### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says: > Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added] Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *). In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared: > We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. and in another place: > Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise. ### My question **Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively? If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians usually cite the authority of tradition in order to refute Protestants on any point where we have disagreement. Many Protestants also like to cite tradition; for instance, Luther and Calvin were adamant that they were not innovators, but simply returning to the doctrines of the ancient church which the Roman Catholics had drifted away from. However, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox point to institutional continuity and the idea of Apostolic Succession in order to argue that Protestant churches are not legitimate churches. Similar appeals to tradition and apostolic succession are made by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East and other splinter groups. For the purposes of this question, "traditionalist" refers to those groups which emphasize the Sacred Tradition as an additional authority beside Scripture, and emphasize the institutional continuity back to the apostles. Thus the principle branches of traditionalists are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These groups are all mutually not in communion with one another and have profound disagreements. **How do they discern which tradition is the correct tradition?** This is an *epistemological* question; while the particular disagreements among them are interesting and may serve as examples, I want to know by what methods traditionalists determine which tradition is correct. From my limited understanding, I see a lot of arguments that amount to begging the question. For instance, you might appeal to ecumenical councils, but how do you determine which councils are ecumenical? Only the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381) are recognized by all four traditionalist branches. (And it would appear from reading Wikipedia's article that even within a particular tradition, there may be different opinions as to which councils are "ecumenical".) Or you might appeal to the authority of the Pope, but that is exactly the point at issue. How do you know that the tradition of following the Pope is the correct tradition?

It is clear that the Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are much closer both theologically and geographically than the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. **But how different are the first two?** I am asking this as a member of the Orthodox Church who wants to know more about the Assyrian Church of the East. For example, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel of the Assyrian Church of the East, who is popular nowadays, said in [this recent video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxEiv1pjC4) at minute 0:10 that he is an "orthodox". Did he mean that he is *theologically* orthodox? I want to emphasize that **this question is about the differences between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church**. The quality and the validity of Mar Mari Emmanuel's speeches and the topic discussed in the video are *not* part of this question. All I can say is that I appreciate very much this man and his teachings. Also, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not part of this question By differences, I mean the **theological, dogmatic and tradition aspects**. For example: - *View on Jesus's Mother*. In orthodoxy, she is a very important figure and we pray to her very often and we call her "The one giving birth to God". I wonder how she is regarded in the Assyrian Church of the East - In Assyrian Church of the East, does the *Holy Spirit come from The Father* as in Orthodoxy, or from The Father and The Son as in Catholicism? - *View on divorce*. In Orthodoxy, divorce is not recommended and is often considered a sin. However, unlike the Catholic church, the Orthodox church allows divorces in extreme cases such as adultery, domestic violence and other things that ruin the marriage. What is the Assyrian Church's view on divorce? - *Are priests allowed to marry?* In Orthodoxy, not only that priests can marry, but *must be married* to become priests through the Holy "Xeirotonía". How is it in the Assyrian church? - Is *iconography* allowed in the Assyrian Church? In other aspects, I see clear similarities between the Assyrian Church and the Orthodox Church such as the priest's clothing and the white long priest's beard.

What is the understanding of the (Assyrian or Ancient) Church of the East on the Passion, considering their unique Christological doctrine? Do they believe that God suffered on the cross?

Are 'Nestorians' (Church of the East) still viewed as heretics by the Catholic Church? I asked this question because of the *Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East *.