Eastern Catholic Churches and their Orthodox Counterparts

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtkalehua88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jtkalehua88

Guest
I’m just curious, I’ve recently become interested in the different Eastern Churches of Catholicism, and I was just wondering what the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox counterparts of each particular church was? And which Apostolic See corresponds with each one, i.e. Coptic Catholic and it’s Patriarch of the See of Alexandria.
 
jtkalehua88 said:
I’m just curious, I’ve recently become interested in the different Eastern Churches of Catholicism, and I was just wondering what the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox counterparts of each particular church was? And which Apostolic See corresponds with each one, i.e. Coptic Catholic and it’s Patriarch of the See of Alexandria.
Click to expand...
I think Melkites are parallel with the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Look at how many Patriarchs there are of Antioch, though.
 
The Maronites are the successors of the See of Antioch. Following the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, most of the people in Syria rejected the orthodox Christology taught by Rome, instead falling into Nestorianism (the Church of the East) and monophysites (the “Jacobites” or the present day Syriac Orthodox Church). Those who remained loyal to Rome and to orthodox Christological doctrine were the Maronites and the “Melkites”, which at the time was a perjorative term used for upper class Greeks in the cities who were loyal to the Byzantine Empire. The Sassanid Empire conquered Syria in the early 7th Century, and from that time forward Constantinople began appointing a patriarch for Antioch who resided, not in Antioch, but in Constantinople. Meanwhile the Nestorians and Jacobites were appointing their own patriarch of Antioch. Finally in 685 the Maronites appointed their own patriarch, who was recognized as the Patriarch of Antioch by the Bishop of Rome. The Maronites continue this tradition of apostolic succession from Saint Peter, the first bishop of Antioch, to the present day.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church#History

Following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, the Greek Orthodox church under the patriarch of Constantinople received favored status as the representative of Christians in the Ottoman Empire and was able to exert control on Christians throughout the Ottoman Empire, including Syria. Following the crusades, Franciscan missionaries evangelized the population of Syria to Roman Catholicism, and were successful, leading to the conversion of the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch and his recognition by Rome early in the 18th Century. Constantinople refused to accept this and once again appointed its own patriarch of Antioch, using the coercive power of the Ottoman Empire to try to force its will. Those Syrians who followed this conversion to Roman Catholicism became known as the present day Melkite Greek Catholic Church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church#Communion_with_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Jerusalem was a small city and its population faced many massacres during the crusades, but its Christian population was generally split among the foregoing divisions.

A small number of Coptic Orthodox in Alexandria gradually converted to Roman Catholicism over the centuries, leading to the present Coptic Catholic Church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church#History

Likewise, a small number of Greeks in the area of Constantinople gradually sought communion with Rome, becoming the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church today

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Byzantine_Catholic_Church#History

I don’t know as much about the Eastern European countries, but Ukraine has a very large Catholic church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
 
Some have no Orthodox counter part. In example the Syro Malabar Church who’s only Non-Catholic counter part would be the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East both not apart of any Orthodox Council, neither Eastern or Oriental.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I think Melkites are parallel with the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Look at how many Patriarchs there are of Antioch, though.
Click to expand...
There are five patriarchs in Antioch.

Let me see if I understand the question correctly.

If you are asking about the 5 patriarchal sees (you mentioned Apostolic Sees), then (I have highlighted the Catholic ones in bold)

Rome: only Catholic Pope

Constantinopole: only EO Greek (there was a Latin patriarch, now extinct). There is also an Armenian patriarch but he won’t not be an independent patriarch like EO ones, being dependent on the Catholicos. As far as I am aware there are no Eastern Catholics in Constantinople, only Roman rite, largely expats.

Antioch: (i) EO Greek (title: Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East) ; (ii) Melkite (title: the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem) - Catholic counterpart of (i) who covers the Greek Eastern Catholics in Alexandria and Jerusalem as well; (iii) Jacobite Syriac (title: Patriarch of Antioch and All the East)- Oriental Orthodox; (iv) **Catholic Syriac **(title: Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Syrians) - Catholic counterpart of (iii) and covers the Syro-Malankarese Catholics in India as well; (iv) Maronite (title: Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant) - Catholic with no EO/OO counterpart. (there was a Latin patriarch, now extinct). All five patriarchs are based in Damascus except the Maronite & Syriac Catholic (iv) based in Beirut. All five recognises the same Apostolic Succession until 6th century

Alexandria: (i) Coptic - Oriental Orthodox; (ii) Coptic Catholic - Catholic counterpart of (i) and covers the Ethiopian rite Catholics as well; (iii) EO Greek. The head of the Greek Catholics in Alexandria is the Melkite patriarch.

Jerusalem: only EO Greek. There are also a Latin and an Armenian patriarch but they are not independent, being dependent on the Pope and the Catholicos respectively. The head of the Greek Catholics in Jerusalem is the Melkite patriarch. Armenian Catholics are under the Armenian patriarch represented by a local patriarchal vicar.

If you wish to add the following ancient sees
Babylon: (i) Assyrian - neither EO or OO. Neither do they like to be called Nestorian; (ii) Chaldean - Catholic counterpart of (i) and covers (correct me her Thomas48 if I am mistaken) the Syro-Malabarese Catholics in India as well.

Armenia: This one is a little confusing. (i) Armenian Supreme Patriarch with the title of Catholicos of all Armenians (ii) Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia, Catholic counterpart of (i) based in Beirut as most Armenian Catholics are in Lebanon & Syria. There is also a Catholicos of Cilicia dependent on (i) whose title outranks patriarchs in the Armenian Church. (Cilicia was an ancient region in SW Turkey, no longer having any Christians)

Ethiopian & Eritrea: There is is an OO Abuna in each country with the rank of patriarch independent of Alexandria in the same way as the EO patriarchs are of Constantinople (ie., administratively independent, doctrinally dependent but any independent course would be dependent on the politics and personalities involved). Heads of neither Catholic counterpart has the rank of patriarch, being only archbishops.

India: (Thomas48 can help me out here) There is a Catholicos of the Malankarese, OO dependent on Jacobite patriarch. There is also a Mar Thoma church (more a Malankarese offshoot engineered by the Anglicans). Catholic counterpart for both is the Syro-Malankarese dependent on the Catholic Syriac patriarch. The largest of the St Thomas Christian Churches would be the Catholic Syro-Malabarese. Their orthodox counterpart would be the very tiny (<1000 members) Ancient church of the Near East, who are basically Assyrians. Both Catholic Churches are headed by Major Archbishops, one rank below patriarch.

Sinai: St Catherine Monastery is technically an autocephalous EO Church and can be considered the only Orthodox Church without a Catholic counterpart.

Eastern Europe
Here, the only division is within EO, between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch vying for control/influence over the Eastern European churches.

The only place with a significant Catholic presence is Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (meaning Byzantine Rite, not that they use much Greek) is headed by a Major Archbishop. Their long running request for a patriarchate has long been a sore point with the Vatican. The EO in Ukraine are resented by three separate churches, not counting the Orthodox church that broke away from the Ukrainian Catholics.

All over Eastern Europe, there would be a mix of EO Byzantine majority and small Catholic Byzantine minority of the same rite (Catholic Byzantine Rite majority only in Western Ukraine). Even the small Ruthenian Catholic Rite (who are actually Ukrainian) would have a EO counterpart - just not by that name.

The only Byzantine Rite without an EO counterpart is the Italo-Albanian Rite, Byzantines left behind in Sicily after the Byzantine temporary conquest under Justinian. They only just got a bishop after over a millennium without one.

I think that covers it all. Always wanted to list them all down. I find the situation in Antioch, India and Ukraine especially interesting, what with schisms, counter-schisms and sub-schisms all over
 
The SyroMalankara Catholic Church is not dependent on tbe Syriac Catholic See of Antioch. The heads are equal in practice, while in rank of honor His Holiness the Patriarch is higher in rank than His Eminent Beatitude the Catholicos; another sister-church to the SyroMalankara Catholics is the Indian(Malankara) Orthodox Church independent of the See of Antioch also in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Neither is the Syro-Malabar Church dependent on the Chaldean Church. Both do have counterparts in the Assyrian Church of the East, had another division called the Ancient Church of the East. While small, they are not tiny, and in ancient times boasted the largest missionary effort in all Christianity, reaching China, Japan, India etc
 
SyroMalankara said:
The SyroMalankara Catholic Church is not dependent on tbe Syriac Catholic See of Antioch. The heads are equal in practice, while in rank of honor His Holiness the Patriarch is higher in rank than His Eminent Beatitude the Catholicos;

Neither is the Syro-Malabar Church dependent on the Chaldean Church. Both do have counterparts in the Assyrian Church of the East, had another division called the Ancient Church of the East. While small, they are not tiny, and in ancient times boasted the largest missionary effort in all Christianity, reaching China, Japan, India etc
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Syro-Malabarese used to be under the Chaldean Patriarch but no longer. Was the Syro-Malankarese ever under the Syriac Patriarch? Or was the hierarchy set up straight after reunion directly by Vatican.

The Assyrian church had an illustrious history in Asia, with at one point having over 600 bishoprics in Asia outside Mesopotamia, I presume many were in Kerala. Still don’t know why they disappeared. Do you? It has special resonance for those of us in South East Asia as archaeologists found remains of a 6th century bishopric in Sumatra, Indonesia. Muslims don’t like it as it means Christianity arrived in South East Asia before Islam.

When I said tiny I meant in India. Sorry should have made that clear. The Assyrian Church as a whole is only a fraction of the Chaldean Church. Let’s hope a prospective reunion can provide a boost to such an ancient and historic church, especially after the problems with ISIS.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Here is a good book for you to study that details all of the Orthodox, Assyrian and Eastern Catholic Churches:
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=54&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=hq&pageno=1
Click to expand...
Thanks I had always found the history of the Assyrians and the St Thomas Christians both fascinating and sad. Sad for the Assyrians for their decline from being so widespread in Asia, including having bishops at the court of the Chinese Emperor. Sad for the St Thomas Christians with the meddling by the Portugese.
 
jimkhong said:
I stand corrected. Syro-Malabarese used to be under the Chaldean Patriarch but no longer. Was the Syro-Malankarese ever under the Syriac Patriarch? Or was the hierarchy set up straight after reunion directly by Vatican.

The Assyrian church had an illustrious history in Asia, with at one point having over 600 bishoprics in Asia outside Mesopotamia, I presume many were in Kerala. Still don’t know why they disappeared. Do you? It has special resonance for those of us in South East Asia as archaeologists found remains of a 6th century bishopric in Sumatra, Indonesia. Muslims don’t like it as it means Christianity arrived in South East Asia before Islam.

When I said tiny I meant in India. Sorry should have made that clear. The Assyrian Church as a whole is only a fraction of the Chaldean Church. Let’s hope a prospective reunion can provide a boost to such an ancient and historic church, especially after the problems with ISIS.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason was the failed hereditary succession, which placed unqualified leadership. Second was disconnection due to Islamic conquests and the suppression of the Church. Another could be said to be the reunions of many factions to Catholicism.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Part of the reason was the failed hereditary succession, which placed unqualified leadership. Second was disconnection due to Islamic conquests and the suppression of the Church. Another could be said to be the reunions of many factions to Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Definitely the Islamic conquests was a major contributing factor. Maybe also the disruption from the Mongol attacks (I mean the Mongols led to the fall of Constantinople) even though the Mongols themselves seem to be open to religions.

The hereditary succession was an interesting feature of the Church. Do you know why it arose and when it was discontinued.

I am not so sure about the reunion with Catholicism though. That came later as by the time the reunions took place, the Assyrian Church was very much a pale shade of its former self, outside of Kerala (of course).

I would really like to know what happened to them in China. How history would have been different if they had succeeded.
 
Note that “under” is generally a bad word to describe church relations outside of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome, even for describing Eastern Catholic relations with the Pope.

“In communion” is generally more accurate, as “under” describes a command type authority that doesn’t exist in many/most of these relationships.

AMDG

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top