On the origins of the various Eastern Catholic churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brandon_Cal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brandon_Cal

Guest
I know very little about the ECCs and I’m working on fixing that, but as I commit myself to self-study I’m finding the entire situation between the ECCs, their Orthodox counterparts, and the Catholic Church incredibly complex. I have a couple questions about the historical origins of the particular churches and their analogous Orthodox churches.

I was under the impression that for each Eastern Catholic church there exists a nearly perfect mirror image analogue in the Orthodox Communion but it’s becoming apparent that this isn’t always the case. I have found that in some cases a particular Eastern Catholic church is said to have reunited with the Catholic church before the “analogous” Orthodox church even existed. An example of this is the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. Wikipedia cites the year 1697 for “reunion” yet the Wikipedia page for the Orthodox Church of Romania lists 1872 as the year of its “independence”.

Since the Romanian Greek Catholic Church predates the Romanian Orthodox Church, which Orthodox church did the RGCC stem from? Would this be the same Orthodox church that the Romanian Orthodox Church later stemmed from? I’m assuming the “Greek Catholic” part of the RGCC name implies that the RGCC arose out of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If this is true does that also mean the Romanian Orthodox Church was granted its “independence” from the same Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Generally speaking, did all of the particular Orthodox churches (excepting only those of the Pentarchy) get carved out of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Generally speaking, do the words “Greek Catholic” found within the name of some (but not all) Eastern Catholic churches imply that they arose from the Ecumenical Patriarchate? I know this can’t be strictly true since The Melkite Greek Catholic Church (I believe) arose from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

I have many more questions, but they’re all contingent on the answers to those above so I’ll hold off on them until a couple people chime in on these. Thanks!
 
This is an area that us Roman Catholics also get confused about so you are not alone. I found some information below from the Romanian-Greek Catholic website. 😃

"On this general background, the religious union of the majority of Romanians from Transylvania with the Church of Rome took place, in 1700. This religious union was stated through three basic documents: “The Declaration of the Union”, issued by the Synod in February, 1697 and signed by the Metropolitan Bishop Teofil and his 12 archpriests; “The Book of Testimony”, signed by the Bishop Atanasie Anghel of Transylvania, and 38 archpriestst, gathered in Alba-Iulia in October 7, 1698; “The Leaflet of the Union”, signed by the same Bishop and 54 archpriests representing 1582 priests. These documents made the foundation of the Romania Greek-Catholic Church (B.R.U.), the Church that tied back the relationship with the Church of Rome.

The Union from 1700 was a union in faith and not in Rite, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church remaining an Oriental Church. That is why they were called "orthodoxes united with Rome.

The communist persecutions

On august 23, 1944, Romania was invaded by the Soviet Army and in March 6, 1945 the Communist Government was installed. One of the goals of the new government was to abolish the Greek-Catholic Church, considered dangerous for the communist plans. They started a campaign of disparagement of Holy Father, and the connections with Vatican were broken.

The government framed up that the Greek-Catholic Church “come back” in the Orthodox Church. They started to threaten the Greek-Catholic priests and bishops that they would be put in jail or killed if they didn’t sign their “return” to the Orthodox Church. The communist prisons were full of priests, monks and lay people who didn’t sign the “return” to the Orthodox Church. All the Bishops of the Greek-Catholic Church were put in prisons.

On the December 1, 1948, through a decree of the Great National Assembly, The Greek-Catholic Church was abolished because everybody “returned” to Orthodoxy. All its possessions were took by the Orthodox Church. Today a very few of these possessions were given back.

The Martyr Bishops

The communist persecution killed seven Greek-Catholic Bishops. Six of them were bishops when they were arrested (October 1948): Valeriu Traian Frentiu, Iuliu Hossu, Alexandru Rusu, Ioan Balan, Ioan Suciu and Vasile Aftenie, and one of them was ordained bishop in prison: Tit Liviu Chinezu. All of them died in prison or in forced residences, after long periods of sufferings.

The first martyr was Vasile Aftenie (1899-1950), who was tortured in the basement of Ministry of Internal Affairs, and died there. In the prison of Sighetul Marmatiei died Valeriu Traian Frentiu (1875-1952), Ioan Suciu (1907-1953), Tit Liviu Chinezu (1904-1955). The bodies of those who died there were buried in a field, so that we don’t know for sure where their graves are. Alexandru Rusu (1884-1963) died in the prison of Gherla.

Ioan Balan (1880-1959) and Iuliu Hossu (1885-1970) died, after prison and forced residence, in a hospital in Bucharest.

The Greek-Catholic Church started the process of canonization of these seven Bishops three years ago. They are the symbol of all the martyrs of the Greek-Catholic Church, and with the will of God they will be the first Saints of the Greek-Catholic Church.

The Church today

After 1989, the Greek-Catholic Church was officially recognized again. Without churches and with a great deficiency of priests because of the 50 years of persecution, the Church started its restoration.

Some statistics from the beginning of 1999 showed that the Church has around 700 priests, 850 parishes and 830,000 believers."

198.62.75.12/www2/greek-catholic/history/index_e.html
 
I just spent two hours making a flow chart of all the schisms in Christendom starting from Ephesus to the Great Schism with all the particular churches involved in each schism and the years they were granted autocephaly from their respective patriarchal sees (though I haven’t yet been able to figure out which particular churches of today in 2015 came from which historical patriarchal sees), plus the names and dates of any reunions with Rome from said particular churches. While I’m even more confused than before I managed to make an observation concerning the non-Chalcedonians which I think may help answer my question above concerning the Byzantines.

In my previous post I used the Romanian Orthodox Church vis a vis the Romanian Greek Catholic Church as an example of the Eastern Catholic churches having an “Orthodox counterpart” before the counterpart ever existed in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Once I started making my flow chart I noticed the exact same thing with the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church vis a vis the Ethiopian Catholic Church. The Orthodox counterpart was granted autocephaly from the Coptic Orthodox Church in 1959 and the Catholic counterpart was reunited with Rome in 1930.

I know for a fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church while not autocephalous at the time definitely existed when the Catholic counterpart was formed. From this I’m now going to assume that my understanding of Byzantine church organization has been sorely lacking. It’s probably safe to assume that the Romanian Orthodox Church existed, but was not autocephalous, when the Romanian Greek Catholic Church was formed. My question about which or the autocephalous Byzantine Patriarchates the Romanian Orthodox Church was under prior to autocephaly remains. Does anyone know of a good online chart that shows the historical progression of autocephaly for the various Byzantine churches?
 
SAVINGGRACE

Thanks for the reply, I hadn’t noticed it since I was in the process of writing my second one when you posted. Unfortunately the site you quoted doesn’t quite help since they never mention a particular Orthodox church. They just keep saying “Orthodox Church” with no qualifiers.

I’m now going to assume that the Romanian Greek Catholic Church broke away from the Romanian Orthodox Church (which existed, but was not autocephalous) to join the Catholics, but I’d still like to know which greater Orthodox Patriarchate the Romanian Orthodox Church was subject to when this reunion happened.

I’d also like to have the same questions answered for all the other Byzantine Catholic churches and their Orthodox counterparts in the cases where the Eastern Catholic particular church reunited with Rome prior to its mother Orthodox church being granted autocephaly.

I hope I’m making sense. 😊
 
Brandon_Cal said:
SAVINGGRACE

Thanks for the reply, I hadn’t noticed it since I was in the process of writing my second one when you posted. Unfortunately the site you quoted doesn’t quite help since they never mention a particular Orthodox church. They just keep saying “Orthodox Church” with no qualifiers.

I’m now going to assume that the Romanian Greek Catholic Church broke away from the Romanian Orthodox Church (which existed, but was not autocephalous) to join the Catholics, but I’d still like to know which greater Orthodox Patriarchate the Romanian Orthodox Church was subject to when this reunion happened.

I’d also like to have the same questions answered for all the other Byzantine Catholic churches and their Orthodox counterparts in the cases where the Eastern Catholic particular church reunited with Rome prior to its mother Orthodox church being granted autocephaly.

As Romania was occupied by Russia and was a state of Communist Russia it would be the Russian Orthodox Church.
I hope I’m making sense. 😊
Click to expand...
 
Most of the Eastern Churches followed the Patriarch of Constantinople after the Great Schism of 1054. There were attempts at reunion until Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks in 1453.

Present day Romania was invaded and occupied by the Muslim Ottoman Turks shortly after they conquered Constantinople. Part of Romania, Transylvania, was conquered by the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire. This would account for the establishment of the 18th century Romanian Greek Catholic Church. The rest of Romania was not freed from the Ottomans until the late 19th century. The independent Romanian state and independent Romanian Orthodox Church thus were created at the same time. The various Eastern Orthodox Churches are national churches, linked to specific countries.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
Generally speaking, do the words “Greek Catholic” found within the name of some (but not all) Eastern Catholic churches imply that they arose from the Ecumenical Patriarchate? I know this can’t be strictly true since The Melkite Greek Catholic Church (I believe) arose from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.
Click to expand...
I think “Greek” generally means they use the Byzantine Rite. Although I am far from an expert on such things so I could be wrong.
 
What you seek does not exist. Before I reunied with Rome, I researched Eastern Orthodoxy and discovered it to be a fractured, and incomprehensible entity. I did not understand how one day a group of faithful could be ‘orthodox’ and the next day because of the actions of a bishop, they were all of a sudden, heterodox. Even when a bishop came back under a patriarch, there were still those who continued to view the group as suspect. Then there are bishops who recreate a group under a new name, or similar name and it just gets more confusing. So, there are groups that are not under a patriarch. I am trying to keep this simple, because it is not simple. All my research led me back to Rome, albeit, an Eastern Catholic church.
 
Oh come on. There is nothing incomprehensible about the history of dozens of Orthodox Churches, except the Holy Mysteries. It just takes time, like studying any history, politics, and sociological background like any other endeavor. If this foils you, trying to learn about the Catholic ‘Babylonian Captivity’, various heretical movements or the reason there are certain doctrines will be very difficult for you.
 
OK. I’m obviously not making any sense given the answers received… Let make another attempt. 🙂

Let’s use a very modern example in Orthodoxy: The Finnish Orthodox Church. This church today is autonomous but not autocephalous. As it lacks autocephaly its head bishop is appointed by one of the autocephalous churches. In this case it just so happens to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Let’s say a small group of Finnish Orthodox petition rome for reunion and a subsequent “Finnish Catholic Church” is formed, then later on the Finnish Orthodox Church is granted autocephaly. By that time it would appear to be that the Finnish Catholic Church was formed out of some dioceses from the autocephalous Finnish Orthodox Church, though that would be incorrect since the Finnish Orthodox at the time of formation of its Catholic counterpart was only autonomous and not autocephalous.

My question is similar to this hypothetical one. In the cases where a particular Eastern Catholic church’s formation predates the autocephaly of its mother church, which patriarchate was responsible for the mother church at that time?

I’ve since been able to find the answer to some of the churches that are more ancient, but the churches whose autocephaly was granted within the last couple centuries is proving harder and harder to find the information for on the internet. For example, I found out last night that the Church of Cyprus was granted autocephaly not by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but of Antioch because prior to its autocephaly the Church of Cyprus was under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem have always been autocephalous, the Church of Greece was carved right out of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it appears that the Orthodox Church of Poland was granted autocephaly by the Church of Russia. All the other churches are still a mystery to me.
 
It varies, some Churches were granted autonomy or autocephaly and then later were subsequently absorbed - this occurred with many during Soviet occupation or when there was Ritual takeover (for example, the Georgian Orthodox Church, initially was dependent on Syriac Antioch but ‘autonomous’ but later was forced or took on Byzantine Tradition, but was also forced under Russian at one point). In addition, some Churches do not use the terms “autonomous” or “autocephalous”, for example some churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Also, some were not ‘granted’ independence but claimed it on their own - initially opposed by the original church but later accepted by the whole Communion or by most.
 
While I wait for more answers to my first question I’d like to pose my second:

Why is there redundancy in the Eastern Catholic churches?

It seems to me that some of the Eastern Catholic churches could be easily merged into one church due to shared patrimony, liturgy, and geography. Two examples that come to mind are the Syro-Malabar/Syro-Malankara churches and the Melkite/Syriac churches.

As I understand it (and please correct my history if I have it wrong), the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara churches represent the St. Thomas Christians of India who before the arrival of the Portuguese were essentially united under the Church of the East. The Syro-Malabar reunited with Rome in 1599 while the St. Thomas Christians who would eventually become Catholic first joined the Oriental Orthodox as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (which still exists), and it was from the latter church that the Syro-Malankara church reunited with Rome in 1930. Why wouldn’t the Malankara Orthodox Syrians who desired union with Rome just join up with their brethren already existent in the Syro-Malabar church?

In the case of the Melkite/Syriac divide, after the Council of Chalcedon the Byzantine Emperor replaced all the non-Chalcedonian primates. This resulted in competing patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria. The non-Chalcedonian Antiochians became the Syriac Orthodox Church while Chalcedonian Antiochians would become the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch after the Great Schism. A group from the Syriac Orthodox petitioned Rome for reunion and became the Syriac Catholics and then about 60 years later the Greeks of Antioch did the same and became the Melkite Catholics. The original distinction between the Greeks of Antioch and the Syriacs was the acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. If representatives from both groups eventually reunited with the Catholic Church (and presumably both accept the Council of Chalcedon) then the distinction is gone! Why are there two Antiochian churches in Eastern Catholicism and not one?
 
SyroMalankara said:
It varies, some Churches were granted autonomy or autocephaly and then later were subsequently absorbed - this occurred with many during Soviet occupation or when there was Ritual takeover (for example, the Georgian Orthodox Church, initially was dependent on Syriac Antioch but ‘autonomous’ but later was forced or took on Byzantine Tradition, but was also forced under Russian at one point). In addition, some Churches do not use the terms “autonomous” or “autocephalous”, for example some churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Click to expand...
Awesome! Thank you so much!

Do you have any recommended reading (either online or in codex) that explains the historical development of all these churches? I’m trying to get a feel for what the Orthodox world was like as far as jurisdiction is concerned during the time the various Eastern Catholic churches reunited with Rome.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
While I wait for more answers to my first question I’d like to pose my second:

Why is there redundancy in the Eastern Catholic churches?

It seems to me that some of the Eastern Catholic churches could be easily merged into one church due to shared patrimony, liturgy, and geography. Two examples that come to mind are the Syro-Malabar/Syro-Malankara churches and the Melkite/Syriac churches.

As I understand it (and please correct my history if I have it wrong), the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara churches represent the St. Thomas Christians of India who before the arrival of the Portuguese were essentially united under the Church of the East. The Syro-Malabar reunited with Rome in 1599 while the St. Thomas Christians who would eventually become Catholic first joined the Oriental Orthodox as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (which still exists), and it was from the latter church that the Syro-Malankara church reunited with Rome in 1930. Why wouldn’t the Malankara Orthodox Syrians who desired union with Rome just join up with their brethren already existent in the Syro-Malabar church?
Click to expand...
The Syro-Malabars are Chaldean Rite; Malankara Syrians are Syrian Rite.
In the case of the Melkite/Syriac divide, after the Council of Chalcedon the Byzantine Emperor replaced all the non-Chalcedonian primates. This resulted in competing patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria. The non-Chalcedonian Antiochians became the Syriac Orthodox Church while Chalcedonian Antiochians would become the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch after the Great Schism. A group from the Syriac Orthodox petitioned Rome for reunion and became the Syriac Catholics and then about 60 years later the Greeks of Antioch did the same and became the Melkite Catholics. The original distinction between the Greeks of Antioch and the Syriacs was the acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. If representatives from both groups eventually reunited with the Catholic Church (and presumably both accept the Council of Chalcedon) then the distinction is gone! Why are there two Antiochian churches in Eastern Catholicism and not one?
Click to expand...
There’s also the Maronites - the reason is that the separated hierarchy organically developed. In countries with a Muslim overlord, each Patriarch was seen as head of a people. It is not possible to fold one “nation” into another without Ottoman approval. This would affect property rights, legal rights, marriage laws etc. Also, the people on the ground would not appreciate loosing their “Syriac Patriarch” for a Greek or Latin one who didn’t speak their language or know their Rite
 
SyroMalankara said:
The Syro-Malabars are Chaldean Rite; Malankara Syrians are Syrian Rite.
Click to expand...
Wow! OK. Thanks! Do you know what the rite of the Kerala Christians was closest to prior to any involvement with either the Syrians or Rome? Is it safe to assume that it was closer to Chaldean since the Chaldean is closest to the of the Assyrian church which was (as I understand it) the mother church of the Church in India?
There’s also the Maronites - the reason is that the separated hierarchy organically developed. In countries with a Muslim overlord, each Patriarch was seen as head of a people. It is not possible to fold one “nation” into another without Ottoman approval. This would affect property rights, legal rights, marriage laws etc. Also, the people on the ground would not appreciate loosing their “Syriac Patriarch” for a Greek or Latin one who didn’t speak their language or know their Rite
Click to expand...
Thanks again! Almost as soon as I posed the question I started thinking about some analogues of this phenomenon in Protestantism and I realized that my question was a bit naive. I guess I could’ve asked the same question about the American Baptist Church and the Southern Baptist Church. “If slavery doesn’t exist anymore and that was the defining issue that separated the churches why are they still separate?” 😊
 
Brandon_Cal said:
Wow! OK. Thanks! Do you know what the rite of the Kerala Christians was closest to prior to any involvement with either the Syrians or Rome? Is it safe to assume that it was closer to Chaldean since the Chaldean is closest to the of the Assyrian church which was (as I understand it) the mother church of the Church in India?
Click to expand...
Yes, the original Rite of the St. Thomas Christians was Chaldean, even among the non-Catholic groups. The switch first occurred in 1665, when one of the Syriac bishops sneaked in by sea around Portuguese eyes and took over leadership of those who were angered with Latin oppression - specifically, the Saintly Mor Gregorios of Jerusalem.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorios_Abdul_Jaleel
Even after this, the non-Catholic groups primarily made use of the Chaldean Rites. It wasn’t until the 18th Century that the Syriac Liturgy was more completely made use of in Kerala - translations are still being made of some texts found in monasteries and bishops artifacts.
Thanks again! Almost as soon as I posed the question I started thinking about some analogues of this phenomenon in Protestantism and I realized that my question was a bit naive. I guess I could’ve asked the same question about the American Baptist Church and the Southern Baptist Church. “If slavery doesn’t exist anymore and that was the defining issue that separated the churches why are they still separate?” 😊
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying, I’m not well-versed on the differences or history of American denominationalism to the extent I am of Eastern Churches to adequately comment, although I am slowly studying the matter.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
While I wait for more answers to my first question I’d like to pose my second:

Why is there redundancy in the Eastern Catholic churches?

… If representatives from both groups eventually reunited with the Catholic Church (and presumably both accept the Council of Chalcedon) then the distinction is gone! Why are there two Antiochian churches in Eastern Catholicism and not one?
Click to expand...
Maronite, Syriac, and Syro-Malankara are all Antiochene. However the Melkites derived from Antiochene to the Constantinopolitan and the Syro-Malankara derived from Chaldean. Each has its own hierarchy and liturgy and particular law.

Rites (ways of living the faith) of the various traditions (Latin, and the five mentioned below) are manifested by distinct groups of Christians. The distinctions remain since they are historical and are preserved. The basis is shown in the canon law CCEO:

Canon 27
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

Canon 28
  1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
  2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
 
  1. Where do the uniquely named Eastern Catholic churches fit in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy? For example, the Ruthenian Catholic Church. I don’t know of any national church in Orthodoxy corresponding to the Ruthenians (and ethnically the church seems to span a number of countries including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, parts of Croatia, etc. Would the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia be the closest equivalent?
  2. In light of SyroMalankara’s answer to my question about redundancy, what is expected to happen to the Eastern Catholic churches if reunion were to occur? The general concensus I’ve seen on these boards is that the ECCs would just be absorbed into their mother Orthodox churches, but now I’m starting to doubt that given this redundancy in other sui juris churches. Given enough time I would imagine that the ECCs will (or maybe already have) organically developed away from their mother Orthodox churches (and vice versa) such that if any reunion were to occur the two churches would still be distinct. Is this understanding correct?
 
Brandon_Cal said:
  1. Where do the uniquely named Eastern Catholic churches fit in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy? For example, the Ruthenian Catholic Church. I don’t know of any national church in Orthodoxy corresponding to the Ruthenians (and ethnically the church seems to span a number of countries including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, parts of Croatia, etc. Would the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia be the closest equivalent?
Click to expand...
The sister Orthodox Church to the Ruthenian Byzantine Church is the ACROD (American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese) under the Ecumenical Patriarch and also historically the OCA, although OCA is more Russian-leaning in praxis today.
  1. In light of SyroMalankara’s answer to my question about redundancy, what is expected to happen to the Eastern Catholic churches if reunion were to occur? The general concensus I’ve seen on these boards is that the ECCs would just be absorbed into their mother Orthodox churches, but now I’m starting to doubt that given this redundancy in other sui juris churches. Given enough time I would imagine that the ECCs will (or maybe already have) organically developed away from their mother Orthodox churches (and vice versa) such that if any reunion were to occur the two churches would still be distinct. Is this understanding correct?
Click to expand...
Depends on the church, I know the Syro-Malankara Church’s Catholicos and bishops have all stated they would resign and allow for a newly elected Catholicos from among the whole between Malankara Orthodox and/or Malankara Syriac Orthodox in the event of a reunion.

Also, if the Chaldeans and Assyrians were to reunite, it would probably be the Assyrian Church that would be absorbed since it is 15X smaller in size. The same is true in regard to the Syro-Malabar Catholics and the Chaldean-Syrian Church in India - the latter is 40X smaller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top