Question about Eastern Rite in Anglo-Saxon Church

[MaryUSERNAME]

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Is it true that the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in pre-Norman England? I hope some knowledgeable person can direct me to some proof of this. (I am a Byzantine Catholic).
In Christ,
Mary

 

[Ghosty]

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Is it true that the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in pre-Norman England? I hope some knowledgeable person can direct me to some proof of this. (I am a Byzantine Catholic).
In Christ,
Mary

I’ve never heard of this, and I find it pretty hard to believe. Where are you coming across this claim?

Peace and God bless!

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

I’m not exactly clear about this, but i believe that much of Europe was actually evangelized by Christians of the Antiochian rite. A lot of Germanic people were also Arians and only later converted by Rome. These non-Roman Europeans probably celebrated the Divine Liturgy very differently than Rome did.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Here my two cents:

From the little information I’ve been able to gather, in Celtic Britain, Christianity is supposed to have been brought unofficially by Roman converts, although the Roman rulers at the time persecuted Christians. The first martyr is supposedly St Albans (304 AD). The Christianity of the Celts were suppressed by German-Danish invaders (Saxons, Angles and Jutes), but Celtic Christianity survived in Welsh/Scottish monasteries.

Converting the Saxons was done by Irish-Scottish Celtic Christians (Saint Patrick worked as a missionary in Ireland starting 432 AD) and the Roman Catholic Church (Pope Gregory I sent out missionaries in 598).

Role of St Columban of Iona, Saint Patrick of Ireland and Pope Gregory sheds more light on the history of Christianity in Britain.

The Roman Catholic Church gained influence in Britain and the Celtic Christians were gradually absorbed into RCC.

When, why and how some British Roman Catholics broke with Rome is well known.

---

Christianity was brought to Wuerzburg in Germany by Irish-Scottish missionaries, Kilian, Kolonat and Totnan, where they were martyred in the year 689 AD. Wuerzburg, which is first mentioned in historical accounts in 704 AD, built its first church in 706 AD. The diocese of Wuerzburg was established in 742 AD.

The English Roman Catholic missionaries, Wynfreth and Willibrord, made their first unsuccessful missionary expeditions to Germany in 716 AD. In 719 AD, after giving the name Bonifatius to Wynfreth, Pope Gregory II sent him and Willibrord to Germany. Saint Bonifatius is known as the “Apostle of Germany.” However the district of Franken in Bavaria where Wuerzburg is located, they consider Saints Kilian, Totnan and Kolonat their Apostles.

Conclusion: There seems to be not much evidence of Eastern Christianity in England or Germany (or other parts of Western Europe which was under the Roman Empire). The year around 698 AD is the earliest point at which Christianity came to Germany. Christianity came to Britain much earlier but not via the Apostles of Jesus or the Eastern Church. The history of the apolitical Celtic Church in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and the history of Roman Catholic Church and its political influence in Europe after the conversion of pagan Emperor Constantine to Christianity should shed more light on the spread of Christianity in Europe.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

I’m not exactly clear about this, but i believe that much of Europe was actually evangelized by Christians of the Antiochian rite. A lot of Germanic people were also Arians and only later converted by Rome. These non-Roman Europeans probably celebrated the Divine Liturgy very differently than Rome did.

My post was in response to this comment, someone apparently eager to attribute Christianity in Europe to the Antiochian rite!

 

[Aramis]

There is an interesting historical aside: Agricola and Fastidius, students of Pelagius, imbed Pelagianism into the British Church; pelagianism is otherwise almost exclusively a “Greek Church” issue. It is anathematized by a Papally called council in Cathage in May, 418; and by several local bishops throughout the east before that… It is likewise stomped in the west the council of Orange in 529…

This particular heresy has been grounds for thinking that the Eastern Liturgy may have been relevant. Pelagius himself was long time resident in Rome, but may, himself have been of British stock or even birth.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

There is an interesting historical aside: Agricola and Fastidius, students of Pelagius, imbed Pelagianism into the British Church; pelagianism is otherwise almost exclusively a “Greek Church” issue. It is anathematized by a Papally called council in Cathage in May, 418; and by several local bishops throughout the east before that… It is likewise stomped in the west the council of Orange in 529…

This particular heresy has been grounds for thinking that the Eastern Liturgy may have been relevant. Pelagius himself was long time resident in Rome, but may, himself have been of British stock or even birth.

If the issue was about a Greek Church, then it is European. Greece is generally considered to belong to Europe and is in fact the mother of European civilization.

 

[MaryUSERNAME]

In response to the query; “Where are you getting this info?” I have read this claim in various sources, most recently, in the online Catholic encyclopedia under the entry “Ango-Saxon church.”

If I remember correctly, it attributes the eastern rite influence to a possible Neapolitan priest/assistant of St. Augustine. Naples was settled by Greeks from Corinth, and the Greek influence remained strong on the island for centuries. So, the entry says, various Greek liturgical practices were observed, such as the Holy Saturday procession. (I’m typing this from memory, so the quotes may not be exact.) I just wanted to know if there are any explicit sources that show proof of exactly how much of the Greek influence permeated the liturgical life of the Church in England.

 

[Aramis]

If the issue was about a Greek Church, then it is European. Greece is generally considered to belong to Europe and is in fact the mother of European civilization.

The term “Greek Church” has nothing to do with Greece. In pre-Vatican II documents, it generally refers to the Byzantines, Syro-Byzantines, and Coptics as a whole.

It almost never is used in reference to the National churches, Catholic nor othodox.

Greek Catholic was, and still, for many is, synonymous with “Byzantine Rite Catholic”

 

[MaryUSERNAME]

Sorry, I have to “reply” to this post, because I cannot see how to “edit” my previous post.

Here is some info from the Good Shepherd Australian Orthodox Mission:

"The Celtic Church, by about A.D. 400-500 had its own distinct Liturgy. Today a number of geographical versions exist of that Liturgy from the first Millennium. All are local versions of the basic Gallican Liturgy, a Liturgy that was distinct from the Roman Liturgy and the Eastern Liturgies, but having strong elements from the latter.

A brief examination of the geography of the Celtic Church is helpful in discovering the roots of its Liturgies. There seems to be evidence that early Christians in England came from the East, possibly from Galatia. The Galatians were Celts and the Celtic tribal chain extended in an arc from Galatia through Southern Poland and Brittany to England, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales. So there was trade, intermarriage and cultural exchange along this arc.

Following the decisions of the Synod of Whitby (664) Roman usage was introduced into southern England and the Midlands. Scotland, Wales and Ireland seemed able to retain their Celtic-Anglo-Saxon forms of worship, as did Sherborne Abbey in the West of England. These Celtic liturgical customs were gathered into a local variant which eventually became known as the ‘Sarum Liturgy’. (Sarum being Latin for Salisbury). The Sarum Liturgy was first used in Salisbury Cathedral.

We may conclude that the Sarum Liturgy developed as the predominant Liturgy of the British after the Great Schism, it was however, essentially a pre-schism Liturgy. The Western Rite Liturgy used by the Antiochian Church today contains much wording from the Sarum Liturgy.

One person of particular interest from the pre-schism English Church is a Greek known as Theodore of Tarsus (602-690). He became Archbishop of Canterbury and during his time the English Churches were ablaze with Greek Iconography. The Iconastsis was called a ‘rood screen’ meaning ‘cross screen’. The Sarum Rite prescribed the reception of communion at the Royal Doors underneath the ‘Rood’ or ‘Cross’, which was above them. Many English Churches have retained this form of architecture until now."

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

My post was in response to this comment, someone apparently eager to attribute Christianity in Europe to the Antiochian rite!

Well then it turns out you’re more than a bit pretentious. Thats not the case at all, so hopefully you learn not to assume you know what other people believe, epsecially people on the internet you don’t even know.

I recall reading somewhere that Gaulish Christianity was influenced by the Antiochian rite. I said i wasn’t too sure and yeah i could be completely mistaken. Also, many europeans were Arians. I dont know what their masses looked like. Arius was Alexandrian, so who knows.

And even the ROMAN liturgy back then had more in common with the eastern rites. After all, Pope Gregory the Great is the author of the Byzantine rite of the presanctified gifts.

 

[MaryUSERNAME]

I just read, online, on the webpage by the same name “the Full Text of “the Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, together with kalendar of the same church, translated from the Latin . . .”

archive.org/stream/churchofsarum00unknuoft/churchofsarum00unknuoft_djvu.txt

Yes, the Sarum Liturgy definitely shows influence of the Eastern Rite, but it is mostly the Western “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

Several of the prayers are from the Eastern Rite, but I did not find the Trisagion, nor the Hymn to the Only Begotton Son, for instance. Nor did I see the Litanies, Tropars, or Kontaks. Nor was there an Agnus Dei. It was a blending of both liturgies, with emphasis on the Roman rite.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

The term “Greek Church” has nothing to do with Greece. In pre-Vatican II documents, it generally refers to the Byzantines, Syro-Byzantines, and Coptics as a whole.

It almost never is used in reference to the National churches, Catholic nor othodox.

Greek Catholic was, and still, for many is, synonymous with “Byzantine Rite Catholic”

From the book,

The Byzantine Rite: A Short History by Robert F Taft

"Byzantium an ancient Greek port beautifully and strategically situated on a peninsula overlooking the Bosporus, had been in existence from at least the 12th century BC. It was suddenly catapulated into world prominence in AD 324 when Emperor Constantine I (324-327) chose it as his eastern capital. It was inaugurated as the capital a scant six years later on 11 May 330. There were Christians in this city long before this period however.

Like every town of any importance in Christian antiquity, Byzantium was an episcopal see. Its Bishops were suffragans of the Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace within the Prefecture of Oreans. After Byzantium became Constantinople - the New Rome - its see was promoted to second rank after Old Rome at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Canon 3 of the council declared that “the Bishop of Constantinople had the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because this city is the New Rome.” This honorary primacy solidified into something more substantial during the dynamic episcopate of John Crysostom (398-404). Under his energetic authority this honor began evolving into an effective primacy of jurisdiction. Constantinople eventually carved out a partriarchate for itself by extending its jurisdiction (civil) over diocese of Thrace in Europe, and Asia and Pontus in Asia Minor. This fait accompli was recognized by Canon 28 of Council of Chalcedon in 451.

In a very real sense one could locate the origins of the “Byzantine Church,” as we know it in the period from 381-451…"

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

"Eastern Christian churches consisting of five rites derived from ancient traditions of Christian churches in the East; they are now in communion with the Western church under the papacy. Distinct from both the Orthodox churches and the so-called Independent churches of the East, neither of which recognize papal primacy, the Eastern Rite churches are also sometimes known as Eastern Catholic, or Uniate, churches. Today more than 8 million Eastern Catholics are in the various rites.

The five rites are the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Chaldean, and Armenian. Within these rites are further subdivisions according to national or ethnic origins. The Byzantine rite in particular embraces a wide group of peoples…"

J.W.O., JOHN W. O’MALLEY, Ph.D.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the East, when a Church is spoken of, four things must be kept distinct: the race to which the adherents of the Church belong; the speech used in their everyday life, and in their public devotions; the ecclesiastical rite used in their liturgy, and their actual belief, Catholic or non-Catholic. It is because these distinctions have not been, and are not, even now, always observed that a great confusion has arisen in the terminology of those who write or speak of the Eastern (Oriental) Churches and of the Greek Church. As a matter of fact, the usual signification attached to the words Eastern Churches extends to all those Churches with a liturgical rite differing from the Latin Rite. Let them reject the authority of the pope or accept it, they are none the less Eastern Churches. Thus the Russian Church, separated from Rome, is an Eastern Church; in the same way the Greek Catholics who live in Italy, and are known as Italo-Greeks, make up an Eastern Church also.

The expression Eastern Churches is therefore the most comprehensive in use; it includes all believers who follow any of the six Eastern rites now in use: the Byzantine, Armenian, Syrian, Chaldean, Maronite, and Coptic.

What, then, do we mean when we speak of the Greek Church? – Ordinarily we take it to mean all those Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, whether they are separated from Rome or in communion with the pope, whether they are by race and speech Greek or Slavs, Rumanians, Georgians, etc. The term Greek Church is, therefore, peculiarly inappropriate, though most commonly employed. For instance, if we mean to designate the rite, the term Greek Church is inaccurate, since there is really no Greek Rite properly so called, but only the Byzantine Rite. If, on the other hand, we wish to designate the nationality of the believers in the Churches following the Byzantine Rite, we find that out of fifteen or twenty Churches which use that rite, only three have any claim to be known as The Greek Church, viz., the Church of the Hellenic Kingdom, the Church of Constantinople, the Church of Cyprus. Again, it must be borne in mind that in the Church of Constantinople there are included a number of Slavs, Rumanians, and Albanians who rightly refuse to be known as Greeks…

The Greek Orthodox Churches are Churches separated from Rome and following the Byzantine Rite, i.e. the rite developed at Constantinople between the fourth and tenth centuries. In the beginning, the only language of this rite was Greek.…

There are five divisions of the Byzantine Rite, and consequently five divisions of Orthodox Greek Churches:

• The Greek-Byzantine Rite, which includes the pure Greeks subject
  o to the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
  o to the Holy Synod of Athens, and
  o to the Archbishopric of Cyprus.
• The Arabic-Byzantine Rite, which includes the Christians under the Patriarchates of
  o Antioch,
  o Jerusalem,
  o Alexandria, and
  o the Archbishopric of Sinai.
• The Georgian-Byzantine Rite, which, up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, included the Churches of the Caucasus Range now absorbed by the Russian Church and obliged to use the Slavonic Liturgy instead of their own native Georgian.
• The Slavonic-Byzantine Rite, comprising
  o the Russian,
  o the Servian, and
  o the Bulgarian Churches.
• The Rumanian-Byzantine Rite, used by the Rumanian Churches.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Greek Church

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. Explanation of Terms;

II. The Greek Orthodox Church and Its Divisions;
III. Greek Uniat Churches;
IV. Greek-Church History, subdivided into:
(1) The First Five Centuries;

(2) Decay of the Greek Churches of the East and Rise of the Byzantine Hegemony (451-847);

        (a) Internal Organization of the Byzantine Churches;
        (b) The Emperor; Relations between East and West; Liturgy.

(3) The Greek Schism; Conversion of the Slavs (ninth to eleventh century);

(4) Efforts towards Reunion; the Crusades (eleventh to fifteenth century);
(a) Internal Organization;
(b) Hesychasm.

(5) From 1453 to the Present Time – Relations with the Catholic Church, the Protestants, etc.

newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Well then it turns out you’re more than a bit pretentious. Thats not the case at all, so hopefully you learn not to assume you know what other people believe, epsecially people on the internet you don’t even know.

I recall reading somewhere that Gaulish Christianity was influenced by the Antiochian rite. I said i wasn’t too sure and yeah i could be completely mistaken. Also, many europeans were Arians. I dont know what their masses looked like. Arius was Alexandrian, so who knows.

And even the ROMAN liturgy back then had more in common with the eastern rites. After all, Pope Gregory the Great is the author of the Byzantine rite of the presanctified gifts.

**
I’m actually more than a bit skeptical. **

It is easily forgotten that Jesus Christ had 12 Apostles (one was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot) and Apostle Paul made the 13th one. All of them were extremely busy spreading the Gospel of Christ. There is nothing to suggest that they came together at regular intervals. Then we would have subsequent generations of the followers of Apostles forming new groups of Christians. So it is quite logical to conclude that Christianity must have developed in slightly different ways in different places, especially the form of worship, even if the beliefs remained exactly the same and some groups must surely have agreed to follow similar forms of worship. That is why we have so many different churches with different liturgies and same beliefs. So any claim that all Christian rites lead to Antioch is somewhat far fetched. Whether Aryans lived in Europe or not.

 

[Ghosty]

It’s true that the Sarum Liturgy has a bit in common with the Byzantine, but it was definitely not an “Eastern Rite”, nor was it ever a full Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

In the early Church (and up until the time of the Council of Trent) there were a number of different Liturgies and even “Rites” in the West that were more or less different from the Roman. Most of them were suppressed after Trent because of concern for the danger of lack of standardization with the growing Protestant movement; with just one style it was easier to know who was Catholic and who wasn’t.

As a side note, St. Augustine didn’t celebrate the “Roman Rite” either, but rather a now-extinct North African tradition (though it was likely along the lines of the Sarum, leaning towards a Roman style with what we would today call Eastern elements).

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

It’s true that the Sarum Liturgy has a bit in common with the Byzantine, but it was definitely not an “Eastern Rite”, nor was it ever a full Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

In the early Church (and up until the time of the Council of Trent) there were a number of different Liturgies and even “Rites” in the West that were more or less different from the Roman. Most of them were suppressed after Trent because of concern for the danger of lack of standardization with the growing Protestant movement; with just one style it was easier to know who was Catholic and who wasn’t.

As a side note, St. Augustine didn’t celebrate the “Roman Rite” either, but rather a now-extinct North African tradition (though it was likely along the lines of the Sarum, leaning towards a Roman style with what we would today call Eastern elements).

Peace and God bless!

Those few Western usages that did survive (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan, plus the Dominican, Carthusian, Cistercian, and (albeit currently moribund) Carmelite) differ in varying degrees from the “standard” Roman, (and in the case of the Mozarabic, at least, that means it differs quite a lot), and most have certain elements that reflect some elements that could be called “Eastern” influence.

 

[Ghosty]

Those few Western usages that did survive (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan, plus the Dominican, Carthusian, Cistercian, and (albeit currently moribund) Carmelite) differ in varying degrees from the “standard” Roman, (and in the case of the Mozarabic, at least, that means it differs quite a lot), and most have certain elements that reflect some elements that could be called “Eastern” influence.

Indeed.

I would argue, however, that those elements don’t likely reflect “Eastern influence” so much as they indicate a common history between all the various Rites. So it’s not as if any of the Eastern groups necessarily had anything to do with these various Western Rites, but merely that those Rites draw from the common Apostolic well, and some things that they preserved are not usually found in the Roman Rite specifically, but are found in some Eastern Rites.

Peace and God bless!