Persian Catholicate and Nestorianism

Introduction
Persian Church is the one of the ancient churches which is early controlled by the Patriarchate of Antioch. Later the Nestorian heresy swallowed in that church, the church of Persia divided into two groups. In that groups one group under the Nestorian Catholicose and the other group under the Patriarch of Antioch. In this short paper I would like to describe the Origin or Persian Catholicate and its division and the establishment of Persian Maphrianate.

1. Establishment of Persian Catholicate
The need of the establishment of the Persian Catholicate was the political problems of Persia. The political barriers between the Persian and Roman Empires and the bitter rivalry of its rulers made intercommunications between the two regions much more difficult and dangerous[1]. There were instances where clergy from Persia who were ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch were put to death alleging to be spies. The rulers of Persian Empire treated Christians as the spies of Roman emperor.[2]
Fr. Placid says:
The Bishop or Metropolitan of Seleucia used to receive Episcopal consecration from Antioch. But owing to the dangers attending on the journey to Antioch, the bishops of the East were given powers to consecrate him.[3]
It therefore, became necessary for the Patriarch to vest authority in an ecclesiastical dignitary to carry on the administration in the Persian region. Mosheim says that “the Patriarch of Antioch voluntarily ceded a part of his jurisdiction to Seleucia.”[4] So the Catholicos of Seleucia acted as the deputy of the Patriarch of Antioch[5], in the Persian Empire, with some exclusive privileges to consecrate bishops on behalf of the Patriarch.
Gibbon says:
The Catholicos were elected and ordained by their own suffragans ; but their filial dependence on the patriarchs of Antioch is attested by the canons of the oriental church.[6]
Neale says:
Still later, Nestorianism swallowed up the Catholicate of Chaldaea, which was, in a mannaer, dependent on Antioch.[7] The See of Antioch allowed that of Seleucia to consecrate its own Prelates, who were thenceforward called Catholici, i.e. Procurators-General, of Antioch[8].
Bernad says:
The St. Thomas Christians were receiving bishops sent by the Catholicos (Katholicos) of Seleucia who was subordinate to the See of Antioch. But when that See became Nestorian, they used to receive only those Bishops who were sent by that Catholicos who as before was subordinate to the See of Antioch. The See of Seleucia was subordinate to the See of from the very beginning. There is evidence for it in Canon II of the Council of Constantinople (381) which places the eastern dioceses (beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire) under the Patriarch of Antioch, who used to appoint an Archbishop, entitled Catholicos (Primatial Archbishop) to govern the Christians of India, Persia and other countries.[9]
From the above mentioned matters we understand that the Persian Catholicate was under the Patriarchate of Antioch and he had accepted the subjection of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

2. Nestorianism in Persian Church
In the previous section we have seen that the Catholicos of Persia obeyed and respected the Patriarch of Antioch[10]. When the Persian church was under Antioch, Nestorianism crept into the Persian Church.

2.1. Nestorius and Barsauma
In 428 A.D., Nestore was a bishop of Constantinople.[11] He showed great zeal against the few remaining advocates of the Arian heresy. But while combating one heresy, he fell into another. He had allowed Anastasius, a newly ordained priest of Constantinople to preach against the heretics. In one of his sermons, Anastasius said that it was improper to give Mary the title ‘Theotokos’ or Mother of God. ‘Let no one’, said he, ‘designate the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of God. Mary was merely human and God cannot be born of a human creature’.[12] The council of Ephesus in A.D.431[13], examined the writings of Nestorius, discussed the term ‘Theotokos’, and finally the Council unanimously condemned the doctrines of Nestorius. The writings of Nestorius, however, found favour with some influential persons, and two of them, Ibas and Thomas Barsaumaa, were obliged to leave the school of Edessa for their advocacy of the Nestorian heresy.[14] Barsauma was the bishop of Nisibis in (435-489).[15] The Nestorians, who had been turned out of their homes at Edessa, were protected by him. In 498, Babaeus, whom Barsumas had won over to Nestorianism, ascended the throne of Seleucia. The following year he held a synod in which the Nestorian party was organised.[16]
E.M. Philip says about this topic:
From the chronicles of Gregarious Bar Hebraeus, an intelligent and well-informed writer of the thirteenth century; we learn that Nestorianism was forced upon Seleucia by a treacherous act of Bar Souma, Bishop of Nisibin. The Catholicos, who was an orthodox deputy of the See of Antioch, was invited to a Provincial Synod to be held at Antioch. In reply, he communicated to his superior the dangers consequent upon his leaving his station. The letter contained some references to the hostile attitude of Pheroz, King of Persia, towards the Orthodox Church. This letter fell into the hands of Bar Souma, who availed himself of the opportunity to instigate Pheroz against the orthodox. The result was that the Catholicos was martyred, and a nominee of Bar Souma was elevated to the See of Seleucia. Not long after this, in a Council held in A.D. 498, Seleucia adopted the teachings of Nestorius, and its Head declared himself independent assuming the title of Patriarch of Babylon[17]

3. The Division of the Persian Catholicate
The Catholicos of Seleucia adopted Nestorianism in A.D. 498[18], and its Head declared himself independent, assuming the title of ‘Patriarch of Babylon’.[19] As a result of Nestorianism there are two groups aroused in Persia at the same time.[20] Many church under the Catholicos, some clung fast to the old and primitive faith, while others became converts to Nestorianism.[21] At that time of these disputes, there was a movement by Jacob Bardaeus.
See Mosheim says about Jacob Bardaeus’ work:
When the Monophysites were nearly in despair, and very few of their bishops remained, some of them being dead and others in captivity; an obscure man, Jacobus surnamed Baradaeus or Zanzalus, to distinguish him from others of the name, restored their fallen state. This indigent monk, a most indefatigable and persevering man, being ordained bishop by a few bishops who were confined in prison, travelled over all the East, on foot, constituted a vast number of bishops and presbyters, received every where the depressed spirits of the Monophysites, and was so efficient, by his eloquence and his astonishing diligence, that when he died, in the year 578, at Edessa, where he had been bishop, he left his sect in a very flourishing state in Syria, in Mesopotamia, in Armenia, in Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia, and in other countries. He extinguished nearly all the dissensions among the Monophysites; and as their churches were so widely dispersed in the East, that the bishop of Antioch could not well govern them all, he associated with him a Maphrian or primate of the East, whose residence was at Tagritum on the borders of Armenia. His efforts were not a little aided, in Egypt and the neighbouring regions, by Theodosius of Alexandria. From this man as the second father of the sect, all the Monophysites in the East are called Jacobites.[22]
In A.D. 559 Jacob Bardaeus consecrated Abudemmeh[23] as Catholicos of Seleucia, and the new dignitary bore the same relation to the Patriarch of Antioch as the Catholicos of Seleucia did to that See before the introduction of Nestorianism.[24]

3.1. Establishment of Persian Maphrianate in Tigrit
The Patriarch of Antioch established the Maphrianate. The Maphrian[25] owed allegiance to the Patriarch and was considered as the vicar of the Patriarch in Persia.[26]The title ‘Maphrian’ came into usage since AD 629. The office of the ‘Maphrian of the East’ was founded to take care of the orthodox faithful, living in the dioceses of the ancient territory of the Persian Sassanid Empire and who were under the Patriarchate of Antioch.[27] The transition of the title, from ‘Catholicos’ to ‘Maphrian’, was effected by the Syrian Jacobites to maintain their identity and distinctiveness from those who embraced Nestorianism. Tigrit was originally the main centre of the members of the Jacobite community and also the eastern head quarters of the Church.[28]

Conclusion
When we analyse this topic, Catholicose was Persian Origin and Maphrianate was only under the Patriarch of Antioch. We can explicitly say that the reestablishment of the Catholicate is protecting from the influence of the Nestorianism. And this re establishment helps to the protection of true Orthodox faith in that time


Foot Notes
[1] IORWERTH EIDDON STEPHEN EDWARDS, The Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998. p.411-413
[2] AUGUSTUS NEANDER, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, By JOSEPH TORREY, Crocker &Brewster, Vol.2, Boston, 1854. p.105.
[3] Fr. PLACID T.O. C.D., The Syrian Church of Malabar, K.E.JOB (Ed.), Changanacherry, 1938; Reprinted by GEORGE MENACHERY, The Nazranies, The Indian Church History Classics,Vol.1, SARAS, Trissur, 1998. p. 364.
[4] JOHN LAWRENCE VON MOSHEIM, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, JAMES MURDOCK, Vol.1, New York, 1854. p.324.
[5] FR.BERNAD, A brief sketch of the History of the St.Thomas Christians, ROMEO THOMAS(Ed.), St.Joseph Press, Mannanam, 1924; Reprinted by GEORGE MENACHERY, The Nazranies, The Indian Church History Classics,Vol.1, SARAS, Trissur,1998. p.295.
[6] EDWARD GIBBON, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman empire, J&J Harper, Vol. III, New York, 1831.p.270.
[7] JOHN MANSON NEALE, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Part1, London, 1850. p.124.
[8] JOHN MANSON NEALE, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Part1, p.141.
[9] FR.BERNAD, A brief sketch of the History of the St.Thomas Christians, ROMEO THOMAS(Ed.), St.Joseph Press, Mannanam, 1924; Reprinted by GEORGE MENACHERY, The Nazranies, The Indian Church History Classics,Vol.1, SARAS, Trissur,1998. p. 296.
[10] Fr. PLACID T.O. C.D., The Syrian Church of Malabar, ICHC, p.364.
[11] JOHN C.L. GIESELER, A Text book of Church History, Harper Brothers Publishers, Vol.1, New York, 1857. p.340.
[12] JOHN ALZONG, Universal Church History, Vol. I. Dublin, 1895, p.415-416; Cited in JOSEPH C. PANJIKARAN, The Syrian Church in Malabar, St. Joseph Industrial School Press, 1914; Reprinted by GEORGE MENACHERY, The Nazranies, The Indian Church History Classics,Vol.1, SARAS, Trissur,1998.p.280-281.
[13] THOMAS MILNER, History of the seven Churches of Asia, London, 1832. p.192.
[14] JOSEPH C. PANJIKARAN, The Syrian Church in Malabar, ICHC, p.280-281.
[15] JOHN C.L. GIESELER, A Text book of Church History, Harper Brothers Publishers, Vol.1, New York, 1857.p.354.
[16] JOSEPH C. PANJIKARAN, The Syrian Church in Malabar, ICHC, p.280-281.
[17] E.M.PHILIP, The Indian Church of St. Thomas, Kottayam, 1908, Mor Adai Study Centre, Cheeramchira, 2002. p.72-73.
[18] ELI SMITH, H.G.O. DWIGHT, (Eds.), Missionary Researches in Armenia: Including a Journey Through Asia Minor, and into Geogrgia and Persia, with a visit to the Nestorian and Chaldean Christians of Oormiah and salmas, George Wightman and Paternoster Row, London, 1834. p. 363-365.
[19] E.M.PHILIP, The Indian Church of St. Thomas, Kottayam, 1908, Mor Adai Study Centre, Cheeramchira, 2002. p.73.
[20] FR.BERNAD, A brief sketch of the History of the St.Thomas Christians, ICHC, p.295.
[21] P.T. GHEEVARGHESE, Suriyani Kristhiyanikal Nestoriar ayirunno? (Where the Syrian Christians Nestorians?),Mal., Parumala, 1907; Seminary Publications, Mulanthuruthy, 1994. p.24.
[22] JOHN LAWRENCE VON MOSHEIM, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History ; Ancient and Modern, By JAMES MURDOCK, Vol.1,New York 1854. p.417-418.
[23] G.CHEDIATH & G. APPASSERY, Bar Ebraya-Sabha Charithram-Randam Bhagam,(Mal.), Vadavathoor, OIRS, 1990. p.49.
[24] JOHN MANSON NEALE, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Part.1, General Introduction, London, 1850. p.152.
[25] The term ‘Maphrian’ is derived from the Syriac word ‘afri’, meaning, “to make fruitful”. In the mid 13th century the title ‘Catholicos’ was adopted by some occupants of the Maphrianate. It is this title that is being used in India today, while the title ‘Maphrian’ is no longer used.
[26] DAVID DANIEL, The Orthodox Church of India, Rachel David, New Delhi, 1986. p.85.
[27] E.R.HAMBYE, Dimensions of Eastern Christianity, Vadavathoor, OIRS, 1983. p.65.
[28] Dr.CURIAN KANIYANPARAMBIL, Suriyanisabha Charithravum Viswasa Sathyangalum (Mal.), Seminary Publications, Mulanthuruthy, 2003. p.788.

Christological contribution of Severious of Antioch to the Syrian Orthodox Church

Introduction
Severious was the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of the Antioch. According to Syrian Orthodox historians, he was the main defender of Syrian Orthodox Faith. The main works of Severious of Antioch are Liturgical works, letters, treatises, homilies, teachings etc. Most of the works are preserved in various libraries. Some works are published Patrologia Orientals. His homilies was delivered to a more varied audience as well as we can clearly visible his faith proclamation in his homilies. Those homilies are contained by main teachings of the Syrian Orthodox Church. He delivered that homilies in churches, monasteries and towns. Currently, Christian intellectual world conducting researches in the Christology of Severious.

A Short Biography of Severious
Severious of Antioch was born in 465 at Sozopolis in Pisidia ( The South western part of Modern Turkey) in a aristocratic family. His father was a senator. He completed his basic studies in Pisidia. Then he moved to Alexandria. From Alexandria he studied Philosophy, Greek, Latin and natural sciences at Alexandria and then he went to Beirut for his studies on Roman law to become an Advocate. Then he moved to Lebanon and intended to begin to practice the profession of advocacy. In that time he was attracted by the Christian religion and he decided to Christianity. He was baptized in 499 in Lebanon and he joined a Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Lebanon. This monastery is isolated from the world for a time, devoting him exclusively spiritual asceticism, the maceration of the body, separated from worldly activities. Severious ordained as a Priest Later he was elected Patriarch of Antioch in A.D. 512. At that moment he began to put in writing its conceptual development. The changing of political-religious imperial, religious intransigence with the arrival of Justin I in 518 Severious, was deposed from his chair. He was forced to abandon his Episcopal seat, and with it Antioch. Severious was able to return to Constantinople, between 531 and 536, where he enjoyed the direct protection of Theodora. At last he died in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 538.

Christology of Syrian Orthodox Church and His contributions
The Syrian Orthodox Church accepts the First three of the Councils. That is the Counicl of Niceae (325), The council of Constantinople (381), The council of Ephesus (431). The decisions of these Councils were not dominated by national or political agendas. These Councils defined the one true nature of the Incarnate God, proclaiming Jesus Christ as true God and true man; but united, without confusion and without division. Each of the regional Churches understood these gatherings as a sign of their ultimate unity, opportunities to witness in true Christian love. This faith was maintained until the de­velopment of the teaching of "two natures" framed at the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), which was contrary to the teachings of the above mentioned Councils. This fourth gathering attempted to justify a formula of "two natures" in Christ against the "one nature" The Syrian Orthodox Church explicitly believes that HE is One out of both. The Logos and the humanity constitute one nature not two nature, and union is established not with losing His original attributes. The nature of humanity was not dis­solved in the Divine, as Eutyches taught at one point, but rather the Divine made the nature of human immediately its own. After the union, Jesus Christ is One not two, knowing the distinction between the natures and not confusing one with the other. Philaxinose of Mabugh states that "We became sons of God, although
our nature was not changed, and Christ became a man by his mercy, although his essence was not changed.[1]
Severious of Antioch’s Christology based on the first three councils, influence of Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings and School of Alexandria. For Severious, the concepts of
Nature and Hypostasis , are synonyms, except that the term Nature could refer either to the specific (individual) or to the generic (non individual), while the term Hypostasis always refers to an individual.[2]Severious argues for two kinds of hypostases: the non self-existent and self-existent hypostasis. The combination or union of these two makes one complete hypostasis. A simple self-existent hypostasis is one that exists in its own right and is not composite: the Father or the Holy Spirit is a simple self-existent hypostasis. Christ, on the other hand, is one self-existent composite hypostasis, the product of a union of a simple self-existent with a non-self existent hypostasis. The simple self-existent hypostasis is the divinity of Christ, and the simple non-self-existent hypostasis is the humanity of Christ. [3]

Influence of Cyril of Alexandria
Firstly, that Severious considered himself to be a disciple of Cyril of Alexandria. Thus we should not read into any of his teachings an anti-Cyrilline meaning which is not justified by his complete commitment to a Cyrilline Christology. Secondly, that the writings of Severious should be read in continuity with those of Cyril and not as though they taught something different. Any obscure points in the teaching of Severious should be explained by the teaching of Cyril and not assumed to be at odds with it. Syrian Orthodox Church considered as central the Christological ‘mia physis’ formula of St. Cyril “one incarnate nature of God the Word".[4] St. Cyril’s formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula.[5]
Conclusion
Syrian Orthodox Church on the other hand opposes the Eutychian heresy that sees the in Christ's Incarnation, the humanity of Jesus swallowed up like a "drop of vinegar in a sea" of divinity. In the One Nature, both completely and fully human and divine, the properties of both continue to operate in the person of Jesus Christ. Both errors are avoided and rejected, serving as a balance for Syrian Orthodox Christology.

Foot Note
[1] Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (ed. And tr. A. VASCHALDE,
Dissertation for PhD; Rome: 1902. p. 164-5.
[2] E. W. Brooks, “A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch, from Numerous
Syriac Manuscripts (Letters I to LXI),” Patrologia Orientalis 12 Paris,1919.
[3] ABDUL MASSIH SAADI, Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions: A Case for Ecumenism, Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, p.50-52.

[4] Fr. Matthias F. Wahba, Monophysitism: Reconsidered, St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California.
[5] Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?". They mean by mia one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. Cfr. Fr. Matthias F. Wahba, Monophysitism: Reconsidered, St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California.

Other References

J.A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Vol. 1:2. Edinburgh, 1862.

George Dion Dragas, "The Anti-Apollinarist Christology of St. Gregory of Nyssa: A First Analysis," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42.3-4 (1997): 299-314

J. Egan, "Gregory of Nazianzus and the Logos Doctrine," J. Plevnic, ed., Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley. Willowdale, ON: 1975. pp.281-322.J. Jeremias, The Problem of the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Jacob Mathew, Christology of St. Severus of Antioch Mainly Basing His First Thirty One Cathedral Homilies, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the University of Salzburg, Austria, 2001.

Torrance IR, Christology after Chalcedon, Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite, Norwich, 1988.