History Lesson: When did your Eastern Catholic Church/Rite enter into union with Rome & why?

[1Tim215Mommy]

I saw on a post that all Eastern Catholic Churches used to be Orthodox and, I already knew that, but it got me really curious about when each Eastern Catholic Church entered into union with Rome and also what the reasons or issues were that triggered them to leave and break union with Orthodoxy and enter into union with Rome.

I’ve studied the issues that were the underlying cause of the schism in 1054, but I’ve never studied anything about the reasons some Orthodox Churches that later united with Rome. I need to get education

 

[Vico]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=9279

I saw on a post that all Eastern Catholic Churches used to be Orthodox and, I already knew that, but it got me really curious about when each Eastern Catholic Church entered into union with Rome and also what the reasons or issues were that triggered them to leave and break union with Orthodoxy and enter into union with Rome.

I’ve studied the issues that were the underlying cause of the schism in 1054, but I’ve never studied anything about the reasons some Orthodox Churches that later united with Rome. I need to get education

There is some history here: cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

Ruthenian: archpitt.org/resources/history/archeparchy-of-pittsburgh

 

[Thomas48]

One thing to remember is that all of them were not Orthodox to begin with, yes a few but still a few had other origins. For example the Syro Malabar Church was originally considered an ecclesiastical province of the Church of the East. This province was known as the Great See of Angamli, by tradition the bishop of Angamali held the title of “Gate of India”.

The Syro Malabar Church only became in union with Rome around 1599. As you have asked, this union was triggered by the arrival of the Portuguese Catholics in India around the year 1498. Through the event known as the Synod of Diamper, the Portuguese Latin Catholic Bishop Alexio De Menezes, took claim of all the churches considered to be under the Church of the East. The Portuguese Catholics found the practices of the Native Christians ,both liturgical and traditional, to be heretical and schismatic. For this reason through the implication of the Synod of Diamper, they began the process known as Latinization (removing native ecclesiastical customs with Latin customs).

They began by burning all East Syrian manuscripts and any other texts of the Church of the East owned by the native Christians. Churches were white washed and repainted, images and icons of Isho Mishiha that gave Christ brown skin and black hair (A Middle Eastern Look) were re-imaged with Christ having white skin and blonde or brown hair. Sanctuaries were redesigned to have Portuguese Latin Catholic structures, they added things like the crucifix and icons of western saints. The last and perhaps most harmful aspect of the Latinization was that the Portuguese all but removed the East Syriac Holy Qurbana from the Native Christians, replacing it with Latin Mass. They did however allow them to retain small aspects of the Qurbana as well as continue to recite the Qurbana in Syriac.

Even through all of this, for centuries the Syro Malabar Church survived in faith and tradition. To distinguish them from the converted Catholics, European Colonizers noted the Syro Malabar Catholics as “Syrian Catholics”. In the late 1800’s through great strides by Syro Malabar priests and numerous petitions to Rome and Latin bishops, the Syro Malabar Hiearchy was restored. For the first time in centuries, the Syro Malabar Church was granted diocese’ of its own and hierarchs of its own. This gave the Syro Malabar Church the chance to grow and restore its ancient customs, which through the blessings of Christ is what happened. From the late 1800’s to today, the Syro Malabar Church began the great process of revival to its East Syriac Nature. Today the Syro Malabar Church is considered apart of the Eastern Catholic Portion of the entire Catholic Church and is the second largest of the Eastern Churches. It has 27 eparchies and a membership 4.2 million adherents in India and around the globe. I thought I’d share a little history I hope this helped.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=9279

There is some history here: cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

Ruthenian: archpitt.org/resources/history/archeparchy-of-pittsburgh

Sweet! Thank you

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Wow! That sounds awful. The Why in this case was because of force. Hearing that history, now I wonder why they remain united with Rome today?

One thing to remember is that all of them were not Orthodox to begin with, yes a few but still a few had other origins. For example the Syro Malabar Church was originally considered an ecclesiastical province of the Church of the East. This province was known as the Great See of Angamli, by tradition the bishop of Angamali held the title of “Gate of India”.

The Syro Malabar Church only became in union with Rome around 1599. As you have asked, this union was triggered by the arrival of the Portuguese Catholics in India around the year 1498. Through the event known as the Synod of Diamper, the Portuguese Latin Catholic Bishop Alexio De Menezes, took claim of all the churches considered to be under the Church of the East. The Portuguese Catholics found the practices of the Native Christians ,both liturgical and traditional, to be heretical and schismatic. For this reason through the implication of the Synod of Diamper, they began the process known as Latinization (removing native ecclesiastical customs with Latin customs).

They began by burning all East Syrian manuscripts and any other texts of the Church of the East owned by the native Christians. Churches were white washed and repainted, images and icons of Isho Mishiha that gave Christ brown skin and black hair (A Middle Eastern Look) were re-imaged with Christ having white skin and blonde or brown hair. Sanctuaries were redesigned to have Portuguese Latin Catholic structures, they added things like the crucifix and icons of western saints. The last and perhaps most harmful aspect of the Latinization was that the Portuguese all but removed the East Syriac Holy Qurbana from the Native Christians, replacing it with Latin Mass. They did however allow them to retain small aspects of the Qurbana as well as continue to recite the Qurbana in Syriac.

Even through all of this, for centuries the Syro Malabar Church survived in faith and tradition. To distinguish them from the converted Catholics, European Colonizers noted the Syro Malabar Catholics as “Syrian Catholics”. In the late 1800’s through great strides by Syro Malabar priests and numerous petitions to Rome and Latin bishops, the Syro Malabar Hiearchy was restored. For the first time in centuries, the Syro Malabar Church was granted diocese’ of its own and hierarchs of its own. This gave the Syro Malabar Church the chance to grow and restore its ancient customs, which through the blessings of Christ is what happened. From the late 1800’s to today, the Syro Malabar Church began the great process of revival to its East Syriac Nature. Today the Syro Malabar Church is considered apart of the Eastern Catholic Portion of the entire Catholic Church and is the second largest of the Eastern Churches. It has 27 eparchies and a membership 4.2 million adherents in India and around the globe. I thought I’d share a little history I hope this helped.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It is important to remember that all of the eastern churches were in union with Rome for the first thousand years of Christianity and that some have never been out of communion.

Without discussing fault, always remember that schism is an unnatural, sinful state, to be resisted, never a norm.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

1781

probably entered into communion due to a combination of factors. Namely: Primacy of Rome, Politics and Money.

 

[mardukm]

Dear 1Tim215Mommy,

The Syro-Malabar Church was not established by force. I think it can be said that the Latin Church in India was established by some measure of force, but the Syro-Malabar Church herself was not. There was always a remnant in India who powerfully maintained their East Syrian Tradition and resisted pressure to become Latin or West Syrian. It was this remnant that became the Syro-Malabar Church, and they did so willingly.

Admittedly, there is a philosophical question at stake. The East Syrians only had two options at the time of union - become West Syrian under the omophor of an OO bishop, or become Catholic and maintain their own Tradition; for reasons that seem lost to history, their regular contact with the ACOE had ceased by this time. They chose to join the Catholic communion in order to maintain their Traditions. There is a question of whether this choice was fully “free” given their limited options, but I don’t think it can be stated that such choice was “forced” by some outside party.

Blessings,
Marduk

Wow! That sounds awful. The Why in this case was because of force. Hearing that history, now I wonder why they remain united with Rome today?

 

[mardukm]

As far as the Coptic Catholic Church:

(going off of my bad memory here )

Attempts to establish good relations between the Coptic Orthodox and Catholic Churches have been evident since before Florence. There were always at least amicable relations between the CO and Catholics (vid., St. Francis). There were 4 or 5 formal attempts at reunion since (and including) Florence. The actual establishment of our Church was in 1895, and it was rather by “accident” (though there were remnants within Coptic Orthodoxy desiring union since Florence). The usual policy of Rome was not to establish Patriarchates, unless it was requested. Someone (I forget who - I think it was an Egyptian politician), wrote to the Pope of Rome that the Coptic Catholics wanted to have their own Patriarchate. The Pope of Rome responded accordingly (though mistakenly).

At the time of the establishment of our Church, there were about 5,000 Coptic Catholics in Egypt.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’ve read an Armenian Catholic history online (a long time ago) affirming that the Armenian Catholic Church was formed from remnants of Armenians who always wanted union with Rome. If I can find that history, I’ll post it here.

I’d be interested to hear the story of how my Syriac Catholic brethren came into union with Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MorEphrem]

Well, no one has represented the Maronites yet so I’ll say it. We’ve “always” been in communion with Rome, and, in fact, our loyalty to Rome is more important than our actual tradition itself.

Historical revisionism aside, Rome probably heard or knew nothing of Maronites from Chalcedon until the 12th century during the Crusades. What most likely happened is that following Chalcedon, the Maronites remained under the Patriarch of Antioch and it is offensive historical revisionism that it is now claimed our 350 monk-martyrs were slain by the Syriac Orthodox (more like Imperial Byzantine forces). Anyway, following the introduction of Maronites into Lebanon and the election of John Maron as a leader in the 7th century, we most likely did not break from communion with the Syriac Orthodox but we were in utter isolation (I’ve made the trek into the Qadisha Valley, I can see why there was isolation) especially under the Islamic invasion.

In the 12th century when the Latins were marching through Lebanon the purported revisionist story is that Maronites - most of whom were not learned and kept to themselves in their mountain locales - asked about the Pope. In reality, they probably had no idea who the Pope was unless there was some sort of myth kept alive for 4 centuries of the “successor of Peter, other than the Patriarch of Antioch, over the mountains and sea in that general direction” - highly unlikely. Following the Maronites encounter with Crusaders, a rather arbitrary date of 1182 is given for the “affirmation” of Apostolic faith of the Maronites. These dates, of course, are not a result of critical history but the inventions of a Patriarch in the 17th century based on folklore and they just keep getting rewritten as “history.”

Nothing eventful after that really. Post-Trent Rome started sending us orders to Latinize, which culminated in 1736. Nowadays, a Maronite cannot tell you what the name of our offices are or what ‘that Syriac thing at the beginning of mass’ we say means but they can certainly tell you that ‘we’re more Catholic than the Pope.’

 

[malphono]

Well, no one has represented the Maronites yet so I’ll say it. We’ve “always” been in communion with Rome, and, in fact, our loyalty to Rome is more important than our actual tradition itself.

Sad but true.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Syro-Malankara Church, led by Mar Ivanios of Bethany Ashram reunited with the Catholic Communion in 1930. The Malankara Church split - which continues to this day - between the Malankara Orthodox (those loyal to the Local Catholicos with his self-governing Synod) and the Syriac Orthodox (called Jacobite, loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch who ordains the local Catholicos selected by the local Synod) was the reason for the action.
As brother Mardukm, pointed out, the native Christians were initially all ChaldeanRite Malabar Tradition (East Syriac), forced to choose between being latinized or going for union with the OO (West Syriac). The Assyrian Patriarchate was also in flux, going in and out of Communion with Rome. When the Patriarch loyal to Rome arrived by sea in the late 1500s to quell the situation in India, he was arrested and sent to Rome by the Portuguese. Rome found the Patriarch to be without error and the Pope sent him back to India with the Papal letter and seal. The Patriarch was again arrested and sent to the Inquisitor, while on ship, he died. The native Christians thought he was drowned by the Portuguese and soon revolted.

The majority of the natives returned to Communion with Rome, when the Pope replaced the Portuguese Jesuits with Carmelites. Those who did not accept the Carmelites still used the East Syriac Liturgy. The Archdeacon in charge of the minority group wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, and others for help in getting a bishop there to ordain a local Bishop for them. Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem (Syrian Orthodox) came in the mid-1600s to India dressed as a layman and secretly ordained a native to the Episcopate. This is how the Syriac Orthodox Church became established in India.

The conflict between the Malankara Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox boils down to this: Was Mar Gregorios’ ordination of the local bishop to continue the Independent Church in the West Syriac Tradition in India, or was it to establish the Syriac Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Antioch there?

Since bishops have had considerable autonomy in the region, whenever there are two with differing opinions, conflict arrises and one chooses loyalty to the Patriarch, while another to the loyal Catholicos. And so it goes.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MorEphrem,

Form my limited knowledge, the Maronites have always been diophysite. That wouldn’t fit in with your statement that the Maronites were under the omophor of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch.

Your theory could be true, assuming the geographical isolation did not allow the Christological divergences to harden among the Maronites, so that by the time the Crusaders came, the Christological issue was no longer an issue at all. Interestingly, of the many accounts I’ve read regarding attempts at reunion between the CC and the OOC’s in the 2nd millenium, the Christological controversy was not what caused failure in the attempted reunions – and neither was it the Pope’s claims to primacy. Rather, it was the attempt by the Popes of Rome to impose certain Latinizations. (Of course, this rebounded on the issue of the primacy. The general mien was, “if primacy means having to give up our Traditions, then we’ll have none of it.” It was not the primacy that was the issue, but more the preservation of cherished and hallowed Traditions).

Blessings

Well, no one has represented the Maronites yet so I’ll say it. We’ve “always” been in communion with Rome, and, in fact, our loyalty to Rome is more important than our actual tradition itself.

Historical revisionism aside, Rome probably heard or knew nothing of Maronites from Chalcedon until the 12th century during the Crusades. What most likely happened is that following Chalcedon, the Maronites remained under the Patriarch of Antioch and it is offensive historical revisionism that it is now claimed our 350 monk-martyrs were slain by the Syriac Orthodox (more like Imperial Byzantine forces)…

 

[mardukm]

Rather, it was the attempt by the Popes of Rome to impose certain Latinizations.

**…**AND -for lack of a better term -Chalcedonianisms. Basically, though Christology was not an issue, Rome wanted to get rid of anything that could even be interpreted as monophysitism (in the heretical sense). Well, the OO knew that their beliefs were not monophysite in the heretical sense, so they saw no justification to get rid of Traditions just because some Chalcedonian THOUGHT those Traditions were too monophysite.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mardukm, Malphono, Rony, and MorEphrem,

While I am the first to point out the latinizing pressure applied to our Churches by the West, the hidden oft-ignored truth is, our Churches were not always being taught the faith appropriately nor was the leadership necessarily of qualified learned men. Many of our Churches still limited succession hereditarily, even into the 20th Century, despite many being despicable, ambitious, self-serving men. Not saying the Latins didn’t impose their arm on us, but we weren’t always historically being charitable Christians, even to our fellow worshippers. Why else are their competing nephews, uncles, brothers for the same Patriarchal throne, and three and four divided lines of sucession, even assassination and paying off the local tribal rules/sultanate to gain the See?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MorEphrem,

Well, no one has represented the Maronites yet so I’ll say it. We’ve “always” been in communion with Rome, and, in fact, our loyalty to Rome is more important than our actual tradition itself.

I don’t mean this to sound like I’m belittling your very valid comment, but I believe we have to keep in mind that the Petrine primacy has always, among the Syriac Traditions, been a matter of doctrinal importance. With that in mind, maybe some slack can be given for the decisions of your forbears.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for your exhortation, brother.

I look at the history of Latinization/uniatism as lessons about the necessity of the spiritual fruit of understanding as the only means to achieve unity, something we should not repeat.

Blessings

Mardukm, Malphono, Rony, and MorEphrem,

While I am the first to point out the latinizing pressure applied to our Churches by the West, the hidden oft-ignored truth is, our Churches were not always being taught the faith appropriately nor was the leadership necessarily of qualified learned men. Many of our Churches still limited succession hereditarily, even into the 20th Century, despite many being despicable, ambitious, self-serving men. Not saying the Latins didn’t impose their arm on us, but we weren’t always historically being charitable Christians, even to our fellow worshippers. Why else are their competing nephews, uncles, brothers for the same Patriarchal throne, and three and four divided lines of sucession, even assassination and paying off the local tribal rules/sultanate to gain the See?

 

[Thomas48]

Wow! That sounds awful. The Why in this case was because of force. Hearing that history, now I wonder why they remain united with Rome

Dear 1Tim215Mommy,

The Syro-Malabar Church was not established by force. I think it can be said that the Latin Church in India was established by some measure of force, but the Syro-Malabar Church herself was not. There was always a remnant in India who powerfully maintained their East Syrian Tradition and resisted pressure to become Latin or West Syrian. It was this remnant that became the Syro-Malabar Church, and they did so willingly.

Admittedly, there is a philosophical question at stake. The East Syrians only had two options at the time of union - become West Syrian under the omophor of an OO bishop, or become Catholic and maintain their own Tradition; for reasons that seem lost to history, their regular contact with the ACOE had ceased by this time. They chose to join the Catholic communion in order to maintain their Traditions. There is a question of whether this choice was fully “free” given their limited options, but I don’t think it can be stated that such choice was “forced” by some outside party.

Blessings,
Marduk

Whether the union was by force or not is debatable and all depends on how you interpret the situation. Yes, it is true that after the Portughese Catholics conquered their Churches, the East Syrians did not dissent but instead accepted the new bishops. At the same time, a portion of them revolted creating the West Syrian Splinter Group. During all of this we see that the Portughese impose all those cruelties to the East Syrian Catholics that I mentioned above, changing their liturgical tradition to the point where they were almost Latin Catholics. The acquistion of East Syrian Churches by the Portughese one can presumebly say was by force, they held the Synod of Diamper and that was it. Basically the message to the Native Christians, was “sorry you may have been doing this before but now you must follow this”. The union of or in this case, recreation of the Syro Malabr Church in 1887 can be understand as being unforced and a peaceful union. The Syrian Catholics asked for their own ecclesiastical authority and Rome, peice by peice granted it.

So why through all of these cruelties did the Syrian Catholics not join the West Syrian splinter group in 1599? Some Syro Malabar historians give you a couple reasons, the main one being that the Portugues Clergy were like litte birds in the ears of the Syrian Catholics. They would repeatedly state things like "You have no other bishop except for those we impose (meaning that the Church of the East is invalid), “The revolting group is herectical, the bishop they have ordained is not through proper ordination”, "Stay with us and we can offer you all of this (falsified rewards), “You only have few saints (Thomas,Mary,Kuriakose,Gregorios, Stephen, and other elder saints) join us and we have many more”, “The Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Christ”. Like this they had numerous statings, often they would seem quite desperate to exert their power. People often forget these social aspects of the historical turbulence that occurs.

Whether the union of the Syrian Catholics was by force or not can be argued but that of the Latin Catholics in India was purely by choice. The Portugese and other Latin Catholics prayed on the down traughted and those lower caste that could be easily converted. People like the Dalits and untouchables in Kerala took this chance of coversation to leave the caste system and better themselves socially. In the end they didn’t win either way, they had joined Christianity but the Christians of Kerala also played the caste game. The Hindus thought of the Syrian Chrisitans in high revere and placed them high on the social ladder. At the same time within the Syrian Christian society, the Thomas Christians and the Knanayas fought constantly and furiously over their spot on the ladder. The Syrian Christians having this history of social status, paid no attention to these Latin Converts and the Hindus thought them to be traitors. The Latin Converts who were previously poor villagers from fishing towns as well as untouchables/dalits/etc, found themselves in a whole new level of social outcast when converting. It is a sad part of Kerala Christian history but I beleive it deserves attention.

 

[twf]

While I by no means wish to belittle the true suffering Eastern / Oriental Catholics have experienced down through the centuries, I am getting a very distinct “woe are we!” vibe from this thread. The OP, who is Orthodox, asked a question and the general response of Eastern Catholics seems to be “our existence is one of woe - we were forced to be Catholic - it is all tragedy”. Surely there is more nuance to the reality? If not, why be Catholic at all?