A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
To give a basic overview of the history, Peter exercised his ministry in Jerusalem before moving to Antioch, which already had been an extremely early center of Christianity where Christians were first called Christians and where the initial dispute between Paul and Barnabas and the Judaizers was originally centered. It may have been while based in Jerusalem or Antioch that Peter went on a missionary voyage and evangelized Rome, but this is highly disputable. In any case he eventually made it to Rome and was martyred and buried there, along with St. Paul.
With the destruction of Jerusalem and the decline of Jewish Christianity, Jerusalem quickly faded from importance, leaving Antioch and Rome as the two major centers of Christianity with links to Peter. To these Alexandria was quickly added, where St. Mark, a disciple of both Peter and Paul and author of one of the Gospels, had been bishop (thus all three of these old centers had both a Petrine and a Pauline link, interestingly enough).
Of these three, Rome was, I believe, always the preeminent one, as even the Orthodox will admit in my experience, though interpreting that preeminence in a different way. To the original three centers two more patriarchates were eventually added, Jerusalem (obviously historically important despite more or less a lack of continuity between the church there in Apostolic times and in later ages) and Constantinople, which had become extremely important politically and was also host to two ecumenical councils. Constantinople was particularly important as it came to have a sort of primacy of honor in the East, just beneath Rome, and because it set an important precedent: a patriarchate with no particular connection to St. Peter, aside from the (late?) legend that the church there had been founded by St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter.
This is essentially where things stood in 1054, the date conventionally given for the Great Schism because of the mutual anathemas that were exchanged between the Pope (sort of… it’s a long story) and the Patriarch of Constantinople in that year.
The causes and exact nature of this schism are a very difficult subject to get into. Suffice it to say most Eastern Christians were no longer in communion with the bishop of Rome, the preeminent bishop of the Church, who as Catholic teaching would later make even more clear was and always had been the essential point of unity for the Catholic Church. In the late 11th century crusaders discovered embattled Eastern Christians (the Maronites) in Lebanon who professed to have always been Catholics in communion with the Pope, and these formed the first of the modern Eastern Catholic Churches. Later Eastern Catholic Churches formed as additional groups of Orthodox entered communion with Rome. The leaders of some of these Eastern Catholic Churches were given titles as Patriarchs, being seen by the west as filling the sees left vacant by the Great Schism (often multiple leaders were given the title to the same ancient city, especially Antioch). There were also Latin Patriarchs of these cities, of which the only one remaining today is the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Meanwhile the Orthodox continued to exist, in schism but for the most part truly orthodox in their beliefs, and continued to spread especially in the Slavic world (while declining in the Middle East due to Muslim invasions). New autocephalous Churches were formed within the Orthodox Church and the leaders of some of these were proclaimed Patriarchs despite having no distinct Petrine connection, most importantly the Patriarch of Moscow.
Today, the mutual anathemas between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople have been revoked and ecumenical dialogue has progressed. Contrary to what might seem intuitive, the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church provides a remaining source of tension with the Orthodox rather than a bridge between us, or at least they sometimes do so from the perspective of the Orthodox, as opposed to from the perspective of Latin Rite Catholics. As we’ve seen, some Eastern Catholics would prefer the Eastern Catholic Churches to disappear if reunion were achieved with the Orthodox (with the exception, I would hope and assume, of ones like the Maronites with their unique history and those Eastern Catholic Churches whose non-Catholic parallels are Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian, not Orthodox). I would guess some other Eastern Catholics would be nervous about such a union between their Church and a likely much larger and often historically hostile Orthodox Church, though. It’s a very difficult problem
With the destruction of Jerusalem and the decline of Jewish Christianity, Jerusalem quickly faded from importance, leaving Antioch and Rome as the two major centers of Christianity with links to Peter. To these Alexandria was quickly added, where St. Mark, a disciple of both Peter and Paul and author of one of the Gospels, had been bishop (thus all three of these old centers had both a Petrine and a Pauline link, interestingly enough).
Of these three, Rome was, I believe, always the preeminent one, as even the Orthodox will admit in my experience, though interpreting that preeminence in a different way. To the original three centers two more patriarchates were eventually added, Jerusalem (obviously historically important despite more or less a lack of continuity between the church there in Apostolic times and in later ages) and Constantinople, which had become extremely important politically and was also host to two ecumenical councils. Constantinople was particularly important as it came to have a sort of primacy of honor in the East, just beneath Rome, and because it set an important precedent: a patriarchate with no particular connection to St. Peter, aside from the (late?) legend that the church there had been founded by St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter.
This is essentially where things stood in 1054, the date conventionally given for the Great Schism because of the mutual anathemas that were exchanged between the Pope (sort of… it’s a long story) and the Patriarch of Constantinople in that year.
The causes and exact nature of this schism are a very difficult subject to get into. Suffice it to say most Eastern Christians were no longer in communion with the bishop of Rome, the preeminent bishop of the Church, who as Catholic teaching would later make even more clear was and always had been the essential point of unity for the Catholic Church. In the late 11th century crusaders discovered embattled Eastern Christians (the Maronites) in Lebanon who professed to have always been Catholics in communion with the Pope, and these formed the first of the modern Eastern Catholic Churches. Later Eastern Catholic Churches formed as additional groups of Orthodox entered communion with Rome. The leaders of some of these Eastern Catholic Churches were given titles as Patriarchs, being seen by the west as filling the sees left vacant by the Great Schism (often multiple leaders were given the title to the same ancient city, especially Antioch). There were also Latin Patriarchs of these cities, of which the only one remaining today is the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Meanwhile the Orthodox continued to exist, in schism but for the most part truly orthodox in their beliefs, and continued to spread especially in the Slavic world (while declining in the Middle East due to Muslim invasions). New autocephalous Churches were formed within the Orthodox Church and the leaders of some of these were proclaimed Patriarchs despite having no distinct Petrine connection, most importantly the Patriarch of Moscow.
Today, the mutual anathemas between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople have been revoked and ecumenical dialogue has progressed. Contrary to what might seem intuitive, the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church provides a remaining source of tension with the Orthodox rather than a bridge between us, or at least they sometimes do so from the perspective of the Orthodox, as opposed to from the perspective of Latin Rite Catholics. As we’ve seen, some Eastern Catholics would prefer the Eastern Catholic Churches to disappear if reunion were achieved with the Orthodox (with the exception, I would hope and assume, of ones like the Maronites with their unique history and those Eastern Catholic Churches whose non-Catholic parallels are Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian, not Orthodox). I would guess some other Eastern Catholics would be nervous about such a union between their Church and a likely much larger and often historically hostile Orthodox Church, though. It’s a very difficult problem