History of the Eastern Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
Hi, I have a question about the Eastern Catholic churches… 🙂
this might actually be a complicated question but I’m just looking for a quick summary…
when did these churches come back into communion with Rome? or were not all of them Eastern Orthodox first? (although I heard that the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church was never out of communion…)

hope my question makes sense?

I’m just wondering, how long was your particular church in communion with Rome? or did it never leave in the first place? 😉

thanks 🙂
 
Both the Italo-Greeks and the Maronites are the only two that can claim unbroken communion with Rome.

All the others, (including the Syro-Malabars), had a “reunion” at one time or another. The Chaldeans were in the mid-16th century, the Syro-Malabars in the late 16th century. The Syriacs in mid-17th century, and the Syro-Malankara in the 1930s. For the Ukrainians, I believe it was the mid-17th century. (The other Slav Byzantines – including Romanians and Hungarians even though they are not ethnically Slavic – followed at various times after that.) I’m not sure about the Armenians, but I think it may have been the 15th century (Council of Florence?). The Melkites were, I think, the mid-18th century. I don’t recall about the Greeks, Copts, and Ethiopians, but probably the late-18th/early 19th century (but that’s just a guess).

The above is just a quick run-down. The date ranges in the second paragraph are subject to clarification and/or correction by those more intimately familiar them. 🙂
 
The Italo-Albanian Church has been in union with Rome the whole time.
The Maronites were out of contact for at least 400 years, and reaffirmed their communion with the pope when recontacted.

Here’s a rough timeline:
  1. *]Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (Never separated)
    *]Maronite Church (patriarchate): (union re-affirmed 1182)
    *]Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): (1595)
    *]Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (1596)
    *]Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): (1611)
    *]Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (1628)
    *]Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): (1646)
    *]Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): (1646)
    *]Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): (1646)
    *]Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1692)
    *]Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): (1697)
    *]Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1726)
    *]Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1741)
    *]Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1742)
    *]Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1781)
    *]Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): (1829)
    *]Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): (1846)
    *]Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): (1861)
    *]Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): (formal status as a Church Sui Iuris, 1887; own bishops 1896)
    *]Russian Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): (1905)
    *]Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): (1918)
    *]Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): (1930)

    Sources:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church
 
Aramis said:
The Italo-Albanian Church has been in union with Rome the whole time.
The Maronites were out of contact for at least 400 years, and reaffirmed their communion with the pope when recontacted.

Here’s a rough timeline:
  1. *]Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (Never separated)
    *]Maronite Church (patriarchate): (union re-affirmed 1182)
    *]Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): (1595)
    *]Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (1596)
    *]Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): (1611)
    *]Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (1628)
    *]Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): (1646)
    *]Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): (1646)
    *]Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): (1646)
    *]Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1692)
    *]Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): (1697)
    *]Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1726)
    *]Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1741)
    *]Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1742)
    *]Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): (1781)
    *]Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): (1829)
    *]Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): (1846)
    *]Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): (1861)
    *]Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): (formal status as a Church Sui Iuris, 1887; own bishops 1896)
    *]Russian Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): (1905)
    *]Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): (1918)
    *]Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): (1930)

    Sources:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church
Click to expand...

  1. Two things:

    (1) we’ve sparred about what you call the “reaffirmation” of the Maronites before and I’m not reopening that discussion. Suffice it to say for the present purpose that being “out of contact” does not mean they were “out of union” before contact (with the West) was reestablished as a result of the Crusades.

    (2) For the Syro-Malabars, the dates for “formal status” etc are somewhat meaningless. The reunion was effected in the 16th century.
 
Monica4316 said:
Hi, I have a question about the Eastern Catholic churches… 🙂
this might actually be a complicated question but I’m just looking for a quick summary…
when did these churches come back into communion with Rome? or were not all of them Eastern Orthodox first? (although I heard that the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church was never out of communion…)

hope my question makes sense?

I’m just wondering, how long was your particular church in communion with Rome? or did it never leave in the first place? 😉

thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
Orthodox and Catholics split between 1054 and 1204. Parts of the Orthodox Churches established reunion with Rome from 1596 - 1905. These Churches which reunited with Rome form the different Byzantine Catholic and other Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Hi Monica,

The only Catholic Churches which do not have an orthodox counterpart are the: Latin, Maronite and Italo Albanian (although some state that there is an orthodox counterpart for this Church). Since history is clear that these Churches have no schismatic/heretical counterpart, it is equally true that these Churches have never broken thier communion with Rome. Keep in mind that all the Churches would pride themselves on such a honor of never seperating from Rome, but only the 3 Churches mentioned above or at least the Maronite and the Italo Albanian Churches since they are both Eastern can historicaly prove thier claim. Of coarse the Latin/Roman Church can’t be seperated from Rome.
 
The Apostle Thomas Christians in Kerala, who were evangelized by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD, who would be named the Syro Malabar Catholic Church, got their bishops from the Assyrian Church of the East, then the Chaldean Church till 1577. The history of how the Assyrian Church of the East related to RCC is unknown to me. The Apostle Thomas Christians in Kerala had had no direct contact with Rome. The first European to come to Kerala was Vasco da Gama in 1498.

When the Chaldean Church came in full communion with RCC in 1551, it can be said that the Apostle Thomas Christians came in union with RCC as well, after all they had Chaldean bishops until 1577.

The Roman Catholics via the Portuguese colony in Goa (established in 1510) stopped Chaldean Bishops from coming to Kerala since 1577. So Apostle Thomas Christians remained without their own bishops for 22 years. **In 1599, at the Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper), the Apostle Thomas Christians agreed to accept a Latin Rite Roman Catholic Bishop as long as they were allowed to follow their Syriac Rite of Addai and Mari introduced to them by the Assyrian Church of the East/Chaldean Church many centuries previously. **

From 1599 to 1887, the Apostle Thomas Christians were under a Roman Catholic bishop, after which they got their own bishops. So the year in which Apostle Thomas Christians (who became the Syro Malabar Catholic Church) got their own bishops cannot be counted as the year in which they came in full communion with Rome, for the chaldean church under which they were had come in communion with RCC in 1551 and at the Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper) 1599, they came under a Roman Catholic Bishop, even if they used the same Liturgy that the Chaldean Catholics did.
 
I’m sure brother Aramis only meant to indicate the years when the different Catholic Churches first had their OWN bishops, as distinct from having an apostolic administrator or legate over them. For example, there has been a Coptic Catholic presence in Egypt since 1582 for certain - it is simply that they did not have their own bishop until 1741.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I’m sure brother Aramis only meant to indicate the years when the different Catholic Churches first had their OWN bishops, as distinct from having an apostolic administrator or legate over them. For example, there has been a Coptic Catholic presence in Egypt since 1582 for certain - it is simply that they did not have their own bishop until 1741.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Does being directly under a Roman Catholic Bishop count as being in full communion with RCC, which was the question Monica asked. The Apostle Thomas Christians in Kerala, who would be named the Syro Malabar Catholic Church when they got their own Bishops, were under RCC bishops between 1599 and 1887, even while they followed the Syriac Rite of Addai and Mari.
 
The churches in question were non-extant or not in union prior to those dates.

The Maronites as “unia” begin with their reaffirmation of union. Prior to that, for some time, they were essentially autocephalous, with a theology that named the Bishop of Rome the head of the church, but no practical link. It changed the way they functioned.

to give a non-catholic example: It’s like the ROCOR… they were not in union with their titular patriarch until they finally formally reunited recently.

The Syro-Malabar issue is simple: The Syro-Malabar Church as an entity in the Church beings in the 19th C. That Thomas christians were in union prior is a different matter than when their Church came into union; it was essentially suppressed for 300 years by all the materials I’ve seen. The only dates that are NOT arguable for them are those of their Sui Iuris status and their return to their own bishops.
 
I agree with both sister SJ and brother Aramis’ statements, and there is really no discrepancy.

Our sister’s point (and mine) is that there were Eastern and Oriental Christians in union with the bishop of Rome even before their establishment as an organized sui juris body.

But our brother also has a good point - he is counting the moment when these Christians became sui juris entities (I think that is what he is saying).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Aramis said:
The churches in question were non-extant or not in union prior to those dates.

The Maronites as “unia” begin with their reaffirmation of union. Prior to that, for some time, they were essentially autocephalous, with a theology that named the Bishop of Rome the head of the church, but no practical link. It changed the way they functioned.

to give a non-catholic example: It’s like the ROCOR… they were not in union with their titular patriarch until they finally formally reunited recently.

The Syro-Malabar issue is simple: The Syro-Malabar Church as an entity in the Church beings in the 19th C. That Thomas christians were in union prior is a different matter than when their Church came into union; it was essentially suppressed for 300 years by all the materials I’ve seen. The only dates that are NOT arguable for them are those of their Sui Iuris status and their return to their own bishops.
Click to expand...
Maybe you have not come across the material possessed by the Syro Malabar Church itself. Maybe you should read up a little more on the conditions agreed on at Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper) in 1599. It was an agreement to let the Apostle Thomas Christians worship in their own Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari in their own churches without interference from Roman Catholic missionaries, even though they were to accept an RCC bishop. The period of conflict lasted between 1577 when the last Chaldean Bishop to Kerala died, and no other Chaldean bishop was allowed to come, and the Synod of Diamper in 1599 when Apostle Thomas Christians accepted an RCC bishop on terms of independence within RCC.

The Apostle Thomas community could not have grown large enough as a separate entity as it did by 1887 if it had been suppressed by RCC. If they had been suppressed for three hundred years as you claim, they would have disappeared completely by merging into the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church.
 
S_J_Thaikattil said:
Maybe you have not come across the material possessed by the Syro Malabar Church itself. Maybe you should read up a little more on the conditions agreed on at Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper) in 1599. It was an agreement to let the Apostle Thomas Christians worship in their own Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari in their own churches without interference from Roman Catholic missionaries, even though they were to accept an RCC bishop. The period of conflict lasted between 1577 when the last Chaldean Bishop to Kerala died, and no other Chaldean bishop was allowed to come, and the Synod of Diamper in 1599 when Apostle Thomas Christians accepted an RCC bishop on terms of independence within RCC.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the SMC was a sui juris Church already prior to the date given by brother Aramis, except that its bishop was Roman Rite?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
So you are saying that the SMC was a sui juris Church already prior to the date given by brother Aramis, except that its bishop was Roman Rite?

Blessings
Click to expand...
Apostle Thomas Christians in Kerala never accepted the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church at any time. The only complaint that has been made is that some parts of the Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari were Latinized. But they still used the same Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari in SYRIAC, and still do, in its Malayalam translation since Vatican II. Even English translation is being used in more recent times for those outside Kerala who are not likely to know Malayalam. Apostle Thomas Christians never used Latin, which is what the Latin Rite Roman Catholic converts, converted in the sixteenth century by Roman Catholic missionaries, in Kerala used at the time.

So Apostle Thomas Christians were an independent group under a Roman Catholic Bishop. It is merely a question of definition of a church. One cannot call an independent group a separate church as long it doesn’t have its own bishop. In that sense the Apostle Thomas Christians did not have a separate Church. But until 1577 they did have a Chaldean bishop. Apostle Thomas Christians were called Syro Malabar Catholics when they were given their own bishop in 1887. The name was to differentiate the two groups of Catholics in Kerala at the time, Latin Rite Roman Catholic converts since the sixteenth century and Syriac Rite Apostle Thomas Christians.

The Syro Malankara Church, who use the Syriac St James Liturgy, has a different history beginning jointly with the Orthodox Jacobites in 1665. They came in communion with RCC only in 1930.
 
As a church, it was suppressed. As for its practice, perhaps the term tolerated fits. It is kind of like asking “When did the Pope Become Catholic?”… in which case, the proper answer is either in the 1060’s, or at his baptism, or in John 21:15-22… when he three times is told to act as a shepherd. It depends on point of view.

There is a huge difference between permission to use a different liturgy and being a sui iuris church; the 9 forms of approved Roman Church Liturgy, not counting the Anglican Use, each speak clearly to the LACK of sui iuris status despite long standing (800+ years, for the Dominican Missal) separation of liturgy; that the Bragan, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian Rites, native to their respective Archdioceses, do not have Sui Iuris status seems a distinct suppression in favor of the Roman Missal.

So tolerance of separate missal is not the same as sui iuris… their love of their liturgy in the hands of bishops of different rite with no need to be hands off…

But it did not die, and that is why the Sui Iuris date is important… it is when their rite became legally free of Local Interference by Roman Bishops.
 
Dear sister SJ,
S_J_Thaikattil said:
Maybe you have not come across the material possessed by the Syro Malabar Church itself. Maybe you should read up a little more on the conditions agreed on at Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper) in 1599. It was an agreement to let the Apostle Thomas Christians worship in their own Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari in their own churches without interference from Roman Catholic missionaries, even though they were to accept an RCC bishop. The period of conflict lasted between 1577 when the last Chaldean Bishop to Kerala died, and no other Chaldean bishop was allowed to come, and the Synod of Diamper in 1599 when Apostle Thomas Christians accepted an RCC bishop on terms of independence within RCC.

The Apostle Thomas community could not have grown large enough as a separate entity as it did by 1887 if it had been suppressed by RCC. If they had been suppressed for three hundred years as you claim, they would have disappeared completely by merging into the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
When you say that “no other Chaldean bishop was allowed to come,” who imposed this rule? Was it the British authorities, or the Catholic Church?

Blessings
 
Aramis said:
As a church, it was suppressed. As for its practice, perhaps the term tolerated fits. It is kind of like asking “When did the Pope Become Catholic?”… in which case, the proper answer is either in the 1060’s, or at his baptism, or in John 21:15-22… when he three times is told to act as a shepherd. It depends on point of view.

There is a huge difference between permission to use a different liturgy and being a sui iuris church; the 9 forms of approved Roman Church Liturgy, not counting the Anglican Use, each speak clearly to the LACK of sui iuris status despite long standing (800+ years, for the Dominican Missal) separation of liturgy; that the Bragan, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian Rites, native to their respective Archdioceses, do not have Sui Iuris status seems a distinct suppression in favor of the Roman Missal.

So tolerance of separate missal is not the same as sui iuris… their love of their liturgy in the hands of bishops of different rite with no need to be hands off…

But it did not die, and that is why the Sui Iuris date is important… it is when their rite became legally free of Local Interference by Roman Bishops.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you let the church itself define what suppression means? The Apostle Thomas attended the Synod of Udayamperur (Diamper) in 1599 only on the condition that the Roman Catholic clergy would not interfere with their “religion” as the Roman Catholics chose to call it. All the attempts to get them to merge with the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic church had failed. They not only had their separate liturgy, they also worshiped in their own different churches. It was not like a Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church allowed the Apostle Thomas Christians to use their church for Qurbana for a couple of hours on Sundays. It is true that the Apostle Thomas Christians accepted to be under a Roman Catholic bishop, instead of a Chaldean one, but it was on the condition that the Roman Catholic bishop would allow the Apostle Thomas Christians their freedom to practice their “religion” in their own churches. It means they had their own priests and parishes. There was absolutely no danger of the Liturgy and the church dying out under those circumstances. That was what was agreed on. Apostle Thomas were never ready to give up their practice of several centuries and did not bow to any pressure to give up their church.

Therefore rightly the Synod of Udayamperur (1599) is considered the year in which Apostle Thomas Christians came in full communion with RCC, not the year in which they got their own bishops.
 
Dear brother Aramis,
Aramis said:
As a church, it was suppressed. As for its practice, perhaps the term tolerated fits. It is kind of like asking “When did the Pope Become Catholic?”… in which case, the proper answer is either in the 1060’s, or at his baptism, or in John 21:15-22… when he three times is told to act as a shepherd. It depends on point of view.

There is a huge difference between permission to use a different liturgy and being a sui iuris church; the 9 forms of approved Roman Church Liturgy, not counting the Anglican Use, each speak clearly to the LACK of sui iuris status despite long standing (800+ years, for the Dominican Missal) separation of liturgy; that the Bragan, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian Rites, native to their respective Archdioceses, do not have Sui Iuris status seems a distinct suppression in favor of the Roman Missal.

So tolerance of separate missal is not the same as sui iuris… their love of their liturgy in the hands of bishops of different rite with no need to be hands off…

But it did not die, and that is why the Sui Iuris date is important… it is when their rite became legally free of Local Interference by Roman Bishops.
Click to expand...
From what little I’ve read of the Indian Church, the Liturgy was the touchstone of their identity as Syriac Christians. It was over this specific matter that they came into conflict with and suffered much from the Portuguese. So though Liturgical practice may not indicate sui juris status in other contexts (i.e., in other countries), perhaps it is different in the Indian experience. The Rite of their bishop may not be as important to them as the freedom to celebrate their own Liturgy. So when sister SJ asserts that her Church was independent of the Latin Rite by virtue of their freedom to celebrate their Syriac Liturgy, then we should respect that and listen to her, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear sister SJ,

When you say that “no other Chaldean bishop was allowed to come,” who imposed this rule? Was it the British authorities, or the Catholic Church?

Blessings
Click to expand...
It has to do with the Portuguese Catholics who had established a colony in Goa, India in 1510 (long before the British came to India). They started to send Roman Catholic missionaries to Kerala and who were surprised to find Christians there, the Apostle Thomas Christians. Maybe the understanding at the time was that if you were not directly under the Pope in Rome, you were not a real Christian at all. Anyway it led to them stopping any Chaldean Bishop from coming to Malabar (Kerala) after the death of the Chaldean bishop Mar Abraham in 1577.

This rule was NOT imposed by Rome. It was done as part of Portuguese colonial Roman Catholic decisions.
 
Dear sister SJ,
S_J_Thaikattil said:
It has to do with the Portuguese Catholics who had established a colony in Goa, India in 1510 (long before the British came to India). They started to send Roman Catholic missionaries to Kerala and who were surprised to find Christians there, the Apostle Thomas Christians. Maybe the understanding at the time was that if you were not directly under the Pope in Rome, you were not a real Christian at all. Anyway it led to them stopping any Chaldean Bishop from coming to Malabar (Kerala) after the death of the Chaldean bishop Mar Abraham in 1577.

This rule was NOT imposed by Rome. It was done as part of Portuguese colonial Roman Catholic decisions.
Click to expand...
Having read so often that Rome is to be blamed for EVERY bad thing that has happened to Easterns and Oriental Catholics, it is refreshing to read your wise discernment between what Roman Catholic SECULAR authorities do, and what the Pope does.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top