Nicaea and the Chaldean Qūrbānā
1. The Council of Nicaea solidified the faith but also necessitated reinterpretation The Council of Nicaea was meant to bring peace and concord to the Churches in the Roman Empire during the Arian controversy. However, soon after its conclusion, different interpretations of the Council continued to divide the Churches sharply. It was only at the Council of Constantinople (380) that Nicaea found its completion, thanks to the efforts of the Cappadocian Fathers. Even so, Nicaea stood simultaneously as a symbol of the Orthodox faith, but still, at the same time, it had to be reinterpreted because of a new historical context, as became clear from the following councils. In Persia, in 410, Nicaea was accepted but within the old Church of the East formula. 2. Nicaea and the Chaldean Qūrbānā By 1681, most of the churches of the Diyarbakir region broke away from the Mosul Eliya line of the Church of the East to form the Chaldean, or the so-called Joseph, line. Rome recognized their separation on the condition of accepting the Western Latin understanding of “Nicaea.” This meant especially to adhere to the papal primacy and bring their liturgical traditions into accordance with the Latin one. However, with the leadership of Patriarch Joseph VI Audo (1848–78), this Chaldean branch began to reevaluate their Eastern traditions while trying to adhere to the demands of the “Latin Nicaea.” The tension became particularly evident during the successive reforms of their Qūrbānā, and it raised a fundamental question about the Chaldean Church’s identity: to what extent does it want to remain related to the “Church of the East,” while also being a member of the Roman Catholic Church community?