It sounds like your friend is taking the usual Orthodox position that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Catholic Church broke off from it in 1054. Of course, from the Catholic perspective, it was the Orthodox who schismatized from the Church.I have a friend who says that the Eastern Church came first and that the Roman/Latin Church came out of that Church as a split off. Can anyone recommend a good book with accurate history on what lead to the two different rites?
The first Christian Churches were in the Middle East. St. Paul would have founded the Greek Churches; however, depends on who we believe founded the Roman Church. If Peter & Paul, then after Greek Churches. I have been advised that the Roman Church was found prior to Peter and Paul’s arrival. They just arrived and had a bad vacation. If this is true, then Peter only founded the Church in Antioch. I was told the latter by a Maronite priest.I have a friend who says that the Eastern Church came first and that the Roman/Latin Church came out of that Church as a split off. Can anyone recommend a good book with accurate history on what lead to the two different rites?
Yes, it isn’t quite clear what is being referred to.
The Church grew in all directions from the Holy Land. The major traditions of the Church are (West to East) Latin, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Armenian (N. or Syria and Mesopotamia), Antiochene, Chaldean (Selucia-Ctesiphon).I have a friend who says that the Eastern Church came first and that the Roman/Latin Church came out of that Church as a split off. Can anyone recommend a good book with accurate history on what lead to the two different rites?
The Liturgy of St. James the Just (Apostle) is still celebrated today. It is the oldest Liturgy we have today.
And that Liturgy of St. James (a.k.a. Rite of Jerusalem) came from the earliest form of the Antiochene Rite is that of the “Apostolic Constitutions” written down in the early fifth century. (Until the Council of Chalcedon, 451, Jerusalem was in the Antiochene Patriarchate.) So Antioch absorbed the Liturgy of St. James. This form was used until the thirteenth century.
I’m a big fan of Marcel Peres and his Ensemble Organum(the performers in the youtube link). I read an interview with him where he went into detail about Old Roman Chant. Something I found very interesting was his claim that isons actually came FROM Rome, and aren’t originally Byzantine. His view was that Byzantine music developed from a combination of indigenous, Roman and (after the fall of Constantinople)Muslim sources, while ancient Roman music was gradually displaced by Frankish/Carolingian chant, which itself gradually disappeared as compositional skill grew in the West and “classical” music became popular. He’s a controversial figure, and is generally considered too Eastern in his interpretations, but he’s definitely an intelligent man who can defend his musical decisions. I highly recommend their recordings.
That’s absolutely fascinating, thank you for the link! I love all forms of chant, and am particularly drawn to the oldest forms to better appreciate how the early church worshiped.
Eastern first as there’s no evidence that any of the original Apostles in the New Testament spoke Latin or ministered, primarily, to a Latin-speaking community.I have a friend who says that the Eastern Church came first and that the Roman/Latin Church came out of that Church as a split off. Can anyone recommend a good book with accurate history on what lead to the two different rites?
Where did he do this? Evidence? I’m curious. Thanks.
And is not Latin, right?
Christians in Rome definitely preceded Peter and Paul’s appearance there.
Nor is it properly Byzantine, either. It’s Syriac. That certain Byzantine churches use a variant of it as an extraordinary form for specific holy days doesn’t make it properly Byzantine in origin.
I get the humorSO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS “ORIENTAL,” NOT “EASTERN” OR “LATIN.”
Blessings
Yes, that Latin use was not universal (for the West) until the fourth century is what the source said.
