|
1 members (KostaC),
382
guests, and
114
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,636
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 52
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 52 |
Each year at my parish's festival I give a history of our church to those not familiar with the Eastern churches. This year I a preparing a more in depth introduction, having researched a number of books and articles on church history, and would like a critical review by people here of my paper. I realize that my sources could have errors and biases that influenced the authors, intentionally or not, same with my personal feelings and beliefs. For this reason I would like to have it reviewed for potential errors by the people here. Please, if you do have corrections could you state sources so that I can list them as reference. Thanks in advance. Byzantine (Greek) Catholics: Who are we?
Before we can answer that question we need to understand how we came to be; and for that we need to explore church history.
After the Ascension, the Apostles and disciples of Our Lord formed a following which came to be known as The Way. This was, largely, a sect of the Jewish faith with members of The Way meeting in the local synagogues. After the decision of the disciples not to require Greek converts (Greek meaning anyone not Jewish) to meet Jewish regulations, they started to meet in what we would call house churches, basically homes of believers who were considered leaders in the community (only one such home church would exist in any given community). When the Temple in Jerusalem fell in 70AD the church from there dispersed throughout the Greco-Roman world, as far away as Spain and all along the African coast.
As the faithful in the communities grew in numbers they eventually outgrew the homes in which they were meeting. It was at this time that they began meeting in basilicas (large buildings used for public gatherings), with the wealthier communities eventually building their own basilicas. As the church became more accepted these communities started banding together, written texts were shared and disputes in teachings were discussed and resolved. Eventually community leaders were established to represent the faithful to other Christian communities, these became the first Episkopos (Bishops).
When the church became an accepted entity under Constantine, Ecumenical councils were held to settle long time disputes, and to attempt a unification of beliefs among the various Christian churches. Instead of serving to unify the churches, the councils ended up creating schisms when the various churches (including the Oriental Orthodox Church) refused to abandon their beliefs; many of these schisms exist to this day, and it is partially because of them that our church is what it is today.
One issue, which haunts us to this day is that created in the sixth and seventh Canons, that of precedence. In the Council of Chalcedon (451) the bishops gave the ancient sees the following order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, then Jerusalem. The reason for this order had nothing to do with apostolic successions, but was simply the order of importance of the cities in the empire. Had apostolic origins been the deciding point then Alexandria would have taken first or second place, and Constantinople would have been last. The other contention around this issue was over the understanding of the term "precedence", to a later Rome it would mean universal authority over the church, but at the time of the Canon it simply meant "first among equals". To put it in terms we could understand today, Rome was "Chairman of the Board", with no more authority than any other member of the board, simply a place of honor.
The first schism of the church was over the teachings of Arius, who believed that Christ was a being made by God, and was not divine. This exists today in the Jehovah's Witness cult. In our church we believe Christ is one person in the Holy Trinity.
The second schism occurred during the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and resulted in the separation of the church into two parts - Chalcedonian (Rome and Constantinople) and Oriental (Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, etc.). The theological dispute originated over the natures of Christ, with the Chalcedonian churches holding that Christ is of two natures in one person, and the Oriental churches holding that He is of one nature, mystically being human and divine.
Up to this point Rome and Constantinople remained united, though not without its tensions. In 588 the Patriarch of Constantinople decided to take upon himself the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, which Pope Saint Gregory objected to on the grounds, oddly enough, that no single person can claim to speak for the whole church. Today the situation is reversed, with the the Papacy claiming full authority over all of Christianity, and the Orthodox churches claiming that authority exists in the communion of the churches, not in the authority of one person.
Numerous issues over the centuries, along with political divisions, worked to separate the two wings of the Chalcedonian church until, in 1054, the divisions culminated in a mutual excommunication of both Patriarchs. In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the excommunication, beginning work on reconciliation, if not reunification. Unfortunately, this agreement was not accepted by all branches of the Orthodox church.
In 1595, 1693, 1700, and 1702, the people of our part of Europe left the Orthodox church and reunited with Rome. The impetus for this was the Turkish invasion and capturing of Constantinople, cutting the Patriarch off from the rest of his church.
In 1588 the emperor of Russia requested a separate patriarchate for Russia be establish, separating Russia from the authority of Constantinople, this was granted by the other three Patriarchs (with Constantinople unable to attend). The churches of the Ukrainian and Rusyn empires revolted against this, as Moscow was given ecclesiastical authority over all Slavic people, not wanting to be under the control of Russia. They appealed to Rome and, after much negotiations, the Greek Catholic churches accepted reunification.
Part of this union was for Rome to agree that the Greek Catholic churches be allowed to keep our Orthodox identity in literature and theology. The Filioque was not to be included in the Nicene Creed; liturgical service would remain in the Orthodox format; acceptance of the doctrine of purgatory would not be discussed; our Holy days would remain, and we would not have to accept Roman days (ex: Corpus Christi); communion of youth will not be prohibited.
Sadly, much of this was abandoned by our own people when the Byzantine faith was introduced to America; a combination of Roman Catholic petitions to the Papal Authority, and a desire of our own clergy and people to fit into American culture, resulted in much of our traditions being lost. Pope John Paul II, along with a resurgence among our people, resulted in the recent reintroduction of our ancient traditions back into the American churches, sans the married priesthood.
This is our history, this is who we are, and this is why, in the church introductions, that I refer to us as Orthodox. Not because we report to any Patriarch, but because the soul of our church is deeply imbedded in our Orthodox history and traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The Church had already begun its spread across the known world by the time the Temple fell. St. Paul probably reached as far as Spain before his second arrest and execution some time between AD 66-68. Christian Churches were being formed in Mesopotamia in the first half of the first millennium, and the legend that St. Thomas managed to get to India seems to have some support in the historical and archaeological record. The destruction of the Temple, affecting only the Jews and Jewish Christians, had little effect on the Church other than to make the Gentile Christians the predominant group within it.
As the Apostles moved out on their evangelical missions and set up new Churches, they appointed elders (presbyteroi) and overseers (episkopoi) to lead their congregations and to teach and preserve the Tradition as it was received by them from the Apostles, who got it from Christ. Both of these offices have their roots in the Jewish synagogue, and were used interchangeably during Apostolic times. The criteria for selecting presbyters and bishops were outlined by St. Paul in the Epistles to Titus and Timothy; the method of "laying on of hands" (Gr. cheirotoneia; Lat. ordinatio) is seen in the selection of Matthias to replace Judas in Acts of the Apostles.
Initially, all Churches were local, and considered to possess the fullness of the Christian faith through the Apostolic succession of their bishops. But from the beginning, all Churches acknowledged certain others as having a higher degree of authority and prestige than others. Initially, the Church of Jerusalem exercised oversight over the "daughter Churches" established by Peter, Paul and the other Apostles. With the fall of Jerusalem, and the gradual dying out of the Apostles, that mantle gradually fell on three Churches which, by virtue of their location in the principal cities of the Roman Empire, began exercising influence over the Churches in their region. These cities were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, but, with the exception of Alexandria, the authority they exercised was more moral than juridical. The Council of Nicaea effectively ratified this arrangement, defining the territory over which each of these Churches had responsibility; gradually the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch began to be addressed as "Patriarchs" and, in the case of Rome and Alexandria, "Pope".
When the capital of the Roman Empire removed to Byzantium, renamed Constantinople, there was a shift in prestige away from Rome towards the new Capital. The notion that ecclesiastical organization should mirror civil organization led to the elevation of Constantinople to a co-equal position with Rome by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. This was reaffirmed at the Council of Chalcedon, which also elevated Jerusalem as the fifth (and junior) patriarchate, due to its role as "Mother of Churches" (as well as the vast wealth it controlled via the pilgrim trade).
Over time, the theology, spirituality and liturgical practices of each Patriarchate came to reflect the broader culture of the region in which it was centered. This led to the emergence of distinct "rites", understood as a spiritual patrimony peculiar to a particular Church or family of Churches. Thus, the Alexandrine Rite held sway over Egypt and up the Nile Valley into what is now Sudan and Ethiopia; the Antiochian rite over Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia; the Roman rite in Rome and the metropolitan provinces around it. There were also numerous rites, particularly in the West, that remained more or less local--the Gallic and British rites in France and Britain; the Mozerabic rite in Spain; the Ambrosian rite in northern Italy; and (probably) an African rite centered on Carthage. In the East, distinct rites arose in Armenia and Edessa (the latter now called "East Syrian). The Church of Edessa, being outside the Roman Empire, was largely unaffected by subsequent theological and liturgical developments. It was the center for those who rejected the Council of Ephesus in 431 (and was until recently known--inaccurately--as "Nestorian"). It always referred to itself as the "Church of the East".
The Byzantine-Constantinopolitan rite emerged between the 4th and 13th centuries as a hybrid combining the Antiochian rite, the court liturgy of Constantinople, and the monastic usage of the Monastery of Studios in Constantinople as well as the Monastery of St. Sabbas in Jerusalem.
The gradual separation of the Churches of Egypt and Syria that did not accept the Council of Chalcedon led to greater particularization of rites after the 7th century. The Coptic Church continued to use and develop the Alexandrian rite, while the Jacobite Church of Syria continued to use the old Antiochian rite (now called Syrian). The remnants of those Churches that accepted Chalcedon and remained loyal to Constantinople gradually underwent a process of Byzantinization, adopting the Byzantine-Constantinoploitan rite.
Those Churches now comprise the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the "Greek Catholic" and "Byzantine Catholic" Churches that separated from them to reestablish communion with Rome between the 16th and 19th centuries.
The Churches which rejected the Council of Chalcedon, formerly known as "Monophysite", is known known as the Oriental Orthodox Church, and consists of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Syro-Malankarese Orthodox Church. Note that several different rites are used within this communion of Churches--the Alexandrian rite by the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches; the Armenian rite by the Armenian Apostolic Church; the West Syrian rite by the Syrian Orthodox and Syro-Malankarese Churches.
The Church of the East, consisting of the Assyrian Church and the Syro-Malabarese Church, uses the East Syrian rite. Their Catholic counterparts, the Chaldean Catholic Church and Syro-Malabar Catholic Catholic Church, use the same rite, but heavily latinized.
In the West, the centralizing influence of Rome led to the gradual adoption of the Roman rite throughout the West, though the Gallic rite continued to be used in France until the 1870s, and the Mozerabic and Ambrosian rites (heavily Romanized) are still used in Toledo, Spain, and Milan, Italy. The Old Roman Rite itself went extinct in the 9th century, but had already been exported to the Carolingian Church in France and Germany. Here it combined with the Gallic rite to create a hybrid known as the Romano-Frankish rite, which was brought back to Rome by the German Popes of the 10th-11th centuries; it became the basis for all medieval Western rites, including the so-called Tridentine rite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 52
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 52 |
Thank you, but not exactly what I asked for. I am preparing a brief introduction, not getting into the minute details. I was looking for a critique of what I presented, not another "source" to extract from. Also, for a presented source, you did not post any references. I have about 3/4 hr to introduce people to our church, with about 15 minutes given to the history, 15 dedicated to our liturgy and a final 15 to the iconography.
The reason for the references is to give them valid places they can go to for additional information.
Last edited by Proskvnetes; 04/08/12 08:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I'm just giving it all to you so you can decide what to use and what to omit.
|
|
|
|
|
