The recently published article on Huyada.com by Nemrud Barkarmo, concerning His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II’s visit to Sweden, claims to defend the principles of the Church. In reality, the text constitutes a selective and dishonest attack—directed at members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and particularly at the Aramean-Syriac identity.
The author refers to an isolated quote from a 2015 interview, in which the Patriarch emphasizes that the cross is the Church’s only symbol. This is, of course, a fundamental spiritual principle. But to transform a single media statement into a universally binding norm—applied to every cultural expression or outdoor parade—is a serious misjudgment. The Church’s binding doctrines and pastoral rules are established through synodal decisions and official circulars, not through personal interpretations in opinion articles.
The matter becomes even more problematic when the author insinuates that the mere presence of the Patriarch at a reception in Örebro would imply his approval of every symbol visible in his proximity. It is unreasonable to expect a spiritual leader to be held accountable for every detail in a public celebration. Those who demand that the Patriarch distance himself from expressions of joy among his people clearly misunderstand both his mission and the Church’s pastoral responsibility.
The article’s selective approach is further revealed by its silence on other contexts. The very same groups now portrayed as a threat to the Church’s principles—for carrying Syriac flags—participated in and organized the official reception of Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III, head of the Assyrian Church of the East, in our shared cathedral, St. Aphrem’s Cathedral. That reception was conducted with dignity and honor—for a patriarch who openly uses the Assyrian designation and is often surrounded by its flag.
The reason no comment was made is obvious: to acknowledge that this event—despite the Patriarch’s Assyrian title—was held with dignity would have undermined the author’s purpose. It’s easier to remain silent when reality doesn’t support one’s own narrative. This makes the article’s selectivity both theologically weak and ideologically transparent.
It is clear that the article’s true intent is not to safeguard the Church’s symbols. Its purpose is to cast suspicion on designations other than the author’s own. Distrust toward the Aramean-Syriac identity seeps through every line, disguised as concern for ecclesiastical regulations. Such a strategy divides rather than unites. It portrays loyal children of the Church as a problem—while refusing to apply the same criticism to contexts that align with the author’s agenda.
If the author truly believed that the use of flags undermines the Church’s unity, he should also have directed his criticism at the Assyrian Church of the East, whose liturgical practices, buildings, and symbolism are often surrounded by Assyrian flags. But there, he remains silent—because it aligns with his own ideological stance. That speaks louder than the entire fervor of the text.
Anyone claiming to defend the cross would do well not to wield it as a weapon. The Church remains a spiritual community, not a battleground for symbolic control.
The Editorial Team