Are there Nestorian Catholics?

I’m fancinated by the chart you posted, but I’m also scandlized.

Am I seeing this correctly? Under the Pope there is really a church that uses a Liturgy created by the renouned heretic Nestorius who was himself and his Nestorian heresy condemned by an ecumenical council! If I’m seeing right, how? How does the Catholic Church justify being in union with a church that honors a heretic condemned by the entire Church by using his Liturgy? I’m completely scandlized.

A general question that was triggered by the chart, which Saint created the Latin Church’s Liturgy? The chart didn’t say.

  1. Which Church exactly are you referring to as heretic?

  2. Be more specific, which liturgy of the Latin Church? There are a few

I’m not commenting on this post except to say that it’s 100% off-topic. If may, let me suggest that, if this matter is of interest to you, you start a new thread. :slight_smile:

The Pre-Tridentine Liturgy was composed by St. Gregory the Dialogist.

Hmm … I don’t see anything, in the post you quoted, saying that Nestorius created a liturgy (much less saying that it is used in the Roman Communion).

Interesting. I was aware of such problems in the case of Eastern Rites, but not in the case of the Dominican Rite. Or, to be more specific, I wasn’t aware that Dominican-Rite liturgies were ever celebrated in the United States.

Can you provide a link for further reading?

There is an anaphora attributed to Mar Nestorius used on rare occasions by the ACoE. I don’t really know if it’s used at all by the Chaldeans, but it is most certainly NOT used by the Maronites or any other of the West Syriac Churches, and never has been.

I’m didn’t refer to any “church” being a heretic, but that according to that chart, it shows under that Pope a church that uses the Liturgy created by the heretic Nestorian.

Looking at the chart it doesn’t list out any Latin Liturgies and doesn’t say which Saints wrote those Liturgies, which is why I asked since it does give that information for other churches under the Pope.

Thank you :slight_smile: Is that Liturgy still used in any Latin Churches? I ask because I’ve only heard of Tridentine & Norus Ordo Liturgies being used in the Latin Church.

Look at the Chart again under “11.” and the look at the church that uses it.

  1. Which Liturgy?

  2. It lists plenty of Latin Liturgies, look to the far right where it mentions Liturgies of the Roman Church.

God Bless,
BVMFatima

  1. The Liturgy of (heretic) Nestorius- on the chart at the top listed as “11.”

  2. Thanks missed that section of Latin Liturgies. The chart still doesn’t list which Saints initated those Liturgies. Do you know?

I’m didn’t refer to any “church” being a heretic, but that according to that chart, it shows under that Pope a church that uses the Liturgy created by the heretic Nestorian.

Looking at the chart it doesn’t list out any Latin Liturgies and doesn’t say which Saints wrote those Liturgies, which is why I asked since it does give that information for other churches under the Pope.

If you talk to Chaldean Catholics here on CAF, ComeHome2Rome, they will insist that the Church of the East (the East Syrian/“Persian” Church from which they ultimately descend) is not in fact Nestorian. I don’t really get it myself, but I guess it’s not my place to tell them what they believe (even though I have read enough CoE sources that defend Nestorius’ heretical position, so I find the protestations to be less than convincing…though I guess it’s possible for bishops and priests to misrepresent their own church’s beliefs). If they want to venerate Nestorius and still maintain that they are not Nestorians, that’s on them. For me it is enough that this has shut down any dialogue they once had with my church, so getting into “who’s a heretic and who isn’t” territory is almost beside the point. But, yeah…suffice it to say that seeing a liturgy of “Mar Nestorius” up there is not encouraging to the rest of Christianity, with the apparent exception of Rome (though this is not the only “huh?”-inducing seeming contradiction; after all, there are a sizable number of Eastern Catholics who also descend from the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, who as other threads have shown maintain devotion to uniquely OO saints like St. Jacob of Serugh…I guess we were heretical enough to cast away 1600 years ago, but not heretical enough to keep away in subsequent centuries as sections of what had been Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc. came under Rome).

Have no fear, for the Holy See has approved the Anaphorae of the Chaldean Catholic Church.

Also note this statement from the Holy See:The Assyrian Church of the East also uses two other Eucharistic Anaphoras, which are some centuries more recent: the Anaphora of Nestorius, reserved to five liturgical occasions, and the Anaphora ofTheodore of Mopsuestia, used from the beginning of the liturgical year till Palm Sunday, for approximately sixteen weeks. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari, however, is used during the longest and most important period of the liturgical year, which goes from Palm Sunday till the end of the liturgical year and covers about two hundred days. Moreover, the use of these three Anaphoras is not free, as in the Latin tradition, but prescribed by the liturgical calendar. In conscience of faith, the Assyrian Church of the East was always convinced to celebrate the Eucharist validly and so to perform in its fullness what Jesus Christ asked his disciples to do. She expressed this conscience of faith, whether using the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Anaphora of Nestorius or the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, independent from the fact that only the first two Anaphoras, of later origin, contain the Institution narrative.It should be added that, for the period of the Catholic Patriarchate under Patriarch Sulaka (1551-1662), no document exists to prove that the Church of Rome insisted on the insertion of an Institution narrative into the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

The history of liturgy is quite complex. The earliest recorded liturgy, which may never have been actually used, is of the “Apostolic Constitutions” and is the basis for the rite of Jerusalem, the Liturgy of Saint James, which was the basis for the Chaldean. (The Assyrian Church of the East was the daughter of Edessa, and was never included in the Patriarchate of Antioch.)

For more history see CNEWA:Around the year 300, the bishops were first organized into an ecclesiastical structure under the leadership of a Catholicos, the bishop of the Persian royal capital at Seleucia-Ctesiphon. He later received the additional title of Patriarch.
In the 5th century, the Church of the East gravitated towards the radical Antiochene form of christology that had been articulated by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, and fell out of communion with the church in the Roman Empire.


In the mid-15th century a tradition of hereditary patriarchal succession (passing from uncle to nephew) took effect in the Assyrian church. As a result, one family dominated the church, and untrained minors were being elected to the patriarchal throne.

When such a patriarch was elected in 1552, a group of Assyrian bishops refused to accept him and decided to seek union with Rome.

… for over 200 years, there was much turmoil and changing of sides as the pro- and anti-Catholic parties struggled with one another. The situation finally stabilized only on July 5, 1830, when Pope Pius VIII confirmed Metropolitan John Hormizdas as head of all Chaldean Catholics, with the title of Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, with his see in Mosul.

cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=59&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

OK, I see it:

“11 - Lit. of Mar Nestorius”

I’m following this discussion with some interest. Assyrian/Persian Christianity (as opposed to Latin, Byzantine, Oriental) is the tradition with which I am l least familiar. All I know is that whether or not they’re “Nestorian” is commonly disputed.

For now, I’ll presuppose out of charity that Nestorian teaching is rejected by the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. I mean, you just can’t be Catholic if you deny that the Holy Eucharist is supernaturally life-giving or that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word made flesh. You just can’t.

Well, we were wrong, dzheremi. For well over a millennium, both we and the Eastern Orthodox thought you guys were monophysite (Eutychian) heretics.

It may sound cliche to say that good communication only recently freed us from that mistaken opinion, but it’s true.

Assyrian Christianity is part of the wider patchwork of Syriac Christianity, so while they’re not “Oriental” as we understand that term, they’re not exactly a separate entity, culturally/ethnolinguistically. The designation “Persian” has to do with the imperial division that saw most of the East Syrians (Assyrians/Nestorians/whatever you call them) fall within the borders of the Persian Empire, and the West Syrians (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, “Melkites”) within the borders of the Byzantine Empire, but it was not such a strict division as we think of it today. Syriac Orthodox/West Syrians had plenty of dioceses within the Sassanid Empire, and I’m pretty sure the Nestorians also had their own within Byzantine territories by a certain point (they are mentioned, for instance, in some of the sayings of desert father Abba Phocas, who was based in Jerusalem; for a short description, see Wikipedia). There are Orthodox among the Persians. See, for instance, the desert father John the Persian.

For now, I’ll presuppose out of charity that Nestorian teaching is rejected by the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. I mean, you just can’t be Catholic if you deny that the Holy Eucharist is supernaturally life-giving or that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word made flesh. You just can’t.

While the Nestorian heresy is not a specialty of mine, I do not think he denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (or at least he didn’t in his Bazaar of Heracleides, which is the most complete work of his that I have read). HIs heresy was Christological in another way, in his radical disjunction between the natures of Christ, maintaining, for instance, that it is improper to call St. Mary “Theotokos” because she is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, rather than bestowing to Him His divinity. (So as it was understood by his opponents, he effectively created two persons within the one Christ – Jesus the human born of Mary, and Christ the divine, to be considered separately…)

The Latin Church liturgies are given on that chart, not with numbers, but in another section. They are: (Liturgy based upon Greek, rewritten in Latin ~ 370 A.D.)
Ordinary Form
Extraordinary Form (Latin)
Ambrosian (Milan)
Mozarabic (Spain)
Bracarensis (Portugal)
Cathusian
Anglican Use
The earliest source of the Antiochene Rite is that of the “Apostolic Constitutions” written down in the early fifth century and became the Ancient Roman liturgy, and the Liturgy of Saint James. From the Liturgy of Saint James the eastern liturgies are derived. The latter Roman liturgy was a hybrid from the Ancient Roman with the Gallican (derived from Syrian). (This is all over simplified.)

The teaching of Papa Abba St Cyril of Alexandria, accepted at the 3rd Ecumenical Council:

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, The Word was made flesh] let him be anathema.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema.

If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because the Word was made flesh, and has a share in flesh and blood as we do: let him be anathema.

If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, The Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.

If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.

If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this Together with is added * to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] The Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.

If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (ἰδικῶς ἄνθρωπον), who has become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord gives life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him * only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh gives life because it is that of the Word who gives life to all: let him be anathema.

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he has become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that gives life: let him be anathema.**

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.