By Baghdadhope
On the eve of the Synod of the Ancient Church of the East (Baghdad – April 27 / May 2, 2009) its patriarch, Mar Addai II, announced that one of the points under discussion would be the possible adoption of the Gregorian calendar for Christmas (but not for Easter) instead of the Julian one, and urged the faithful to express their opinion about the proposal. This anticipation was echoed by that of the Metropolitan of the Ancient Church of the East in Australia and New Zealand, Mar Yako Daniel, who declared that it would be discussed also the possible reunification of the church with the Assyrian one.
Several disputes led in 1968 to the division of the original Church of the East in two. On the one hand the Ancient Church of the East, now led by Mar Addai II, that has its patriarchal see in Baghdad and on the other the Assyrian Church of the East led now by Mar Dinkha IV whose patriarchal see is in Chicago. The anticipations made by the two prelates were true.
The faithful of the Ancient Church of the East will have three months to declare what they think of the proposal to celebrate Christmas according to the Gregorian calendar.
As for the process of re-unification it has been announced that on May 5 the Ancient Church of the East responded favorably to the proposal made by the Assyrian Church of the East to convene a meeting with the aim of reuniting the two churches putting an end to decades of separation. A proposal that dates back to November 15, 2005, and to which Mar Addai II had replied on January 22, 2006, stating that the issue would be discussed during the Synod. Now that the synod is over the answer has arrived. Mar Addai II in this regard suggested that the meeting could take place in Iraq after Easter 2010, according to the Julian calendar.
And what if on that date really the journey towards the re-unification would begin? One united church would, in effect, be useful for both parts. The small Ancient Church of the East would benefit from the union with a church with more faithful and more structured abroad as the Assyrian one is. The latter, in turn, could strengthen through the union the links with its Iraqi origins thined by the diaspora and by a patriarchy since too much time away.
But, if the process should be completed with the current two patriarchs in office: will they be able to share the power? And how? In the history of the two churches there have been other periods of double patriarchy. Will this be the solution? A patriarchy in the West and one in the East until the death of Mar Mar Dinkha or Mar Addai? And what will happen to the bishops of both churches that now have jurisdiction on the same areas such as, for example, the two metropolitans of Australia and New Zealand, Mar Yako Daniel and Mar Meelis Zaia?
And, if while discussing one of the patriarchs should die will the bishops of his church accept willingly the authority of the outlived patriarch or will they feel disadvantaged? The common faith and liturgy may not be enough to solve these practical problems And that churches deal with them and not only with the souls of the faithful is clear by another of the points of the synodal document, the one in which after the reference to the multi-ethnicity and multi-religiosity of Mesopotamia the "Christians (Assyrians) are cited as one of the people composing it, and whose rights should be ensured in the constitutions of Iraq and Kurdistan.
A proposal that recalls that made by the Chaldean synod held in Ankawa in the same period that, instead, requested for the Chaldean component to be included as separate from the Assyrian and Siriac ones in the new constitution of Kurdistan. The almost contemporaneousness of the two synods does not permit to verify if one of the two proposals is consequential to the other. What is certain is that the church - the churches in this case – by these statements are increasingly participating in political life preserving the leadership role that they "naturally" had when the party plurality in Iraq was still a dream. And that in the face of a possible rapprochement of the two churches of the East the gap between them and the Catholic Chaldean is deepening.
Several disputes led in 1968 to the division of the original Church of the East in two. On the one hand the Ancient Church of the East, now led by Mar Addai II, that has its patriarchal see in Baghdad and on the other the Assyrian Church of the East led now by Mar Dinkha IV whose patriarchal see is in Chicago. The anticipations made by the two prelates were true.
The faithful of the Ancient Church of the East will have three months to declare what they think of the proposal to celebrate Christmas according to the Gregorian calendar.
As for the process of re-unification it has been announced that on May 5 the Ancient Church of the East responded favorably to the proposal made by the Assyrian Church of the East to convene a meeting with the aim of reuniting the two churches putting an end to decades of separation. A proposal that dates back to November 15, 2005, and to which Mar Addai II had replied on January 22, 2006, stating that the issue would be discussed during the Synod. Now that the synod is over the answer has arrived. Mar Addai II in this regard suggested that the meeting could take place in Iraq after Easter 2010, according to the Julian calendar.
And what if on that date really the journey towards the re-unification would begin? One united church would, in effect, be useful for both parts. The small Ancient Church of the East would benefit from the union with a church with more faithful and more structured abroad as the Assyrian one is. The latter, in turn, could strengthen through the union the links with its Iraqi origins thined by the diaspora and by a patriarchy since too much time away.
But, if the process should be completed with the current two patriarchs in office: will they be able to share the power? And how? In the history of the two churches there have been other periods of double patriarchy. Will this be the solution? A patriarchy in the West and one in the East until the death of Mar Mar Dinkha or Mar Addai? And what will happen to the bishops of both churches that now have jurisdiction on the same areas such as, for example, the two metropolitans of Australia and New Zealand, Mar Yako Daniel and Mar Meelis Zaia?
And, if while discussing one of the patriarchs should die will the bishops of his church accept willingly the authority of the outlived patriarch or will they feel disadvantaged? The common faith and liturgy may not be enough to solve these practical problems And that churches deal with them and not only with the souls of the faithful is clear by another of the points of the synodal document, the one in which after the reference to the multi-ethnicity and multi-religiosity of Mesopotamia the "Christians (Assyrians) are cited as one of the people composing it, and whose rights should be ensured in the constitutions of Iraq and Kurdistan.
A proposal that recalls that made by the Chaldean synod held in Ankawa in the same period that, instead, requested for the Chaldean component to be included as separate from the Assyrian and Siriac ones in the new constitution of Kurdistan. The almost contemporaneousness of the two synods does not permit to verify if one of the two proposals is consequential to the other. What is certain is that the church - the churches in this case – by these statements are increasingly participating in political life preserving the leadership role that they "naturally" had when the party plurality in Iraq was still a dream. And that in the face of a possible rapprochement of the two churches of the East the gap between them and the Catholic Chaldean is deepening.
And this despite both the synods called for unity with the sister churches.
