We must understand that the patriarchal See of the Church of the East, whether in Seleucia-Ctesiphon or Baghdad, were located there for the simple reason that both were the capital cities for the Persians and the Arabs respectively. The Patriarch of the Church of the East needed to be close to the Persian King and the Arab Caliphate, it was an issue of good policy. Having the See in those two capitals had nothing to do with the people of Babylonia. It is really ludicrous to claim that since the See was closer to Babylon, the ancient Chaldeans had some sort of upper hand in church affairs. It is truly wild how far some members of the Chaldean Catholic Church had gone. It is not surprising that some members of the Chaldean Catholic Church think this way when presumedly few of their best learned in the subject of the Church claim the following for example: Fr. Sarhad Jammo stated that: Five are the cities which have precedence in the world ...Babylon, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Byzantium. The rank of patriarchate has been given to each one one of these places not because of being a capital or having precedence, but because of its Apostle, Evangelizer, and its king. To great Rome it has been given for the sake of the two pillars that were installed in it: Peter, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the Teacher of Nations. This is the first see and head of the patriarchs. What a statement!! Please do not tell us that Rome hold a holier place to Christians than that of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Rome could be regarded as so today after it destroyed every original Church in the East! Fr. Sarhad Jammo stated elsewhere: The names of our last two kingdoms before becoming ruled by conquerors were Chaldea and Assyria. In the 16th century Christianity in Mesopotamia was reduced to a very special region and people. After the union of the Chaldeans with Rome the region where they lived corresponded to the land of the ancient Chaldeans. That is why they adopted that name. Likewise for the Assyrians and the land of the Assyrians.
Wow, how could a Ph.D. holder say such things?
Lets take a closer look at this paragraph.
1. Fr. Jammo: The names of our last two kingdoms before becoming ruled by conquerors were Chaldea and Assyria.
Answer: This is a gross mistake, since the name of the last two kingdoms were Assyrian and Babylonia. The latter was only ruled by Chaldean kings for nominal period, 87 years only.
2. Fr. Jammo: In the 16th century Christianity in Mesopotamia was reduced to a very special region and people.
Answer: True, it was the region of northern Mesopotamia (Assyria), inhabited by Assyrians.
3. Fr. Jammo: After the union of the Chaldeans with Rome the region where they lived corresponded to the land of the ancient Chaldeans.
Answer: The consequence of events are wrong. In the 16th century the name Chaldean was created as a result of union with Rome. And the land of those people who united with Rome (Mosul basically) was not the land of the Chaldeans, rather the land of the Assyrians.
4. Fr. Jammo: That is why they adopted that name.
Answer: Absolutely wrong. They were given that name to distinguish them from the Nestorians, there is no relation between these Assyrians who lived always in Assyria with the ancient Chaldeans of southern Mesopotamia.
5. Fr. Jammo: Likewise for the Assyrians and the land of the Assyrians.
Answer: Absolutely. The Assyrians had always lived and occupied northern Mesopotamia.Finally, few members of the Chaldean Catholic Church, insinuate that since the Patriarch of the Church of the East took the title Patriarch of Babil then the church was Babylonian and Chaldean in its nature!! This is a silly claim because the early Church of Beth Nahren comprised of many people such as Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Arabs, and many many other people depending where the church was. Just because the title Patriarch of Babil was used (a confusion between Baghdad and Babil as attested already) does not mean that the Church was dressed with a Chaldean or Babylonian ethnicity. Babylonia was very unique in its nature, it was a very multinational society from early antiquity, no one can claim superiority among the Babylonians, Arameans, Amorites, Gutians, Hurrians, Kassites, Chaldeans, Persians and many others who ruled Babylonia. Babil in this Church title does not mean Chaldeans ... lets face it.
|
