DOWNLOAD PDF THE CHURCHES OF EASTERN CHRISTENDOM

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : Orthodox Eastern Church blog.quintoapp.com Eastern Christianity consists of the Christian traditions and churches that developed distinctively over several centuries in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, Malabar coast of South India, and parts of the Far East. The Church, or rather the Church of the faithful, embodies the Christian faith, projects Christian hope, and gives life to Christian love. Christ entrusts His own Being to the Church, handing down divine Revelation, in oral form, and later recorded in written form, to constitute Tradition at large. In this Church, the truth is preserved, proclaimed, and shared sacredly among the faithful. This Church is the divine Workshop for the teaching and sanctification of the faithful. It is the depository of truths for their redemption. The Church is the whole strength of faithful and pious Christians. These people constitute the "royal priesthood" by their sanctification and dedication. The Church of the faithful embodies the "Conscience of the Church" in its pronouncements and missions. Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of the Church, is "the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" Rev. Therefore, the Militant Church on earth is a part of the Kingdom of Heaven, for the King is ever present to lead and sanctify the members of His own Mystical Body. He is "Jesus Christ, Who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" Rev. This Church of Christ has in its nature the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and develop the truths of Revelation; it is to be delved into from time to time to find and pronounce the truths of which the Church is the Pillar. The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but it is not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church, by nature and duty, from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines, and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church have assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, have believed that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, are not considered permanent until they are accepted by the "Conscience of the Church," the whole body of the faithful, clergy and laity, who must give their consent. The infallibility of the Church does not mean that the Church, in the assembly of the Fathers or in the expression of the Conscience of the Church, has already formally expressed all the truths of faith and norms. The infallibility of the Church is confined to the formulation of truths in question. This infallibility is not wholly a God-inspired energy, which would affect the participants of the synod to such an extent that they would be inspired to pronounce all the truths at one time as a whole system of a Christian catechism. The Synod does not formulate a system of beliefs encompassing all Christian teachings and truths, but only endeavors to define the particular disputed truth which has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. The Church of Christ and its divine nature, as set forth above, is the foundation upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to administer and nourish its faithful, thereby protecting its fundamental essentials. The essentials of the Orthodox Church and its members can be divided into four main correlated parts: These sacred Sources are essential not only for correct teaching and worship, but especially as Sources of the promises and covenants of God fulfilled in the Person of Christ. The Father, out of love and compassion, sent Christ to save mankind and to remain forever in the Ecclesia which He founded. The content of the Scriptures was written by chosen and inspired persons, prophets and disciples, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Supreme Author and Guardian under Whose direction and protection the Scriptures become the inspired and infallible Source of faith and salvation. The Fathers of the Church expounded the content of the Scriptures in sermons and homilies in order to spread their meaning and blessings so that the members of the Mystical Body of Christ would not be uninformed of the Good News for their spiritual welfare. In the Orthodox Church, the harmonious interpretation of the Revealed Word is necessary to present the faithful with a united, sound conviction. This does not mean that individuals, both clergy and laity, lack freedom to express their own spiritual insights, but the validity of these insights depends upon acceptance by other Fathers of the Church, without which it is wisest to keep silent and avoid being in opposition. Thus, the theologian of the Orthodox Church has the freedom to present the same truths of the Page 1

2 Scriptures in a new expression in order to contend with contemporary ideals and challenges of society. It is very important for the Church to provide sound interpretation of Christian Sources, so that the tendency of human imagination toward superstitious concepts can be curbed. The following are some fundamental teachings which are essential to the Orthodox Christian. Belief in the True God The Scriptures refer often to the nature and substance of God in which the Church should believe. It is characteristic that St. John recorded, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God" It is important that the Christian be led to believe not merely in a God, but specifically to believe in the "True God" as revealed in the Scriptures and in the Person and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Christian ascribes to the nature of the True God all attributes of the finest experiences he has known, from the enlightenment of the Gospel. He should see God as almighty, all-loving, and all-holy; as a loving Father and Creator; as a Spirit beyond place, time, and variation. Almighty God also is defined by the Fathers of the Church in terms that clarify what God is not. God as Creator created the heavens and the earth, the whole universe. Almighty God created man and provides for all his needs of life, giving sanctification as well as "newness of life" out of love. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in reality the declaration of the Christian faith, formulated and pronounced by the Ecumenical Synods of the One Undivided Church. It is impossible for the finite human mind to comprehend objectively the substance of the True God, true worship, and true norms of life. Human reasoning in regard to faith in the Holy Trinity is confined to formulating the truths which already have been revealed in the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The Church pronounces in its lucid liturgical confession: The Scriptures proclaim "to us there is but one God, the Father" 1 Cor. This fundamental belief in the Holy Trinity was the subject of all the Ecumenical Synods in which the unchangeable pronouncement on the Holy Trinity was affirmed. The truth can be reached only by faith, being above and beyond human comprehension. In the Orthodox Church, the Theotokos is highly honored, as expressed in praises recorded in the Scriptures with qualities mirrored in the Magnificat cf. Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens. The Church venerates the Theotokos as "holder of Him Who is illimitable For the Christian, the Incarnation of Christ is a mystery. Apostle Paul, the most keen interpreter of the life of Christ, in his epistle to the Colossians writes that it was "the mystery hidden for ages and generations, but now made manifest to his saints" Col. Jesus Christ was sent for this divine mission "when the fullness of time was come" Gal. Christ was born with two perfect natures, the divine and human, as God-man. When a Christian refers to Christ in the Old and New Testaments, he should presuppose the fact of the two natures of Jesus Christ which are made manifest in His Gospel and deeds. Another essential in the life of Christ, which is indispensable for the Church faith, is the Crucifixion of Christ, which is considered the end of His humiliation and emptiness on earth. The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ nails to the Cross the sins of mankind. The Church considers this divine event the "sorrowful Easter," for it is linked with His Resurrection. Christ presented Himself, as "the resurrection and the life" John Without this belief in the Resurrection, the preaching and the faith of the Church is in vain, as Apostle Paul proclaims cf. The belief of the Church is that, on the third day, Jesus Christ rose again. The Resurrection of Christ is considered by the Church to be the supreme declaration of faith. In the Orthodox Church, the justification and salvation of man depends on the standard of "faith which worketh by love" Gal. The Church firmly opposed the opinion that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and it pronounced the correct belief in the Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Orthodox Church does not use the phrase filioque, "and of the Son. It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the "filioque" phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The "filioque" phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. God instructed the first created human beings, Adam and Eve, in what they ought not to do. With them, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" Romans 8: For this reason, the Church uses sacred ceremonies instituted by Christ or His Apostles. The sacred ceremony of Baptism with that of Chrismation and the ceremony of the Holy Eucharist with that of Confession are the sacred Mysteria sacraments which every Christian should receive as an active Page 2

3 communicant of divine Grace. There are three other sacraments: They are granted to man, but are not obligatory, if not so desired. Jesus Christ commissioned His Apostles to "go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew The Church of Christ from the beginning baptized its members by a priest immersing them thrice in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Immersion baptism was the practice of the early Church. Only one baptism is allowed. Therefore, by dispensation, the Orthodox Church accepts as valid those baptisms performed in other Christian churches which baptize their members in the name of the Holy Trinity. By Baptism, the Church holds that all optional and original sins are cleansed by the Grace of God. The Chrismation of a newly baptized person is the confirmation of his faith which is "the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Christian confesses his faith and sin, especially before partaking of Holy Communion, as a spiritual preparation for communion with God. The very first word of Christ recorded in the Scriptures was "Repent," This is the only voluntary decision required of the Christian, asking a "change of mind" from evil and negligence to the active faith in God through communion with Him. Absolution of sins is a divine act, for only God can forgive sins. In the Orthodox Church, the priest merely reads prayers, using verbs in the passive voice, invoking the remission of sins by God. This ceremony of the Holy Eucharist is both His sacrifice for the salvation of man and a sacred mysterion. The Holy Eucharist is the seal of the proclamation of the communion with God. It is the only Sacrament offered by the Church in which the elements of bread and wine not only carry the Grace of God, as a mysterion, but are "changed" into and "are" the very Body and the very Blood of Christ, being a propitiatory sacrifice. The institution of the Holy Eucharist is recorded in Matthew Jesus, during that night of the Mystic Supper, took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: And he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This awesome sacrifice has been entrusted to the Church to be re-enacted and given to the faithful for the nourishment of their faith and the forgiveness of their sins in remembrance of the Lord. The Orthodox Church maintains the practice of the early Church of giving both the Body and the Blood of Christ to all communicants, both clergymen and laymen. Spiritual preparation is necessary for the recipient "to prove himself"; otherwise, he "eateth For the officiation of the Holy Eucharist, the Orthodox Church has four liturgies. Page 3

4 Chapter 2 : Eastern Orthodoxy Catholic Answers Churches Of Eastern Christendom and millions of other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more Enter your mobile number or address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. I also must begin with the disclaimer that I will be answering from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches. With that said, I will focus exclusively on defining some key differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Christians. Similarly, comparing Eastern and Western Christians will necessarily have to be even broader. For this reason, I must make a caricature of Western Christianity that will not fit all Western Christians at all times and in all places. My apologies are extended to those of whom this caricature is not representative. It is also difficult since Western Christianity is extremely divided. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping Roman Catholicism and Protestantism together I am aware that many Protestants actually reject this label and consider themselves a separate division altogether, perhaps rightly so in the case of Anglicans - however in this response I will only recognize the two divisions as stated yet treat all of Western Christianity as one group. Here are some of the primary characteristics of Western Christianity that stand in sharp distinction from Eastern Orthodox Christian views that I will use to define it: Oddly enough, the opposite charge is often made. However, close study of philosophy and history will reveal that Eastern Christians almost immediately began challenging Hellenistic philosophy and created a distinctly Christian philosophy, while due to historical and linguistic circumstances, much of Hellenistic thought and knowledge of the Greek language was lost in the West for some time and only rediscovered later, and was adopted uncritically by many theologians cf. The implications of this point affect every other point of difference. Western Christians believe that mankind has inherited some form of original sin from Adam and Eve that includes an inheritance of guilt. Western Christians generally believe that someone has to be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. In other words, mankind deserves to be punished but Jesus gets punished for us. Western Christians discuss forensic soteriology as an isolated issue within theology as distinct but related to anthropology, Christology and the theology of the Godhead, and focus on the ordo salutis which often defines the primary contentions between various Western Christian groups. I could go on but this will have to suffice again, this is a broad question. The Key Differences Between Eastern and Western Christianity With the above definitions and considerations in mind, I offer the following key differences. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and they are all interrelated: Historically, culturally, and linguistically, the two churches have grown apart. The East continued to mainly speak Greek until the 15th century, while the West soon forgot Greek and spoke mostly Latin and a mixture of other languages but Latin remained the ecclesiastical language through the Reformation - and it still is within Roman Catholicism. Conversely, Eastern Christians went through a long phase of assimilating, challenging, condemning, and modifying Hellenistic thought until a distinctly Christian philosophy emerged largely attributed to the Cappadocian Fathers. Alexandre Kalomiros explains this in his speech The River of Fire: Paganism is ignorance of the true God, an erroneous belief that His creation is divine, really a god. The pagan gods are parts of the world, and they are immortal because of the immortality of nature which is their essence. So man also is god and a measure of all things It is this pagan way of thought that was mixed with the Christian teaching by the various heresies. This is what happened in the West, too. They began to distinguish not between God and His creation, but between spirit and matter. They began to think of the soul of man as of something eternal in itself, and began to consider the condition of man after death not as a sleep in the hands of God, but as the real life of man, to which the resurrection of the dead had nothing to add and even the need of the resurrection was doubtful They declared Him incapable of coming into contact with inferior beings like men, because their rationalistic, philosophical conceptions did not permit it, and it was this belief which was the foundation of the hesychast disputes ; it had already begun with Augustine who taught that it was not God Who spoke to Moses but an angel instead. It was impossible for Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God was in reality good and loving, He Page 4

5 was not able to act lovingly. He was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do, in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men, and by this means was Necessity satisfied This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity. As a Hellenist, Origen had arrived at the same conclusions. God was a judge by necessity. He was obliged to punish, to avenge, to send people to hell. It was a punishment demanded by justice. This demand of justice was a necessity. God was obliged to submit to it. He was not permitted to forgive. There was a superior force, a Necessity which did not permit Him to love unconditionally. However, Origen was also a Christian and he knew that God was full of love. How is it possible to acknowledge a loving God Who keeps people in torment eternally? If God is the cause of hell, by necessity then there must be an end to it, otherwise we cannot concede that God is good and loving. This juridical conception of God as a instrument of a superior, impersonal force or deity named Necessity, leads logically to apokatastasis, "the restoration of all things and the destruction of hell," otherwise we must admit that God is cruel It is God Who is punishing these people by depriving them of His grace, by not permitting it to shine upon them. So God is the cause of the eternal, spiritual death of those who are damned. There is far too much that could be said here, so I will allow the quote to stand. I recommend reading the entire speech. Also, I know that the quote hits on a myriad of differences in worldview which really must be understood before the differences can be understood, as many of the biases inherent in Western Christianity are part of the Western worldview itself, but this will have to suffice for now. Also, as it stands, I would expect a large number of Western Christian rebuttals to this point. The two churches approach theology differently. The East takes an apophatic approach to theology while the West a cataphatic one this is somewhat of an unfair caricature as both groups take both approaches, and Eastern Orthodox generally balance both ways of doing theology - but again, these are broad caricatures. This represents a fundamental difference in how God may be approached intellectually. In the East, theology begins with the premise that God is unknowable in his essence, but we can encounter him through his energies. It is thus impossible for finite creatures to make cataphatic statements about their infinite Creator. Thus theology is something that the East does, it is not an abstract field of study. The purity of the nous that has been attained by the theologian is vital in the task of theology. The West largely approaches theology cataphatically within a Scholastic framework. The East views salvation as the process of theosis, and thus the Incarnation is the central event in redemptive history. The West views salvation through a multitude of singular events within the ordo salutis, and the crucifixion is generally seen as the central event although some Protestants would argue that the resurrection is the central event. In Eastern Orthodoxy as well as in Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism, salvation is synergistic, while in much of Calvinist-influenced Protestantism it is monergistic. The East believes that the central tenet of Western theology is that Western Christianity considers God to be the real cause of all evil - regardless of whether or not Western theologians acknowledge this position or not some staunch Calvinists admit this. Obviously many Western Christians would disagree. Eastern Orthodox Christians therefore have no need of justifying God cf. In Eastern Orthodoxy, evil is the estrangement from God who is life. Thus death is evil. Either way, since God is the Creator of all things, the West necessarily believes that God is the real cause of death. They also apply this to the soul, so that God is also the cause of spiritual death for mankind by punishing mankind in hell. What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us? What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God? Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God! Conclusion This answer is necessarily incomplete. Asking about how the East and West differ in regards to specific doctrines or positions is a much more attainable goal. However, given the broad question, this is my best attempt at answering it. Also, this is certainly a biased answer as it represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Obviously a Western answer will differ considerably. You may also wish to check out these responses of mine: Page 5

6 Chapter 3 : Christendom - Wikipedia The Eastern churches. Separated from the West, the Orthodox churches of the East have developed their own way for more than half of Christian history. Orthodoxy here refers to the two great bodies of Christianity that use the term to characterize their theologies and liturgies: the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy and the churches that constitute the so-called Oriental Orthodox communion. Definition of an Eastern Church An accident of political development has made it possible to divide the Christian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first by Diocletian, and again by the sons of Theodosius I Arcadius in the East, ; and Honorius in the West,, then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West Charlemagne, The division of Eastern and Western Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire. Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on the Eastern Empire at Constantinople; they are those that either find their centre in the patriarchate of that city since the centralization of the fourth century or have been formed by schisms which in the first instance concerned Constantinople rather than the Western world. Another distinction, that can be applied only in the most general and broadest sense, is that of language. Western Christendom till the Reformation was Latin; even now the Protestant bodies still bear unmistakably the mark of their Latin ancestry. It was the great Latin Fathers and Schoolmen, St. In a still broader sense the East may be called Greek. True, many Eastern Churches know nothing of Greek; the oldest Nestorians, Armenians, Abyssinians have never used Greek liturgically nor for their literature; nevertheless they too depend in some sense on a Greek tradition. Whereas our Latin Fathers have never concerned them at all most Eastern Christians have never even heard of our schoolmen or canonists, they still feel the influence of the Greek Fathers, their theology is still concerned about controversies carried on originally in Greek and settled by Greek synods. The literature of those that do not use Greek is formed on Greek models, is full of words carefully chosen or composed to correspond to some technical Greek distinction, then, in the broadest terms, is: The point may be stated more scientifically by using the old division of the patriarchates. Further legislation formed two more at the expense of Antioch: Constantinople in and Jerusalem in In any case the Roman patriarchate was always enormously the greatest. Western Christendom may be defined quite simply as the Roman patriarchate and all Churches that have broken away from it. All the others, with schismatical bodies formed from them, make up the Eastern half. But it must not be imaged that either half is in any sense one Church. The Latin half was so in spite of a few unimportant schisms till the Reformation. To find a time when there was one Eastern Church we must go back to the centuries before the Council of Ephesus Since that council there have been separate schismatical Eastern Churches whose number has grown steadily down to our own time. The Nestorian heresy left a permanent Nestorian Church, the Monophysite and Monothelite quarrels made several more, the reunion with Rome of fractions of every Rite further increased the number, and quite lately the Bulgarian schism has created yet another; indeed it seems as if two more, in Cyprus and Syria, are being formed at the present moment We have now a general criterion by which to answer the question: What is an Eastern Church? Looking at a map, we see that, roughly, the division between the Roman patriarchate and the others forms a line that runs down somewhat to the east of the River Vistula Poland is Latin, then comes back above the Danube, to continue down the Adriatic Sea, and finally divides Africa west of Egypt. But both these lands eventually fell back into the branches that surrounded them except for the thin remnant of the Catholic Italo-Greeks. We may, then, say that any ancient Church east of that line is an Eastern Church. To these we must add those formed by missionaries especially Russians from one of these Churches. Later Latin and Protestant missions have further complicated the tangled state of the ecclesiastical East. Their adherents everywhere belong of course to the Western portion. Catalogue of the Eastern Churches It is now possible to draw up the list of bodies that answer to our definition. We have already noted that they are by no means all in communion with each other, nor have they any common basis of language, rite or faith. All are covered by a Page 6

7 division into the great Orthodox Church, those formed by the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies the original Monothelites are now all Eastern-Rite Catholics, and lastly the Catholic Eastern Rites corresponding in each case to a schismatical body. Theologically, to Catholics, the vital distinction is between Eastern Catholic, on the one hand, and schismatics or heretics, on the other. But it is not convenient to start from this basis in cataloguing Eastern Churches. Historically and archeologically, it is a secondary question. Each Catholic body has been formed from one of the schismatical ones; their organizations are comparatively late, dating in most cases from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Moreover, although all these Eastern-Rite Catholics of course agrees in the same Catholic Faith we profess, they are not organized as one body. Each branch keeps the rites with in some cases modifications made at Rome for dogmatic reasons of the corresponding schismatical body, and has an organization modelled on the same plan. In faith a Catholic Armenian, for instance, is joined to Catholic Chaldees and Copts, and has no more to do with the schismatical Armenians than with Nestorians or Abyssinians. Nor does he forget this fact. He knows quite well that he is a Catholic in union with the Pope of Rome, and that he is equally in union with every other Catholic. Nevertheless, national customs, languages, and rites tell very strongly on the superficies, and our Catholic Armenian would certainly feel very much more at home in a non-catholic church of his own nation than in a Coptic Catholic, or even Latin, church. Outwardly, the bond of a common language and common liturgy is often the essential and radical division of a schism. Indeed these Eastern Catholic bodies in many cases still faintly reflect the divisions of their schismatical relations. What in one case is a schism as for instance between Orthodox and Jacobites still remains as a not very friendly feeling between the different Eastern Catholic Churches in this case Melkites and Catholic Syrians. Certainly, such feeling is a very different thing from formal schism, and the leaders of the Eastern Catholic Churches, we well as all their more intelligent members and all their well-wishers, earnestly strive to repress it. Nevertheless, quarrels between various Eastern Catholic bodies fill up too large a portion of Eastern Church history to be ignored; still, to take another instance, anyone who knows Syria knows that the friendship between Melkites and Maronites is not enthusiastic. It will be seen, then, that for purposes of tabulation we cannot conveniently begin by cataloguing the Catholic bodies on the one side and then classing the schismatics together on the other. We must arrange these Churches according to their historical basis and origin: This is, after that of the Catholics, considerably the largest body in Christendom. The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, this Church has been in schism ever since. The "Orthodox" it is convenient as well as courteous to call them by the name they use as a technical one for themselves originally comprised the four Eastern patriarchates: Alexandria and Antioch, then Constantinople and Jerusalem. But the balance between these four patriarchates was soon upset. The Church of Cyprus was taken away from Antioch and made autocephalous i. Then, in the fifth century, came the great upheavals of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, of which the result was that enormous numbers of Syrians and Egyptians fell away into schism. So the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem this was always a very small and comparatively unimportant centre, and Alexandria, losing most of its subjects, inevitably sank in importance. The Moslem conquest of their lands completed their ruin, so that they became the merest shadows of what their predecessors had once been. Meanwhile Constantinople, honoured by the presence of the emperor, and always sure of his favour, rose rapidly in importance. Itself a new see, neither Apostolic nor primitive the first Bishop of Byzantium was Metrophanes in, it succeeded so well in its ambitious career that for a short time after the great Eastern schism it seemed as if the Patriarch of the New Rome would take the same place over the Orthodox Church as did his rival the Pope of the Old Rome over Catholics. It is also well known that it was this insatiable ambition of Constantinople that was chiefly responsible for the schism of the ninth and eleventh centuries. The Turkish conquest, strangely enough, still further strengthened the power of the Byzantine patriarch, inasmuch as the Turks acknowledged him as the civil head of what they called the "Roman nation" Rum millet, meaning thereby the whole Orthodox community of whatever patriarchate. For Page 7

8 about a century Constantinople enjoyed her power. The bishop who had climbed to so high a place by a long course of degrading intrigue could for a little time justify in the Orthodox world his usurped title of Ecumenical Patriarch. Then came his fall; since the sixteenth century he has lost one province after another, till now he too is only a shadow of what he once was, and the real power of the Orthodox body is in the new independent national Churches with their "holy Synods"; while high over all looms the shadow of Russia. The separation of the various national Orthodox Churches from the patriarch of Constantinople forms the only important chapter in the modern history of this body. The principle is always the same. More and more has the idea obtained that political modifications should be followed by the Church, that is to say that the Church of an independent State must be itself independent of the patriarch. This by no means implies real independence for the national Church; on the contrary, in each case the much severer rule of the Government is substituted for the distant authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The process began when the great Church of Russia was declared autocephalous by the Czar Feodor Ivanovitch, in Jeremias II of Constantinople took a bribe to acknowledge its independence. The Holy Synod is simply a department of the government through which the czar rules over his Church as absolutely as over his army and navy. But this independence does not mean schism. Its first announcement is naturally very distasteful to the patriarch and his court. He often begins by excommunicating the new national Church root and branch. But in each case he has been obliged to give in finally and to acknowledge one more "Sister in Christ" in the Holy Synod that has displaced his authority. Only in the specially difficult and bitter case of the Bulgarian Church has a permanent schism resulted. Other causes have led to the establishment of a few other independent Churches, so that now the great Orthodox communion consists of sixteen independent Churches, each of which except that of the Bulgars is recognized by, and in communion with, the others. These Churches are The Great Church, that is, the patriarchate of Constantinople that takes precedence of the others. Under the Ecumenical Patriarch are seventy-four metropolitans and twenty other bishops. Outside this territory the Patriarch of Constantinople has no jurisdiction. The Ecumenical Patriarch, however, keeps the right of alone consecrating the chrism myron and sending it to the other Orthodox Churches, except in the cases of Russia and Rumania, which prepare it themselves. Bulgaria gets hers from Russia, Greece has already mooted the question of consecrating her own myron, and there seems to be no doubt that Antioch will do so too when the present stock is exhausted. So even this shadow of authority is in a precarious state. Alexandria covering all Egypt as far as it is Orthodox with only four metropolitans. Antioch, extending over Syria from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates as far as any Orthodox live so far East, touching the Great Church along the frontier of Asia Minor to the north and Palestine to the south, with twelve metropolitans and two or three titular bishops who form the patriarchal curia. Jerusalem, consisting of Palestine, from Haifa to the Egyptian frontier, with thirteen metropolitans. Cyprus, the old autocephalous Church, with an archbishop [whose succession, after eight years, rends the whole Orthodox world] and three suffragans. Then come the new national Churches, arranged here according to the date of their foundation, since they have no precedence. Russia independent since This is enormously the preponderating partner, about eight times as great as all the others put together. There are eighty-six Russian dioceses, to which must be added missionary bishops in Siberia, Japan, North America, etc. Carlovitz, formed of Orthodox Serbs in Hungary, with six suffragan sees. Czernagora, with one independent diocese of the Black Mountain. Page 8

9 Chapter 4 : Eastern Christianity - Wikipedia With the breakup of the Byzantine Empire into individual nations with nationalist Orthodox Churches, the term Christendom described Western Europe, Catholicism, Orthodox Byzantines, and other Eastern rites of the Church. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Their members number over million worldwide. The Orthodox agree doctrinally in accepting as ecumenical the first seven councils see council, ecumenical and in rejecting the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome the pope. This repudiation of the papal claims is the principal point dividing the Orthodox from Roman Catholics. Eastern Christians who have returned to communion with the pope are called Eastern Catholics, or Uniates; in every respect apart from this obedience to Rome, they resemble their Orthodox counterparts. This use of the terms Catholic obeying the pope and Orthodox belonging to one of the Orthodox churches is not technical, for both groups call themselves both Catholic and Orthodox see catholic church. The word Orthodox became current at the time of the defeat of iconoclasm in Constantinople. Orthodox acceptance of the seven councils resulted in the exclusion from their communion, on grounds of heresy, of the Nestorian, Jacobite, Coptic, and Armenian churches; it also involves holding a sacramental doctrine of grace ex opere operato see grace and of veneration of the Virgin Mary, two points differentiating the Orthodox from Protestants. Ritual and Liturgy The ritual that developed at the patriarchate of Constantinopleâ known as the Byzantine riteâ gradually replaced other local rites in the Orthodox East, and after the 13th cent. It is sometimes called the Greek rite, because the original language was Greek, but the liturgy has been adapted into Slavonic, Arabic, Estonian, and many other languages. The liturgy is not usually celebrated daily as in the West, and it is always sung. Leavened bread is used in the Eucharist, and communion is given to laymen in both kinds i. Infants receive communion and confirmation. The other sacraments are similar to those of the Latin rite, except in details; e. The frequency of confession varies in the different self-governing churches. The church buildings are generally square, with a solid sanctuary screen covered with icons iconostasis; for the style, see Byzantine art and architecture. Parish priests may marry prior to ordination; monks and bishops may not marry. Church Government The old mode of government was the patriarchate see patriarch, but now for the most part the churches, all of which are self-governing, are each governed by a holy synod, a board of bishops and laymen, often appointed by the government; where the head of the church is called patriarch, he is often only the moderator of the synod. The number of Orthodox churches recognizing one another as such is indefinite because of the fluid state of the relations of Orthodox bishops in countries to which communicants have emigrated. There are many churches apart from those directly under the patriarchs. A unique, ancient church is that of Mt. Sinai, made up of the monastery of St. Catherine and its subject houses. The archbishop is also abbot. The monastic community of Mt. Athos in Greece is of special interest. The Patriarchs and Churches The four ancient patriarchates enjoy the highest prestige. The patriarchate of Constantinople, having the primacy of honor after Rome, was set up when the Eastern capital was established; it included Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula. From the time of Justinian I the emperor controlled the patriarch absolutely. The patriarch was freer under the Turks, who gave him civil and religious jurisdiction over all the Orthodox within the Ottoman Empire. The patriarch of Constantinople never succeeded in establishing jurisdiction in the East comparable to that of the pope in the West. First the Russians, then the Greeks and the Balkan countries set up autonomous churches, always opposed by the patriarch, especially in the case of Bulgaria. In Turkey the patriarch now rules a remnant only, although some modern Orthodox churches in North and South America, Australia, and N Europe are under his direct control. The Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch are minority churches for the corresponding separated churches, see Copts ; Jacobite Church, as is the patriarchate of Jerusalem. The patriarch represents Orthodox interests in the shrines. There are seven national churches, each the traditional patriotic church of the people. The Church of Cyprus has been autonomous since the Council of Ephesus. The Church of Georgia is also ancient. In the 19th cent. The head of the Georgian Church is titled catholicos. The Russian Orthodox Church, the largest of the Orthodox churches, was led first by the metropolitan of Kiev, under Constantinople. The see was moved to Moscow, and in a new patriarchate was set up under the czar. The language of the ritual is Page 9

10 Church Slavonic. In, Peter the Great Peter I abolished the patriarchate and established a synod, which he controlled through its lay procurator. In the patriarchate was revived, just before the Bolshevik Revolution began the weakening of the whole church structure. In the disturbances of the revolution many priests and bishops were killed or exiled. Churches were plundered of their sacred vessels, and seminaries were closed. In, bishops residing abroad formed the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia, leading to a split in Russian Orthodoxy that continued into the 21st cent. Relations between the two groups improved beginning in the late s, and in they reestablished canonical communion, recognizing the overall authority of the Moscow patriarch while preserving the administrative independence of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia. In World War II, the Soviet government consented to the reopening of churches and to the election of a patriarch the first since The new patriarch and his successors were loyal to the Communist government. As the Soviet Union annexed lands after, the local Orthodox churches disappeared; the same was true of Catholic churches of the Eastern rites, and thus it was announced that the Byzantine-rite Catholics of Ukraine and Ruthenia had united with the Russian Orthodox. Gorbachev oversaw a period of improved relations with the Orthodox Church, granting it legal status, returning relics seized by the state in, and lifting other restrictions on worship. Since the end of the Soviet Union the church has seen enormous growth in Russia, and in it along with other religions recognized under Soviet rule was given special rights and legal exemptions. Legislation in gave the church the right to regain full ownership of its churches and other lands, and the Russian church now has relatively close ties to the government especially compared to other faiths. In former Soviet-ruled lands outside Russia, the post-soviet role of the Russian church sometimes has become controversial; in Ukraine, for example, many Orthodox believers have joined independent churches that are not subordinate to the Russian patriarch. It is the state church and legally much favored. The patriarch at Belgrade heads the Church of Serbia, which suffered restrictions under the Communist government of Yugoslavia and developed a strong nationalist bent in the s during the breakup of Yugoslavia. The Macedonian Orthodox Church declared itself autocephalous in, leading to condemnation from the Serbian church under which it had autonomy. The Macedonian church has not been recognized by other Orthodox churches, and an autonomous Macedonian archdiocese under the Serbian church also exists. The Church of Bulgaria was severed from communion by the ancient patriarchates in the 19th cent. Its ruler is an exarch. The Romanian Orthodox Church has a patriarch at Bucharest; it was probably the most carefully organized of the Orthodox churches. After the government announced that the Roman Catholic dioceses of the Romanian rite had been annexed by the Orthodox church; the status of these dioceses and their property has become a source of tension in the post-communist era. Other Orthodox churches are minority denominations of recent creation. The Japanese Orthodox Church became autonomous under government pressure It had its origin in a Russian mission founded in There are a number of autonomous Orthodox groups that began in emigration. Thus in the United States there have been separate hierarchies of Greeks, Russians, and others, sometimes in communion with each other. There have been many efforts to establish a single American Orthodox church, but no union has been effected. In several Eastern Orthodox denominations joined with Protestant groups in the formation of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America; almost all Orthodox churches in America are now members. With the collapse of Communist rule in the countries of E Europe during the late s and early s, their Orthodox churches revived and gained new members. Following the establishment in of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Russian patriarch, a breakaway church emerged and demanded independence from Moscow, but Constantinople refrained from endorsing the break. Relations with Rome and the West The relations between the Orthodox and the Western Church have been full of misunderstandings, which became grave as political and cultural ties loosened after the 5th cent. There were breaks between Constantinople and Rome in the 9th cent. In there was an attempt at reunion Second Council of Lyons, and in another see Ferrara-Florence, Council of ; the second was repudiated by Constantinople. In the Middle Ages the points at issue were papal authority, matters of worship and discipline, and the addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed see creed 1. There have been fractional reunions, notably the Union of Brest-Litvosk of Ukrainians, who retained their hierarchy and rites. A synthetization of Orthodox and Protestant beliefs was unsuccessfully attempted in the 17th cent. The following year the Orthodox churches with the exception of the Page 10

11 Greek church agreed to open a dialogue with Rome on equal terms. Contacts between the Orthodox and Rome continued into the s, but opposition to the dialogue is strong in some Orthodox churches. A Russian law granting special status to the Orthodox Church was widely deplored by Western religious leaders as contrary to the spirit of the ecumenical movement. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom 2 vol. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East 2 vol. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology ; D. Cite this article Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography. Page 11

12 Chapter 5 : Eastern Churches Catholic Answers First published in Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company. This is something many Latin Catholics are not aware of. I know one priest who describes himself this way: Well, it turns out that this man is what we call an Eastern Catholic, and belongs to one of 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. This essay will serve as an introduction for those Roman Catholics who are not very familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, this article is not dealing with such organizations, and instead is focusing on those Churches that are truly Catholic. Unfortunately, some people are very weary of, or sometimes, even show a hostility towards these true Churches including people I have known when they are unfamiliar with them. Many people misunderstand what the Catholic Church is in relation to the Eastern Churches. Now, we have the Catholic Church. No prefixes, no other labels, nothing else. We just have the Catholic Church, or if one wants to, we can refer to this as the Universal Catholic Church. As it turns out, there are 24 sui iuris autonomous or self-governing Churches within the Catholic Church. These 24 Churches are all in communion with one another and all recognize the primacy of the Pope in Rome. Usually, in the media and in other places throughout our daily lives, the entire Catholic Church is commonly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes it surprises me to see that so many people are completely ignorant, or know very little of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Many Popes over the last few hundred years have sought to safeguard the significance of the Eastern Churches, and bring Latin Catholics to a greater knowledge of their Catholic brothers and sisters. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world Dogmas cannot be rejected by Catholics, be they Eastern or Western. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. Furthermore, this means that any Catholic of a sui iuris Church may receive the sacraments and attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or Divine Liturgy, Holy Qurbono, etc. Each of the 24 Churches are fully Catholic; one can fulfill their obligation for Mass at any one of these Churches whenever they want. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. What the difference between these terms? Of course, to reiterate, all 24 of these Churches are in communion with the Pope in Rome. Below is a list of the six rites of the Catholic Church, followed by which sui iuris Churches are contained within them: Latin or Roman Catholic Church B. Page 12