we speak of the "classic Cyprianic interpretation" we shall remind that this view is (more or less) held by the Byzantine Christians, and we cannot generalize it to the whole East, as it is a mistake to apply the Byzantine canons to thee Church of East.

Last edited by antv; 03/10/11 08:20 PM.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Such things (acceptance to communion - in both directions) happen routinely when they involve priests - bishops are tougher, but it can be done.

Originally Posted by theophan
Any move to make this man a public figure in the clergy of the Catholic Church puts the ecumenical relationship down the tubes. Best to simply retire him quietly and let him be a Catholic but not function in orders.

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me that not allowing him to serve even as priest would be awfully harsh.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Peter J:

Glory be to Jesus Christ!!

There are two ways of looking at this;

1. There is no one and no one's canonical tradition outside the Catholic Church that means a hoot to Catholics because we make all the decisions and who cares what anyone else thinks or does. We don't need them, really, anyway.

2. In an ecumenical era, we have to proceed in a way that respects the canonical tradition of other Apostolic Churches because they have an equal claim to being the Catholic Church, just as the Catholic Communion does. We have to understand that the canonical tradition of the Church of the East developed outside the borders of the Roman Empire and with no reference to us. It is equally valid as a response of an Apostolic Church to the conditions in which it found itself. This tradition is in line with St. Pauls' admonition to "do all things decently and in order."

Are we caught up in mushy, Western liberal thinking when we talk about this man not being able to function in orders? The response of bishops in a Synod is to defend the Faith, the Church, and prevent scandal among the faithful in that portion fo the Lord's Vineyard. Did they live up to this?

If we accept number 1, just shut down the whole ecumenical endeavor, admit that Vatican II was a smoke screen for tryng another Florence and Lyons, and go back to the triumphalism of the previous millenium.

If we accept number 2, then we have to respect the decision of the ACOE Synod and let this guy sit in the pews.

We also have to decide what our position going forward is on accepting men in orders from another Apostolic Church, especially if the one coming in has baggage that may be part of his reason.

Bob

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by theophan
There are two ways of looking at this;

I disagree. There's a whole spectrum.

One end of the spectrum would be this extreme position:

Originally Posted by theophan
1. There is no one and no one's canonical tradition outside the Catholic Church that means a hoot to Catholics because we make all the decisions and who cares what anyone else thinks or does. We don't need them, really, anyway.

I won't get into what the other end of the spectrum is, since it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

One reasonable and moderate, middle-of-the-spectrum, position (but not the only reasonable and moderate, middle-of-the-spectrum position) is this:

Originally Posted by theophan
2. In an ecumenical era, we have to proceed in a way that respects the canonical tradition of other Apostolic Churches because they have an equal claim to being the Catholic Church, just as the Catholic Communion does. We have to understand that the canonical tradition of the Church of the East developed outside the borders of the Roman Empire and with no reference to us. It is equally valid as a response of an Apostolic Church to the conditions in which it found itself. This tradition is in line with St. Pauls' admonition to "do all things decently and in order."

Originally Posted by theophan
Are we caught up in mushy, Western liberal thinking when we talk about this man not being able to function in orders?

I don't think we are. (I'm speaking only in regard to the people in this conversation.)

Originally Posted by theophan
If we accept number 2, then we have to respect the decision of the ACOE Synod and let this guy sit in the pews.

I don't think we are yet at that point in our ecumenical relations. Although I certainly hope to see the day when we do reach that point. (Even better, the day when we can say "Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons." cf http://www.antiochian.net/content/view/143/21 )

Last edited by Peter J; 03/10/11 11:35 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5