History of Eastern Catholic Churches

[Matthew_Holford]

Please forgive me if this topic has been covered before. Please don’t all groan at me: “oh, no not this question again”. I have run a search of the forum but I haven’t found what I was looking for. But, that means I have to second guess what words I need to put in the search.

I do not know anything about the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris.

1. What was the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris before they came into communion with the Holy See?
2. Were they already Churches sui iuris or, did they leave the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
3. Why did they choose to come into union with the Holy See?
4. I have seen posts in various threads from Eastern Catholics complaining about the introduction of latinisations into the Eastern Churches or that the Latin Church sui iuris subjugates the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris. If this is this case why did they choose union with Rome and if they left the Eastern Orthodox Churches why did they choose to leave?

I am of the understanding that in many ways Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris are similar to the Eastern Orthodox Churches such as liturgy, theology, etc.

I am not suggesting that the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris should break their union with Rome. I want to know what their status was before they entered into Communion, why did they enter communion, what relationship they have with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. If they are unhappy with their position regarding the position with Rome why do they remain in communion? Before they entered into communion with Rome they must have understood the position Rome takes regarding the supremacy of the Pope.

 

[Aramis]

1. What was the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris before they came into communion with the Holy See?

With a few exceptions, most were either Eastern Orthodox or Oriental orthodox church; in some cases, the entirety came into union; in others, a small portion of the synod.

The Italo-albanians have never been out of communion, tho’ an anti-pope suppressed them.

The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malanka have long histories, which are not entirely clear prior to the suppression by the Portugese missionaries.

The Maronites “lost contact” with Rome when the Byzantine Empire lost control over the middle east. They self-isolated, and may have even been heretics for a while. When the Crusaders retook the Holy Land, they willingly reunited with Rome.

The various Byzantine Rite churches were all Eastern Orthodox churches, coming over in whole or in part.

The Copts and Ethiopians were Oriental Orthodox.

1. Were they already Churches sui iuris or, did they leave the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Only 13 of them were Eastern Orthodox.

1. Why did they choose to come into union with the Holy See?

Varies. Unity with Peter’s Throne is usually cited.

1. I have seen posts in various threads from Eastern Catholics complaining about the introduction of latinisations into the Eastern Churches or that the Latin Church sui iuris subjugates the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris. If this is this case why did they choose union with Rome and if they left the Eastern Orthodox Churches why did they choose to leave?

The various treaties say that nothing was to be altered save adding papal commemorations. Not all popes upheld the treaties. Many parishes in the diaspora were suppressed, usually by ill informed or actively hostile Roman bishops, who refused faculties to immigrant married clerics, and refused to permit the retention of praxis.

The Maronites, however, were actively latinized, and had no protection by treaty; they have always been a patriarchal church…

The last 6 popes have all worked to restore the ECC’s to being proper churches.

 

[malphono]

The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malanka have long histories, which are not entirely clear prior to the suppression by the Portugese missionaries.

True, but it would apply to Syro-Malabars. The Syro-Malankara remained Syriac Orthodox until the 1931 “union” was effected.

The Maronites, however, were actively latinized, and had no protection by treaty

That would be far more applicable to the Syro-Malabars than to the Maronites.

The last 6 popes have all worked to restore the ECC’s to being proper churches.

Just a curiosity: exactly which 6 do you mean?

 

[Vico]

The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church has an interesting history. They were under the Patriarch of Rome initially then that territory switched to the Patriarch of Constantinople from the 7th to 11th century, and then came back under the Patriarch of Rome. Early years were Italo-Greek, latter years they are Italo-Albanian, almost being extinguished, except for the Abbey of Santa Maria di Grottoferra established in 1024 (just south of Rome). The natural territory is Southern Italy and Sicily.

 

[2maronites]

Greetings,

We are Maronites and thought there were 2 Copts, one in union/communion and one Orthodox. Excluding the Maronites, we thought most of the Eastern Rites had an Orthodox and one in union/communion. We love to learn so appreciate the info.

In Praise of the Most Holy Trinity,
2maronites

 

[Aramis]

Just a curiosity: exactly which 6 do you mean?

I don’t count HH JP I. Otherwise, B XVI, JP II, P VI, J XXIII, P XII, P XI. Each doing little things, but it all adds up to a renaissance.

And I’m not familiar enough with the Indian issue to sort the history out reliably… but the Maronites got latinized repeatedly over the centuries, and have been in union for almost a millennium…

 

[Aramis]

Greetings,

We are Maronites and thought there were 2 Copts, one in union/communion and one Orthodox. Excluding the Maronites, we thought most of the Eastern Rites had an Orthodox and one in union/communion. We love to learn so appreciate the info.

In Praise of the Most Holy Trinity,
2maronites

There are…

The Coptic Catholic Church is a splinter from the Coptic Orthodox
The Ethiopian Catholics are a mix of a splinter of the Ethiopian Orthodox, a splinter of the Eritrean Orthodox, and latins under the care of Ethiopian bishops…
The Chaldeans are a splinter of the Assyrian Church of the East; ISTR it was actually the larger part of the Synod. There is also the Ancient Church of the East, which is a separate schism of the Assyrian Church of the East…
The Armenians were one of three dioceses of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox

All of those are nominally part of the “Oriental” side. Their Orthodox side are part of the Oriental Orthodox, and in communion with Pope Shenouda III…

The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara, and the Kanyana (sp?), the Thomas Christians, all were suppressed by the Portugese where they could… whether in union or not.

Of the 14 Byzantine Rite Churches, One has no orthodox counterpart (the Italo-Albanian), and one’s got two Orthodox counterparts (Ruthenian… the Kyivan Patriarchate is the parent of both Ruthenian Catholics and of the UGCC… and the ACROD are a 20th C schism of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in the US… But the Kyivan patriarchate of then is not the KP of now, even tho all four make use of the Ruthenian Recension…) and one has 4 orthodox counterparts (UGCC has counterparts in the UOC-KP, UOC-MP, AUOC, and UAOC, but not one is actually the direct line of the original KP… for that moved to Moskva…)

The Maronites have no Orthodox counterpart, either.

And there are vagante groups claiming to be splinters off of many of them…

If you’ll pardon the pun, the history gets a little byzantine at times…

 

[malphono]

I don’t count HH JP I. Otherwise, B XVI, JP II, P VI, J XXIII, P XII, P XI. Each doing little things, but it all adds up to a renaissance.

Gotcha. I can agree (in whole or in part) with 5 of the 6. The one glaring exception in my view is Pius XII.

 

[Aramis]

Gotcha. I can agree (in whole or in part) with 5 of the 6. The one glaring exception in my view is Pius XII.

He gave us the bishops for the eparchies formed by Pius XI…

 

[Dimmgolosso]

Eastern Orthodoxy is still considered a valid part of the Catholic Church because they still hold to the Truth of Jesus Christ. Their Sacraments are still valid (because a large group of bishops and priests broke off for various reasons, but were not looking to change the fundamentals of the Faith) and they remain true to Christ.
paraslim