Eastern Churches

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Definition of an Eastern Church

An accident of political development has made it possible to divide theChristian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first byDiocletian (284-305), and again by the sons ofTheodosius I (Arcadius in the East, 395-408; and Honorius in the West, 395-423), then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West (Charlemagne, 800). The division of Eastern andWestern Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire.

Western Churches are those that either gravitate aroundRome or broke away from her at theReformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on theEastern Empire at Constantinople; they are those that either find their centre in thepatriarchate of that city (since the centralization of the fourth century) or have been formed byschisms which in the first instance concerned Constantinople rather than the Western world.

Another distinction, that can be applied only in the most general and broadest sense, is that of language.Western Christendom till theReformation was Latin; even now theProtestant bodies still bear unmistakably the mark of their Latin ancestry. It was the greatLatinFathers andSchoolmen,St. Augustine (d. 430) most of all, who built up the traditions of the West; in ritual and canon law the Latin or Romanschool formed the West. In a still broader sense the East may be called Greek. True, many Eastern Churchesknow nothing of Greek; the oldest (Nestorians,Armenians,Abyssinians) have never used Greek liturgically nor for their literature; nevertheless they too depend in some sense on a Greek tradition. Whereas ourLatinFathers have never concerned them at all (most Eastern Christians have never even heard of ourschoolmen or canonists), they still feel the influence of the GreekFathers, theirtheology is still concerned about controversies carried on originally in Greek and settled by Greeksynods. The literature of those that do not use Greek is formed on Greek models, is full of words carefully chosen or composed to correspond to some technical Greek distinction, then, in the broadest terms, is: that aWestern Church is one originally dependent onRome, whose traditions are Latin; an Eastern Church looks rather to Constantinople (either as a friend or an enemy) and inherits Greekideas.

The point may be stated more scientifically by using the old division of thepatriarchates. Originally (e.g. at theCouncil of Nicaea, A.D. 325, can. vi) there were threepatriarchates, those ofRome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Further legislation formed two more at the expense of Antioch: Constantinople in 381 andJerusalem in 451. In any case the Romanpatriarchate was always enormously the greatest.Western Christendom may be defined quite simply as the Romanpatriarchate and all Churches that have broken away from it. All the others, withschismatical bodies formed from them, make up the Eastern half. But it must not be imaged that either half is in any sense one Church. The Latin half was so (in spite of a few unimportantschisms) till theReformation. To find a time when there was one Eastern Church we must go back to the centuries before the Council of Ephesus (431). Since that council there have been separateschismatical Eastern Churches whose number has grown steadily down to our own time. TheNestorianheresy left a permanentNestorian Church, theMonophysite andMonothelite quarrels made several more, the reunion withRome of fractions of every Rite further increased the number, and quite lately theBulgarianschism has created yet another; indeed it seems as if two more, inCyprus andSyria, are being formed at the present moment (1908).

We have now a general criterion by which to answer the question: What is an Eastern Church? Looking at a map, we see that, roughly, the division between the Romanpatriarchate and the others forms a line that runs down somewhat to the east of the River Vistula (Poland is Latin), then comes back above the Danube, to continue down the Adriatic Sea, and finally divides Africa west ofEgypt. Illyricum (Macedonia and Greece) once belonged to the Romanpatriarchate, and Greater Greece (SouthernItaly andSicily) was intermittently Byzantine. But both these lands eventually fell back into the branches that surrounded them (except for the thin remnant of theCatholic Italo-Greeks). We may, then, say that any ancient Church east of that line is an Eastern Church. To these we must add those formed by missionaries (especially Russians) from one of these Churches. Later Latin andProtestant missions have further complicated the tangled state of theecclesiastical East. Their adherents everywhere belong of course to the Western portion.

Catalogue of the Eastern Churches

It is now possible to draw up the list of bodies that answer to our definition. We have already noted that they are by no means all in communion with each other, nor have they any common basis of language, rite orfaith. All are covered by a division into the greatOrthodox Church, those formed by theNestorian andMonophysiteheresies (the originalMonothelites are now all Eastern-RiteCatholics), and lastly theCatholicEastern Rites corresponding in each case to aschismatical body. Theologically, toCatholics, the vital distinction is between EasternCatholic, on the one hand, and schismatics orheretics, on the other. But it is not convenient to start from this basis in cataloguing Eastern Churches. Historically andarcheologically, it is a secondary question. EachCatholic body has been formed from one of theschismatical ones; their organizations are comparatively late, dating in most cases from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Moreover, although all these Eastern-RiteCatholics of course agrees in the sameCatholicFaith we profess, they are not organized as one body. Each branch keeps the rites (with in some cases modifications made atRome for dogmatic reasons) of the correspondingschismatical body, and has an organization modelled on the same plan. Infaith aCatholicArmenian, for instance, is joined toCatholic Chaldees andCopts, and has no more to do with theschismaticalArmenians than withNestorians orAbyssinians. Nor does he forget this fact. He knows quite well that he is aCatholic in union with the Pope ofRome, and that he is equally in union with every otherCatholic. Nevertheless, national customs, languages, and rites tell very strongly on the superficies, and ourCatholicArmenian would certainly feel very much more at home in a non-Catholic church of his own nation than in a CopticCatholic, or even Latin, church. Outwardly, the bond of a common language and common liturgy is often the essential and radical division of aschism. Indeed these EasternCatholic bodies in many cases still faintly reflect the divisions of theirschismatical relations. What in one case is aschism (as for instance between Orthodox andJacobites) still remains as a not very friendly feeling between the different EasternCatholic Churches (in this case Melkites andCatholic Syrians). Certainly, such feeling is a very different thing from formalschism, and the leaders of the EasternCatholic Churches, we well as all their more intelligent members and all their well-wishers, earnestly strive to repress it. Nevertheless, quarrels between various EasternCatholic bodies fill up too large a portion of Eastern Church history to be ignored; still, to take another instance, anyone who knowsSyria knows that the friendship between Melkites andMaronites is not enthusiastic. It will be seen, then, that for purposes of tabulation we cannot conveniently begin by cataloguing theCatholic bodies on the one side and then classing the schismatics together on the other. We must arrange these Churches according to their historical basis and origin: first, the larger and olderschismatical Churches; then, side by side with each of these, the corresponding Eastern-RiteCatholicChurch formed out of the schismatics in later times.

Schismatical Churches

1. Orthodox

The first of the Eastern Churches in size and importance is the greatOrthodox Church. This is, after that of theCatholics, considerably the largest body inChristendom. TheOrthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon whenNestorianism andMonophysitism cut away the national Churches inSyria andEgypt. It remained in union with the West till the greatschism of Photius and then that ofCaerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by theSecond Council of Lyons (1274) and theCouncil of Florence (1439), this Church has been inschism ever since. The "Orthodox" (it is convenient as well as courteous to call them by the name they use as a technical one for themselves) originally comprised the four Easternpatriarchates: Alexandria and Antioch, then Constantinople andJerusalem. But the balance between these fourpatriarchates was soon upset. TheChurch ofCyprus was taken away from Antioch and made autocephalous (i.e., extra-patriarchal) by the Council of Ephesus (431). Then, in the fifth century, came the great upheavals ofNestorianism andMonophysitism, of which the result was that enormous numbers ofSyrians and Egyptians fell away intoschism. So the Patriarchs of Antioch,Jerusalem (this was always a very small and comparatively unimportant centre), and Alexandria, losing most of its subjects, inevitably sank in importance. TheMoslem conquest of their lands completed their ruin, so that they became the merest shadows of what their predecessors had once been. Meanwhile Constantinople,honoured by the presence of the emperor, and always sure of his favour, rose rapidly in importance. Itself a new see, neither Apostolic nor primitive (the firstBishop of Byzantium was Metrophanes in 325), it succeeded so well in its ambitious career that for a short time after thegreat Eastern schism it seemed as if thePatriarch of the New Rome would take the same place over theOrthodox Church as did his rival the Pope of the OldRome overCatholics. It is also well known that it was this insatiableambition of Constantinople that was chiefly responsible for theschism of the ninth and eleventh centuries. TheTurkish conquest, strangely enough, still further strengthened the power of the Byzantine patriarch, inasmuch as theTurks acknowledged him as the civil head of what they called the "Roman nation" (Rum millet), meaning thereby the whole Orthodox community of whateverpatriarchate. For about a century Constantinople enjoyed her power. The otherpatriarchs were content to be her vassals, many of them even came to spend their useless lives as ornaments of the chief patriarch's court, whileCyprus protested faintly and ineffectually that she was subject to no patriarch. Thebishop who had climbed to so high a place by a long course of degrading intrigue could for a little time justify in the Orthodox world his usurped title of Ecumenical Patriarch. Then came his fall; since the sixteenth century he has lost one province after another, till now he too is only a shadow of what he once was, and the real power of the Orthodox body is in the new independent national Churches with their "holy Synods"; while high over all looms the shadow ofRussia. The separation of the various national Orthodox Churches from the patriarch of Constantinople forms the only important chapter in the modern history of this body. The principle is always the same. More and more has theidea obtained that political modifications should be followed by theChurch, that is to say that theChurch of an independent State must be itself independent of the patriarch. This by no means implies real independence for the national Church; on the contrary, in each case the much severer rule of the Government is substituted for the distant authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Outside theTurkish Empire, inRussia and the Balkan States, the Orthodox Churches are shamelessly Erastian — by far the most Erastian of allChristian bodies. The process began when the great Church ofRussia was declared autocephalous by the Czar Feodor Ivanovitch, in 1589. Jeremias II of Constantinople took abribe to acknowledge its independence. Peter the Great abolished the Russianpatriarchate (ofMoscow) and set up a "Holy Governing Synod" to rule the national Church in 1721. The Holy Synod is simply a department of the government through which the czar rules over his Church as absolutely as over his army and navy. The independence ofRussia and its Holy Synod has since been copied by each Balkan State. But this independence does not meanschism. Its first announcement is naturally very distasteful to the patriarch and his court. He often begins byexcommunicating the new national Church root and branch. But in each case he has beenobliged to give in finally and to acknowledge one more "Sister in Christ" in the Holy Synod that has displaced his authority. Only in the specially difficult and bitter case of theBulgarian Church has a permanentschism resulted. Other causes have led to the establishment of a few other independent Churches, so that now the great Orthodox communion consists of sixteen independent Churches, each of which (except that of the Bulgars) is recognized by, and in communion with, the others.

These Churches are

This ends the list of allied bodies that make up theOrthodox Church. Next come, in order ofdate, the oldheretical Eastern Churches.

2. Nestorians

TheNestorians are now only a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church. Long before theheresy from which they have their name, there was a flourishingChristian community in Chaldea and Mesopotamia. According to their tradition it was founded by Addai and Mari (Addeus and Maris), two of the seventy-two Disciples. The presentNestorians count Mar Mari as the firstBishop of Ctesiphon and predecessor of their patriarch. In any case this community was originally subject to thePatriarch ofAntioch. As his vicar, themetropolitan of the twin-cities ofSeleucia and Ctesiphon (on either side of the Tigris, north-east of Babylon) bore the title ofcatholicos. One of thesemetropolitans was present at theCouncil of Nicaea in 325. The great distance of this Church from Antioch led in early times to a state of semi-independence that prepared the way for the laterschism. Already in the fourth century thePatriarch ofAntioch waived his right of ordaining thecatholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and allowed him to beordained by his own suffragans. In view of the great importance of the right of ordaining, as a sign ofjurisdiction throughout the East, this fact is important. But it does not seem that real independence of Antioch was acknowledged or even claimed till after theschism. In the fifth century the influence of the famousTheodore of Mopsuestia and that of hisschool ofEdessa spread theheresy of Nestorius throughout this extreme Eastern Church. Naturally, the laterNestorians deny that their fathers accepted any newdoctrine at that time, and they claim that Nestorius learned from them rather than they from him ("Nestorius eos secutus est, non ipsi Nestorium", Ebed-Jesu ofNisibis, about 1300. Assemani, "Bibli. Orient.", III, 1, 355). There may betruth in this. Theodore and hisschool had certainly prepared the way for Nestorius. In any case the rejection of the Council of Ephesus (431) by theseChristians in Chaldea and Mesopotamia produced aschism between them and the rest ofChristendom. When Babaeus, himself aNestorian, becamecatholicos, in 498, there were practically no moreCatholics in those parts. From Ctesiphon the Faith had spread across the frontier intoPersia, even before that city was conquered by the Persian king (244). The Persian Church, then, always depended on Ctesiphon and shared itsheresy. From the fifth century this most remote of the Eastern Churches has been cut off from the rest ofChristendom, and till modern times was the most separate and forgotten community of all. Shut out from the Roman Empire (Zeno closed theschool ofEdessa in 489), but, for a time at least, protected by the Persian kings, theNestorian Church flourished around Ctesiphon, Nisibis (where theschool was reorganized), and throughoutPersia. Since theschism thecatholicos occasionally assumed the title of patriarch. TheChurch then spread towards the East and sent missionaries toIndia and evenChina. ANestorian inscription of the year 781 has been found at Singan Fu inChina (J. Heller, S.J., "Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der nestorianischen Inschrift von Singan Fu", in the "Verhandlungen des VII. internationalen Orientalistencongresses",Vienna, 1886, pp. 37 sp.). Its greatest extent was in the eleventh century, when twenty-fivemetropolitans obeyed theNestorian patriarch. But since the end of the fourteenth century it has gradually sunk to a very smallsect, first, because of a fiercepersecution by the Mongols (Timur Leng), and then through internal disputes andschisms. Two greatschisms as to the patriarchal succession in the sixteenth century led to a reunion of part of theNestorian Church withRome, forming theCatholic Chaldean Church. At present there are about 150,000Nestorians living chiefly in highlands west of Lake Urumiah. They speak a modern dialect of Syriac. Thepatriarchate descends from uncle to nephew, or to younger brothers, in thefamily of Mama; each patriarch bears the name Simon (Mar Shimun) as a title. Ignoring the Second General Council, and of course strongly opposed to the Third (Ephesus), they only acknowledge the First Nicene (325). They have a Creed of their own, formed from an old Antiochene Creed, which does not contain any trace of the particularheresy from which their Church is named. Indeed it is difficult to say how far anyNestorians now are conscious of the particular teaching condemned by the Council of Ephesus, though they stillhonour Nestorius,Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other undoubtedheretics assaints anddoctors. The patriarch rules over twelve otherbishops (the list in Silbernagl, "Verfassung", p. 267). Theirhierarchy consists of the patriarch,metropolitans,bishops,chorepiscopi,archdeacons,priests,deacons,subdeacons, and readers. There are also manymonasteries. They use Syriac liturgically written in their own (Nestorian) form of the alphabet. The patriarch, who now generally calls himself "Patriarch of the East", resides at Kochanes, a remote valley of the Kurdish mountains by the Zab, on the frontier betweenPersia and Turkey. He has an undefined political jurisdiction over his people, though he does not receive a berat from the Sultan. In any ways this most remote Church stands alone; it has kept a number of curious and archaic customs (such as the perpetual abstinence of the patriarch, etc.) that separate it from other Eastern Churches almost as much as from those of the West. Lately theArchbishop ofCanterbury's mission to theNestorians has aroused a certain interest about them inEngland.

All the otherseparated Eastern Churches are formed by the other greatheresy of the fourth century,Monophysitism. There are first the nationalChurches ofEgypt,Syria, andArmenia.

3. Copts

TheCopts form theChurch ofEgypt.Monophysitism was in a special sense the national religion ofEgypt. As an extreme opposition toNestorianism, the Egyptians believed it to be thefaith of their heroSt. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). His successor,Dioscurus (444-55), was deposed andexcommunicated by the Council of Chalcedon (451). From his time theMonophysite party gained ground very quickly among the native population, so that soon it became an expression of their national feeling against the Imperial (Melchite, or Melkite) garrison and government officials. Afterwards, at theMoslem invasion (641), the opposition was so strong that the native Egyptians threw in their lot with the conquerors against the Greeks. The two sides are still represented by the nativeMonophysites and the Orthodox minority. TheMonophysites are sometimes calledJacobites here as inSyria; but the old national nameCopt (Gr.Aigyptios) has become the regular one for their Church as well as for their nation. Their patriarch, with the title of Alexandria, succeedsDioscurus and Timothy the Cat, a fanaticalMonophysite. He lives at Cairo, ruling over thirteendioceses and about 500,000 subjects. For him, too, thelaw is perpetual abstinence. There are manymonasteries. TheCopts use their old language liturgically and have in it a number ofliturgies all derived from the originalGreek rite of Alexandria (St. Mark). But Coptic is a dead language, so much so that even mostpriests understand very little of it. They all speak Arabic, and their service books give an Arabic version of the text in parallel columns. TheChurch is, on the whole, in a poor state. TheCopts are mostly fellaheen who live by tilling the ground, in a state of great poverty andignorance. And theclergy share the same conditions. Lately there have been something of a revival among them, and certain rich Coptic merchants of Cairo have begun to foundschools andseminaries and generally to promoteeducation and such advantages among their nation. One of these, M. Gabriel Labib, who is editing their service books, promises to be a scholar of some distinction in questions of liturgy and archeology.

4. Abyssinians

The Church ofAbyssinia, orEthiopia, always depended onEgypt. It was founded by St. Frumentius, who wasordained and sent bySt. Athanasius in 326. SoAbyssinia has always acknowledged the supremacy of thePatriarch ofAlexandria, and still considers its Church as a daughter-church of the See of St. Mark. The same causes that madeEgyptMonophysite affectedAbyssinia equally. She naturally, almost inevitably, shared theschism of the mother Church. SoAbyssinia is stillMonophysite, and acknowledges the Coptic patriarch as her head. There is now only onebishop ofAbyssinia (there were once two) who is calledAbuna (Our Father) and resides at Adeva (the old see ofAxum). He is always aCopticmonkconsecrated and sent by the Coptic patriarch. It does not seem, however, that there is now much communication between Cairo and Adeva, though the patriarch still has the right of deposing the Abuna.Abyssinia has about three million inhabitants, nearly all members of the national Church. There are manymonks and an enormous number ofpriests, whom the Abuna ordains practically without any previous preparation or examination. TheAbyssinians haveliturgies, again, derived from those of Alexandria in the old (classical) form of their language. TheAbyssinian Church, being the religion of more than half barbarous people, cut off by theschism from relations with any otherChristian body except the poor and backwardCopts, is certainly the lowest representative of thegreat Christian family. The people have gradually mixed upChristianity with a number ofpagan and magical elements, and are specially noted for strong Jewish tendencies (theycircumcise and have on their altars a sort ofArk of the Covenant containing theTen Commandments). LatelyRussia has developed an interest in theAbyssinians and has begun to undertake schemes foreducating them, and, of course, at the same time, converting them to Orthodoxy.

5. Jacobites

TheJacobites are theMonophysites ofSyria. Here, too, chiefly out of political opposition to the imperial court,Monophysitism spread quickly among the native population, and here, too, there was the same opposition between the SyrianMonophysites in the country and the Greek Melkites in the cities. Severus of Antioch (512-18) was an ardentMonophysite. After his death the Emperor Justinian (527-65) tried to cut off the succession by having allbishops suspect ofheresy locked up inmonasteries. But his wife Theodora was herself aMonophysite; he arranged theordination of twomonks of that party, Theodore and James. It was from this James, called Zanzalos and Baradaï (Jacob Baradæus), that they have their name (Ia'qobaie, "Jacobite"); it is sometimes used for anyMonophysite anywhere, but had better be kept for the national Syrian Church. James found twoCopticbishops, who with himordained a wholehierarchy, including one Sergius of Tella asPatriarch ofAntioch. From this Sergius the Jacobitepatriarchs descend. Historically, theJacobites ofSyria are the national Church of their country, as much as theCopts inEgypt; but they by no means form so exclusively the religion of the native population.Syria never held together, was never so compact a unity asEgypt. We have seen that the Eastern Syrians expressed their national, anti-Imperial feeling by adopting the extreme oppositeheresy,Nestorianism, which, however, had the same advantage of not being the religion of Caesar and his court. Among the Western Syrians, too, there has always been a lack of cohesion. They had inMonophysite times twopatriarchates (Antioch andJerusalem) instead of one. In all quarrels, whether political ortheological, whereas theCopts move like one man for the cause ofEgypt and the "Christian Pharaoh", the Syrians are divided amongst themselves. So there have always been many more Melkites inSyria, and theJacobites were never an overwhelming majority. Now they are a small minority (about 80,000) dwelling inSyria, Mesopotamia, Kurdistan. Their head is the JacobitePatriarch of "Antioch and all the East". He always takes the name Ignatius and dwells either at Diarbekir or Mardin in Mesopotamia. Under him, as first of themetropolitans, is the Maphrian, aprelate who was originally set up to rule the EasternJacobites as a rival of theNestoriancatholicos. Originally the maphrian had a number of specialrights and privileges that made him almost independent of his patriarch. Now he has only precedence of othermetropolitans, a fewrights in connection with the patriarch's election andconsecration (when the patriarch dies he is generally succeeded by the maphrian) and the title "Maphrian andCatholicos of the East". Besides these two, theJacobites have sevenmetropolitans and three otherbishops. As in all Eastern Churches, there are manymonks, from whom thebishops are always taken. The SyrianJacobites are in communion with theCopts. They name the Coptic patriarch in the Liturgy, and the rule is that each Syrian patriarch should send an official letter to his brother of Alexandria to announce his succession. This implies a recognition of superior rank which is consistent with the old precedence of Alexandria over Antioch. At Mardin still linger the remains of an oldpagan community of Sun-worshippers who in 1762 (when theTurks finally decided to apply to them, too, the extermination that theKoran prescribes forpagans) preferred to hide under the outward appearance ofJacobite Christianity. They were, therefore, all nominally converted, and they conform thelaws of theJacobite Church,baptize, fast, receive allsacraments andChristian burial. But they only marry among themselves and every one knows that they still practise their oldpagan rites in secret. There are about one hundredfamilies of these people, still calledShamsiyeh (people of the Sun).

6. Malabar Christians

TheMalabar Christians inIndia have had the strangest history of all these Eastern Churches. For, having beenNestorians, they have now veered round to the other extreme and have becomeMonophysites. We hear ofChristian communities along the Malabar coast (in SouthernIndia fromGoa to Cape Comorin) as early as the sixth century. They claim the Apostle of St. Thomas as their founder (hence their name "Thomas Christians", or "Christians of St. Thomas"). In the first period they depended on theCatholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and wereNestorians like him. They are really one of the many missionary Churches founded by theNestorians inAsia. In the sixteenth century thePortuguese succeeded in converting a part of this Church to reunion inRome. A furtherschism among these EasternCatholics led to a complicated situation, of which the Jacobite patriarch took advantage by sending abishop to form a Jacobite Malabar Church. There were then three parties among them:Nestorians,Jacobites, andCatholics. The line ofNestorianmetropolitans died out (it has been revived lately) and nearly all the non-CatholicThomas Christians may be counted asMonophysites since the eighteenth century. But the Jacobite patriarch seems to have forgotten them, so that after 1751 they chose their ownhierarchy and were an independent Church. In the nineteenth century, after they had been practically rediscovered by the English, theJacobites inSyria tried to reassert authority over Malabar by sending out ametropolitan namedAthanasius.Athanasius made a considerable disturbance,excommunicated thehierarchy he found, and tried to reorganize this Church in communion with the Syrian patriarch. But the Rajah of Travancore took the side of the national Church and forcedAthanasius to leave the county. Since then theThomas Christians have been a quite independent Church whose communion with theJacobites ofSyria is at most only theoretic. There are about 70,000 of them under ametropolitan who calls himself "Bishop and Gate of allIndia". He is always named by his predecessor, i.e. eachmetropolitan chooses a coadjutor with the right of succession. TheThomas Christians use Syriac liturgically and describe themselves generally as "Syrians".

7. Armenians

TheArmenian Church is the last and the most important of theseMonophysite bodies. Although it agrees infaith with theCopts andJacobites, it is not communion with them (a union arranged by a synod in 726 came to nothing) nor with any other Church in the world. This is a national Church in the strictest sense of all: except for the largeArmenianCatholic body that forms the usual pendant, and for a very small number ofProtestants, everyArmenian belongs to it, and it has no members who are notArmenians. So in this case the name of the national and of the religion are really the same. Only, since there are the EasternCatholics, it isnecessary to distinguish whether anArmenian belongs to them or to theschismatical (Monophysite) Church. Because of this distinction it is usual to call the others GregorianArmenians — afterSt. Gregory the Illuminator — another polite concession of form on our part akin to that of "Orthodox" etc. Quite lately the GregorianArmenians have begun to call themselves Orthodox. This has no meaning and only confuses the issue. Of course each Church thinks itself really Orthodox, andCatholic and Apostolic and Holy too. But one must keep technical names clear, or we shall always talk at cross purposes. The polite convention throughout the Levant is that we areCatholics, that people in communion with the "Ecumenical Patriarch" are Orthodox, and thatMonophysiteArmenians are Gregorian. They should be content with that is an honourable title to which we and the Orthodox do not of course think that they have really any right. They have no real right to it, because the Apostle ofArmenia,St. Gregory the Illuminator (295), was noMonophysite, but aCatholic in union withRome. TheArmenian Church was in the first period subject to theMetropolitan of Caesarea; heordained itsbishops. It sufferedpersecution from thePersians and was anhonoured branch of the greatCatholicChurch till the sixth century. ThenMonophysitism spread throughArmenia fromSyria, and in 527 theArmenianprimate,Nerses, in the Synod of Duin, formally rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Theschism was quite manifest in 552, when theprimate, Abraham I,excommunicated theChurch of Georgia and all others who accepted the decrees of Chalcedon. From that time the nationalArmenian Church has been isolated from the rest ofChristendom; the continual attempts at reunion made byCatholic missionaries, however, have established a considerable body ofArmenianCatholics. TheArmenians are a prolific and widespread race. They are found not only inArmenia, but scattered all over the Levant and in many cities ofEurope and America. As they always bring their Church with them, it is a large and important community, second only to the Orthodox in size among Eastern Churches. There are about three millions of GregorianArmenians. Among theirbishops four have the title of patriarch. The first is thePatriarch of Etchmiadzin, who bears as a special title that ofcatholicos. Etchmiadzin is amonastery in the province of Erivan, between the Black and the Caspian Seas, near Mount Ararat (since 1828 Russian territory). It is the cradle of the race and their chief sanctuary. Thecatholicos is the head of theArmenia Church and to a great extent of his nation too. Before the Russian occupation of Erivan he had unlimitedjurisdiction over all GeorgianArmenians and was something very like anArmenianpope. But since he sits under the shadow ofRussia, and especially since the Russian Government has begun to interfere in his election and administration, theArmenians of Turkey have made themselves nearly independent of him. The second rank belongs to thePatriarch of Constantinople.They have had abishop at Constantinople since 1307. In 1461 Mohammed II gave thisbishop the title ofPatriarch of theArmenians, so as to rivet their loyalty to his capital and to form amillet (nation) on the same footing as theRum millet (theOrthodox Church). This patriarch is theperson responsible to the Porte for his race, has the same privileges as his Orthodox rival, and now uses thejurisdiction over allTurkishArmenians that formerly belonged to thecatholicos. Under him, and little more than titularpatriarchs, are those of Sis in Cilicia (a title kept after a temporaryschism in 1440 andJerusalem (whose title was assumed illegally in the eighteenth century). TheArmenians have sevendioceses in the Russian Empire, two inPersia, and thirty-five in Turkey. They distinguisharchbishops frombishops by an honorary precedence only and have an upper class ofpriests called Vartapeds, who arecelibate and provide all the higher offices (bishops are always taken from their ranks). There are, of course, as in all Eastern Churches, manymonks. In many ways theArmenian (Gregorian) Church has been influenced byRome, so that they are among Easternschismatical bodies the only one that can be described as at all latinized. Examples of such influence are their use of unleavened bread for theHoly Eucharist, their vestments (themitre is almost exactly the Roman one), etc. This appears to be the result of opposition to their nearer rivals, the Orthodox. In any case, at present theArmenians are probably nearer to theCatholicChurch and better disposed for reunion than any other of these communions. TheirMonophysitism is now very vague and shadowy — as indeed is the case with mostMonophysite Churches. It is from them that the greatest proportion of Eastern-RiteCatholics have been converted.

This brings us to the end of theMonophysite bodies and so to the end of allschismatical Eastern Churches. A furtherschism was indeed caused by theMonothelite heresy in the seventh century, but the whole of theChurch then formed (theMaronite Church) has been for many centuries reunited withRome. SoMaronites have their place only among the EasternCatholics.

Eastern Catholic Churches

The definition of an Eastern-RiteCatholic is:AChristian of any Eastern rite in union with thepope: i.e. aCatholic who belongs not to the Roman, but to an Eastern rite. They differ from other Eastern Christians in that they are in communion withRome, and from Latins in that they have other rites.

A curious, but entirely theoretic, question of terminology is: AreMilanese and Mozarabic considered Eastern RiteCatholics? If we make rite our basis, they are. That is, they areCatholics who do not belong to theRoman Rite. The point has sometimes been urged rather as a catch than seriously. As a matter of fact, the real basis, though it is superficially less obvious than rite, ispatriarchate. Eastern-RiteCatholics areCatholics who do not belong to the Romanpatriarchate. So these two remnants of other rites in the West do not constitute Eastern-Rite Churches. In the West, rite does not always followpatriarchate; the great Gallican Church, with her own rite, was always part of the Romanpatriarchate; so areMilan and Toledo. This, however, raises a new difficulty; for it may be urged that in that case the Italo-Greeks are not EasternCatholics, since they certainly belong to the Romanpatriarchate. They do, of course; and they always have done so legally. But the constitution of these Italo-Greek Churches was originally the result of an attempt on the part of the Eastern emperors (Leo III, 717-741, especially; see "Orth. Eastern Church", 45-47) to filch them from the Romanpatriarchate and join them to that of Constantinople. Although the attempt did not succeed, the descendants of the Greeks in Calabria,Sicily, etc., have kept the Byzantine Rite. They are an exception to the rule, invariable in the East, that rite followspatriarchate, and are an exception to the general principle aboutEastern Rites too. As they have nodiocesanbishops of their own, on this ground it may well be denied that they form a Church. An Italo-Greek may best be defined as a member of the Romanpatriarchate inItaly,Sicily, orCorsica, who, as a memory of older arrangements, is still allowed to use the Byzantine Rite. With regard to the fundamental distinction ofpatriarchate, it must be noted that it is no longer purely geographical. A Latin in the East belongs to the Roman patriarch as much as if he lived in the West; Latin missionaries everywhere and the newerdioceses inAustralia and American count as part of what was once thepatriarchate of WesternEurope. So also the Melkites inLeghorn,Marseilles, andParis belong to the ByzantineCatholicpatriarchate, though, as foreigners, they are temporarily subject toLatinbishops.

A short enumeration and description of theCatholicEastern Rites will complete this picture of the Eastern Churches. It is, in the first place, a mistake (encouraged byEastern schismatics andAnglicans) to look upon theseCatholicEastern Rites as a sort of compromise between Latin and other rites, or betweenCatholics and schismatics. Nor is ittrue that they areCatholics to whom grudging leave has been given to keep something of their national customs. Their position is quite simple and quitelogical. They represent exactly the state of the Eastern Churches before theschisms. They are entirely and uncompromisinglyCatholics in our strictest sense of the word, quite as much as Latins. They accept the wholeCatholicFaith and the authority of thepope as visible head of theCatholicChurch, as did St. Athanasius,St. Basil,St. John Chrysostom. They do not belong to thepope'spatriarchate, nor do they use his rite, any more than did the greatsaints of Eastern Christendom. They have their own rites and their ownpatriarchs, as had their fathers before theschism. Nor is there anyidea of compromise or concession about this. TheCatholicChurch has never been identified with the Westernpatriarchate. Thepope's position as patriarch of the West is as distinct from hispapalrights as is his authority as localBishop of Rome. It is no morenecessary to belong to hispatriarchate in order to acknowledge his supremejurisdiction that it isnecessary to have him fordiocesanbishop. The EasternCatholic Churches in union with the West have always been as much the ideal of theChurch Universal as theLatin Church. If some of those Eastern Churches fall intoschism, that is a misfortune which does not affect the others who remain faithful. If all fall away, the Eastern half of theChurch disappears for a time as an actual fact; it remains as a theory and an ideal to be realized again as soon as they, or some of them, come back to union withRome.

This is what has happened. There is at any rate no certain evidence of continuity from time before theschism in any of these EasternCatholic Churches. Through the bad time, from the variousschisms to the sixteenth and seventh centuries, there are traces, isolated cases, ofbishops who have at least wished for reunion with the West; but it cannot be claimed that any considerable body of Eastern Christians have kept the union throughout. TheMaronites think they have, but they are mistaken; the only real case is that of the Italo-Greeks (who have never beenschismatic). Really the EasternCatholic Churches were formed byCatholic missionaries since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And as soon as any number of Eastern Christians were persuaded to reunite with the West, the situation that had existed before theschisms became an actual one again. They becameCatholics; no one thought of asking them to become Latins. They were givenbishops andpatriarchs of their own as successors of the oldCatholic Easternbishops before theschism, and they became what all Eastern Christians had once been —Catholics. That the EasternCatholics are comparatively small bodies is the unfortunate result of the fact that the majority of their countrymen preferschism. Our missionaries would willingly make them larger ones. But, juridically, they stand exactly where all the East once stood, before theGreek schism, or during the short-lived union of Florence (1439-53). And they have as much right to exist and be respected as have Latins, or the greatCatholicbishops in the East had during the first centuries. Theidea of latinizing all EasternCatholics, sometimes defended by people on our side whosezeal for uniformity is greater than theirknowledge of the historical and juridical situation, is diametrically opposed to antiquity, to theCatholic system ofecclesiastical organization, and to the policy of allpopes. Nor has it any hope of success. The East may becomeCatholic again; it will never be what it never has been — Latin.

1. Byzantine Catholics

1. The ByzantineCatholics are those who correspond to the Orthodox. They all use the same (Byzantine) Rite; but they are not all organized as one body. They form seven groups:

This completes the list of ByzantineCatholics, of whom it may be said that the chief want is organization among themselves. There has often been talk of restoring aCatholic (Melkite)Patriarch of Constantinople. It was said thatPope Leo XIII intended to arrange this before he died. If such a revival ever is made, the patriarch would havejurisdiction, or at least a primacy, over allCatholics of his Rite; in this way the scattered unities of Melkites inSyria,Ruthenians inHungary, Italo-Greeks inSicily, and so on, would be linked together as are all other EasternCatholic Churches.

2. Chaldean Catholics

The Chaldees are EasternCatholics converted fromNestorianism. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a complicated series of quarrels andschisms among theNestorians led to not very stable unions of first one and then another party with theHoly See. Since that time there has always been aCatholic patriarch of the Chaldees, though several times theperson so appointed fell away intoschism again and had to be replaced by another. The Chaldees are said now to number about 70,000souls (Silbernagl, op. cit., 354; but Werner, "Orbis Terr. Cath.", 166, gives the number as 33,000). Theirprimate lives at Mosul, having the title ofPatriarch of Babylon. Under him are two archbishoprics and ten othersees. There aremonasteries whose arrangements are very similar to those of theNestorians. Theliturgical books (in Syriac, slightly revised from theNestorian ones) are printed by theDominicans at Mosul. Most of their canon law depends on theBull ofPius IX, "Reversurus" (12 July, 1867), published for theArmenians and extended to the Chaldees by anotherBull, "Cum ecclesiastica" (31 Aug., 1869). They have some students at thePropaganda College inRome.

3. Alexandrian Catholics

The AlexandrianCatholics (CatholicCopts) have had avicar Apostolic since 1781. Before that (in 1442 and again in 1713) the Coptic patriarch had submitted toRome, but in neither case was the union of long duration. As the number ofCatholics of this Rite has increased very considerably of late years,Leo XIII in 1895 restored theCatholicpatriarchate. The patriarch lives at Cairo and rules over about 20,000CatholicCopts.

4. Abyssinians

TheAbyssinians, too, had many relations withRome in past times, and Latin missionaries built up a considerableCatholicAbyssinian Church. But repeated persecutions and banishment ofCatholics prevented this community from becoming a permanent one with a regularhierarchy. Now that the Government is tolerant, some thousands ofAbyssinians areCatholics. They have an Apostolic vicar at Keren. If their numbers increase, nodoubt they will in time be organized under aCatholic Abuna who should depend on theCatholic Coptic patriarch. Their liturgy, too, is at present in a state of disorganization. It seems that theMonophysiteAbyssinian books will need a good deal of revision before they can be used byCatholics. Meanwhile thepriestsordained for this rite have a translation of the Roman Mass in their own language, an arrangement that is not meant to be more than a temporary expedient.

5. Syrians

TheCatholic Syrian Church dates from 1781. At that time a number of Jacobitebishops,priests, and lay people, who had agreed to reunion withRome, elected one Ignatius Giarve to succeed the dead Jacobite patriarch, George III. Giarve sent toRome asking for recognition and apallium, and submitting in all things to thepope's authority. But he was then deposed by those of his people who clung to Jacobitism, and a Jacobite patriarch was elected. From this time there have been two rival successions. In 1830 theCatholic Syrians were acknowledged by theTurkish Government as a separatemillet. TheCatholic patriarch lives atBeirut, most of his flock in Mesopotamia. Under him are threearchbishops and six otherbishops, fivemonasteries, and about 25,000families.

6. Uniat Church of Malabar

There is also aCatholicChurch of Malabar formed by the Synod of Diamper in 1599. This Church, too, has passed through stormy periods; quite lately, since theVatican Council, a newschism has been formed form it of about 30,000 people who are in communion with neither theCatholics, nor theJacobites, nor theNestorians, nor any one else at all. There are now about 200,000 MalabarCatholics under threevicars Apostolic (at Trichur, Changanacherry, and Ernaculam).

7. Armenians

TheCatholicArmenians are an important body numbering altogether about 130,000souls. Like their Gregorian countrymen they are scattered about the Levant, and they have congregations inAustria andItaly. There have been several more or less temporary reunions of theArmenian Church since the fourteenth century, but in each case a rival Gregorian party set up rivalpatriarchs andbishops. The head of theCatholicArmenians is theCatholicArmenianPatriarch of Constantinople (since 1830), in whom is joined thepatriarchate of Cilicia. He always takes the name Peter, and rules over three titulararchbishops and fourteen sees, of which one is Alexandria and one Ispahan inPersia (Werner-- Silbernagl, 346). After much dispute he is now recognized by the Porte as the head of a separatemillet, and he also represents before the Government all otherCatholic bodies that have as yet no political organization. There are also manyCatholicArmenians inAustria-Hungary who are subject inTransylvania to theLatinbishops, but in Galicia to theArmenianArchbishop ofLemberg. InRussia there is anArmenianCatholicSee of Artvinimmediately subject to thepope. TheMechitarists (Founded by Mechitar ofSebaste in 1711) are an important element ofArmenianCatholicism. They aremonks who follow theRule of St. Benedict and havemonasteries at San Lazzaro outsideVenice, atVienna, and in many towns in the Balkans,Armenia, andRussia. They have missions all over the Levant,schools, and presses that produce importantliturgical, historical, historical, andtheological works. Since 1869 allArmenianCatholicpriests must becelibate.

8. Maronites

Lastly, theMaronite Church is entirelyCatholic. There is much dispute as to its origin and the reason of its separation from the Syrian national Church. It iscertain that it was formed aroundmonasteries in the Lebanon founded by a certain John Maro in the fourth century. In spite of the indignant protests of allMaronites there is nodoubt that they were separated from the old See of Antioch by the fact that they wereMonothelites. They were reunited to theRoman Church in the twelfth century, and then (after a period of wavering) since 1216, when their patriarch, Jeremias II, made his definite submission, they have been unswervingly faithful, alone among all Eastern Churches. As in other cases, theMaronites, too, are allowed to keep their old organization and titles. Their head is theMaronite "Patriarch ofAntioch and all the East", successor toMonothelite rivals of the old line, who, therefore, in no way represents the originalpatriarchate. He is also the civil head of his nation, although he has noberat from the sultan, and lives in a large palace at Bkerki in the Lebanon. He has under him nine sees and severaltitularbishops. There are manymonasteries andconvents. The present law of theMaronite Church was drawn up by the great national council held in 1736 at themonastery of Our Lady of the Almond Trees (Deir Saïdat al-Luaize), in the Lebanon. There are about 300,000Maronites in the Lebanon and scattered along theSyrian coast. They also have colonies inEgypt andCyprus, and numbers of them have lately begun toemigrate to America. They have a national college atRome.

Conclusion

This completes the list of all the Eastern Churches, whetherschismatic orCatholic.

In considering their general characteristics we must first of all again separate the EasternCatholics from the others. Eastern RiteCatholics aretrueCatholics, and have as much right to be so treated as Latins. As far asfaith andmorals go they must be numbered with us; as far as theidea of an Eastern Church may now seem to connoteschism or a state of opposition to theHoly See, they repudiate it as strongly as we do. Nevertheless, their position is very important as being the result of relations betweenRome and the East, and as showing the terms on which reunion between East and West is possible.

Characteristics of the Schismatical Eastern Churches

Although these Churches have no communion among themselves, and although many of them are bitterly opposed to the others, there are certain broad lines in which they may be classed together and contrasted with the West.

National feeling

The first of these is their national feeling. In all these groups theChurch is the nation; the vehement and often intolerant ardour of what seems to be their religious conviction is always really nationalpride and national loyalty under the guise oftheology. This strong national feeling is the natural result of their political circumstances. For centuries, since the first ages, various nations have lived side by side and have carried on bitter opposition against each other in the Levant.Syria,Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Balkans have never had one homogeneous population speaking one language. From the beginning, nationality in these parts has been a question not of the soil, but of a community held together by its language, striving for supremacy with other communities. The Roman contest accentuated this.Rome and then Constantinople was always a foreign tyranny to Syrians and Egyptians. And already in the fourth century of theChristian Era they began to accentuate their own nationalism, crushed in politics, by taking up an anti-imperial form of religion, by which they could express theirhatred for the Government. Such an attitude has characterized these nations ever since. Under the Turk, too, the only possible separate organization was and is anecclesiastical one. The Turk even increased the confusion. He found a simple and convenient way of organizing the subjectChristians by taking their religion as a basis. So the Porte recognizes eachsect as an artificial nation (millet). TheOrthodox Church became the "Roman nation" (Rum millet), inheriting the name of the old Empire. Then there were the "Armenian nation" (Ermeni millet), the "Coptic nation", and so on. Blood has nothing to do with it. Any subject of the Porte who joins theOrthodox Church becomes a Roman and is submitted politically to the ecumenical patriarch; aJew who is converted byArmenians becomes anArmenian. True, the latest development ofTurkish politics has modified this artificial system, and there have been during the nineteenth century repeated attempts to set up one greatOttoman nation. But the effect of centuries is too deeply rooted, and the opposition betweenIslam andChristianity too great, to make this possible. AMoslem in Turkey — whether Turk,Arab, ornegro — is simply aMoslem, and aChristian is a Roman, orArmenian, orMaronite, etc. Our Westernidea of separating politics from religion, of being on the one hand loyal citizens of our country and on the other, as a quite distinct thing, members of some Church, is unknown in the East. Themillet is what matters; and themillet is a religious body. So obvious does this identification seem to them that till quite lately they applied it to us. ACatholic was (and still is to the more remote andignorant people) a "French Christian", aProtestant an "English Christian"; in speaking French or Italian, Levantines constantly use the wordnation forreligion. Hence it is, also, that there are practically no conversions from one religion to another. Theology,dogma, or any kind of religious conviction counts for little or nothing. A man keeps to hismillet and hotly defends it, as we do to our fatherlands; for a Jacobite to turn Orthodox would be like aFrenchman turning German.

We have noted that religious conviction counts for little. It is hard to say how much of these bodies (Nestorian orMonophysite) are now even conscious of what was once the cardinal issue of theirschism. Thebishops and moreeducatedclergy have nodoubt a general and hazyidea of the question —Nestorians think that everyone else deniesChrist's real manhood,Monophysites that all their opponents "divideChrist". But what stirs their enthusiasm is not the metaphysical problem; it is the conviction that what they believe is thefaith of their fathers, the heroes of their "nation" who werepersecuted by the othermillets, as they are day-to-day (for there everyone thinks that everyone else persecutes his religion). Opposed to all these littlemilal (plural ofmillet) there looms, each decade mightier and more dangerous, the West,EuropeFrengistan (of which theUnited States, of course, forms part to them). Their lands are overrun withFrengis;Frengischools tempt their young men, andFrengi churches, with eloquent sermons and attractive services, theirwomen. They frequent theschools assiduously; for the Levantine has discovered that arithmetic, French, and physicalscience are useful helps to earning a good living. But to accept theFrengi religion means treason to their nation. It is a matter of course to them that we areCatholics orProtestants, those are ourmilal; but anArmenian, a Copt, aNestorian does not become aFrengi. Against this barrier argument, quotation of Scripture, texts of Fathers, accounts ofChurch history, break in vain. Your opponent listens, is perhaps even mildly interested, and then goes about his business as before.Frengis are very clever and learned; but of course he is anArmenian, or whatever it may be. Sometimes whole bodies move (asNestoriandioceses have lately begun to coquet with Russian Orthodoxy), and then every member moves too. One cleaves to one'smillet whatever it does. Certainly, if the heads of any body can be persuaded to accept reunion withRome, the rank and file will make no difficulty, unless there be another party strong enough to proclaim that those heads have deserted the nation.

Intense conservatism

The second characteristic, a corollary of the first, is the intense conservatism of all these bodies. They cling fanatically to their rites, even to the smallest custom — because it is by these that themillet is held together. Liturgical language is the burning question in the Balkans. They are all Orthodox, but inside theOrthodox Church, there are variousmilal — Bulgars, Vlachs,Serbs, Greeks, whose bond of union is the language used in church. So one understands the uproar made inMacedonia about language in the liturgy; the revolution among the Serbs of Uskub in 1896, when their newmetropolitan celebrated in Greek (Orth. Eastern Church, 326); the ludicrousscandal at Monastir, inMacedonia, when they fought over a dead man's body and set the whole town ablaze because some wanted him to be buried in Greek and some in Rumanian (op. cit., 333). The great and disastrousBulgarianschism, theschism atAntioch, are simply questions of the nationality of theclergy and the language they use.

Conclusion

It follows then that the great difficulty in the way of reunion is this question of nationality. Theology counts for very little. Creeds and arguments, even when people seem to make much of them, are really only shibboleths, convenient expressions of what they really care about — their nation. The question of nature andperson in Christ, theFilioque in the Creed, azyme bread, and so on do not really stir the heart of the Eastern Christian. But he will not become aFrengi. Hence the importance of the EasternCatholic Churches. Once for all these people will never become Latins, nor is there any reason why they should. The wisdom of theHoly See has always been to restore union, to insist on theCatholicFaith, and for the rest to leave eachmillet alone with its own nativehierarchy, its own language, its own rites. When this is done we have an EasternCatholicChurch.

Rome and the Eastern Churches

Early attempts at reunion

The attempts at reunion date from after theschism ofMichael Caerularius (1054). Before thatRome was little concerned about the olderNestorian andMonophysiteschisms. The conversion of these people might well be left to their neighbours, theCatholics of the Eastern Empire. Naturally, in those days the Greeks set about this conversion in the most disastrous way conceivable. It was the Government of Constantinople that tried to convert them back along the most impossible line, by destroying their nationality and centralizing them under the patriarch of the imperial city. And the means used were, frankly and crudely,persecution.Monophysite conventicles were broken up by imperial soldiers,Monophysitebishops banished or executed. Of course this confirmed theirhatred of Caesar and Caesar's religion. The East, before as well as after the greatschism, did nothing towards pacifying the schismatics at its gates. Only quite lately hasRussia taken a more reasonable and conciliatory attitude towardsNestorians inPersia andAbyssinians, who are outside her political power. Her attitude towards people she can persecute may be seen in her abominable treatment of theArmenians inRussia.

Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438)

It was, in the first instance, with the Orthodox thatRome treated with a view to reunion. TheSecond Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) were the first efforts on a large scale. And at Florence were at least some representatives of all the other Eastern Churches; as a kind of supplement to the great affair of the Orthodox, reunion with them was considered too. None of these reunions were stable. Nevertheless they were, and they remain, important facts. They (the union of Florence especially) were preceded by elaborate discussions in which the attitudes of East and West, Orthodox andCatholic, were clearly compared. Every question was examined — the primacy, theFilioque, azyme bread,purgatory,celibacy, etc.

TheCouncil of Florence has not been forgotten in the East. It showed Eastern Christians what the conditions of reunion are, and it has left them always conscious that reunion is possible and is greatly desired byRome. And on the other hand it remains always as an invaluable precedent for the Roman Court. The attitude of theHoly See at Florence was the only right one: to be quite unswerving in the question offaith and to concede everything else that possibly can be conceded. There is no need of uniformity in rites or in canon law; as long as practices are not absolutely bad and immoral, each Church may work out its own development along its own lines. Customs that would not suit the West may suit the East very well; and we have noright to quarrel with such customs as long as they are not forced upon us.

So, atFlorence, in all these matters there was no attempt at changing the old order. Each Church was to keep its own liturgy and its own canon law as far as that was not incompatible with the Roman primacy, which isde fide. The verydecree that proclaimed the primacy added the clause, that thepope guides and rules the wholeChurch of God "without prejudice to therights and privileges of the otherpatriarchs". And the East was to keep its marriedclergy and its leavened bread, was not to say theFilioque in the Creed, nor use solidstatues, nor do any of the things they resent as being Latin.

After the Council of Florence

This has been the attitude ofRome ever since. Manypopes have published decrees, Encyclicals,Bulls that show that they have never forgotten the venerable and ancient Churches cut off from us by theseschisms; in all these documents consistently the tone and attitude are the same. If there has been any latinizing movement among EasternCatholics, it has sprung up among themselves; they have occasionally been disposed to copy practices of the far richer and mightierLatin Church with which they are united. But all the Roman documents point the other way.

If any Eastern customs have been discouraged or forbidden, it is because they were obviously abuses and immoral like the quasi-hereditarypatriarchate of theNestorians, or sheerpaganism like thesuperstitions forbidden by theMaronite Synod of 1736. True, theirliturgical books have been altered in places;true also that in the past these corrections were made sometimes by well-meaning officials ofPropaganda whoseliturgicalknowledge was not equal to theirpiouszeal. But in this case, too, the criterion was not conformity with theRoman Rite, but purification from supposed (sometimes mistakenly supposed)false doctrine. That theMaronite Rite is so latinized is due to its ownclergy. It was theMaronites themselves who insisted on using our vestments, our azyme bread, our Communion under one kind, till these things had to be recognized, because they were already ancient customs to them prescribed by the use of generations.

Papal Documents

A short survey of papal documents relating to the Eastern Churches will make these points clear.

BeforePius IX, the most important of these documents wasBenedict XIV'sEncyclical "Allatae sunt" of 2 July, 1755. In it thepope is able to quote a long list of his predecessors who had already cared for the Eastern Churches and their rites. He mentions acts ofInnocent III (1198-1216),Honorius III (1216-27),Innocent IV (1243-54),Alexander IV (1254-61),Gregory X (1271-76),Nicholas III (1277-80),Eugene IV (1431-47),Leo X (1513-21),Clement VII (1523-34),Pius IV (1559-65), all to this effect.

Gregory XIII (1572-85) founded atRome colleges for Greeks,Maronites,Armenians. In 1602Clement VIII published adecree allowingRuthenianpriests to celebrate their rite in Latin churches. In 1624Urban VIII forbadeRuthenians to become Latins.Clement IX, in 1669, published the same order forArmenianCatholics (Allatae sunt, I).Benedict XIV not only quotes these examples of formerpopes, he confirms the same principle by newlaws. In 1742 he had re-established theRuthenian Church with the Byzantine Rite after the national Council of Zamosc, confirming again thelaws ofClement VIII in 1595. When the MelkitePatriarch ofAntioch wanted to change the use of the Presanctified Liturgy in his Rite,Benedict XIV answered: "The ancientrubrics of theGreek Church must be kept unaltered, and yourpriests must be made to follow them" (Bullarium Ben. XIV., Tom. I). He ordains that Melkites who, for lack ofapriest of their own Rite, had beenbaptized by a Latin, should not be considered as having changed to our Use: "We forbid absolutely that anyCatholic Melkites who follow theGreek Rite should pass over to theLatin Rite" (ib., cap. xvii).

TheEncyclical "Allatae sunt" forbids missionaries to convert schismatics to theLatin Rite; when they becomeCatholics they must join the corresponding Eastern Rite (XI). In theBull "Etsi pastoralis" (1742) the samepope orders that there shall be no precedence because of Rite. Eachprelate shall have rank according to his own position or thedate of hisordination; in mixeddioceses, if thebishop is Latin (as in SouthernItaly), he is to have at least onevicar-general of the other Rite (IX).

Most of all did the last twopopes show their concern for Eastern Christendom. Each by a number of Acts carried on the tradition of conciliation towards theschismatical Churches and of protection ofCatholicEastern Rites.

Pius IX, in hisEncyclical "In Suprema Petri" (Epiphany, 1848), again assures non-Catholics that "we will keep unchanged yourliturgies, which indeed we greatlyhonour";schismaticclergy who join theCatholicChurch are to keep the same rank and position as they had before. In 1853 theCatholic Rumanians were given abishop of their own Rite, and in the Allocution made on that occasion, as well as in the one to theArmenians on 2 February, 1854, he again insists on the same principle. In 1860 the Bulgars, disgusted with the Phanar (the Greeks of Constantinople), approached theCatholicArmenian patriarch, Hassun; he, and thepope confirming him, promised that there should be no latinizing of their Rite.Pius IX founded, 6 January, 1862, a separate department for theOriental Rites as a special section of the greatPropaganda Congregation.

Leo XIII in 1888 wrote a letter to theArmenians (Paterna charitas) in which he exhorts the Gregorians to reunion, always on the same terms. But his most important act, perhaps the most important of all documents of this kind, is theEncyclical "Orientalium dignitas ecclesiarum" of 30 November, 1894. In this letter thepope reviewed and confirmed all similar acts of his predecessors and then strengthened them by yet severerlaws against any form of latinizing the East. The first part of theEncyclical quotes examples of the care of formerpopes forEastern Rites, especially ofPius IX; Pope Leo remembers also what he himself has already done for the same cause — the foundation of colleges atRome, Philippopoli,Adrianople,Athens, and St. Ann atJerusalem. He again commands that in these colleges students should be exactly trained to observe their own rites. He praises these venerable Easternliturgies as representing most ancient and sacred traditions, and quotes again the text that has been used so often for this purpose, circumdata varietate applied to the queen, who is theChurch (Ps. xliv, 10). The Constitutions ofBenedict XIV against latinizers are confirmed; new and most severelaws arepromulgated: any missionary who tries to persuade an Eastern-RiteCatholic to join theLatin Rite isipso facto suspended, and is to be expelled from his place. In colleges where boys of different Rites areeducated there are to bepriests of each Rite to administer thesacraments. In case of need one may receive a sacrament from apriest of another Rite; but for Communion it should be, if possible, at least one who uses the same kind of bread. No length of use can prescribe a change of Rite. Awoman marrying may conform to her husband's Rite, but if she becomes awidow she must go back to her own.

In theEncyclical "Praeclara gratulationis', of 20 June, 1894, that has been often described as "Leo XIII's testament", he again turned to the Eastern Churches and invited them in the most courteous and the gentlest way to come back to communion with us. He assures schismatics that no great difference exists between theirfaith and ours, and repeats once more that he would provide for all their customs without narrowness (Orth. Eastern Church, 434, 435). It was this letter that called forth the unpardonably offense answer of Anthimos VII of Constantinople (op. cit., 435-438). Nor, as long as he lived, didLeo XIII cease caring for Eastern Churches. On 11 June, 1895, he wrote the letter "Unitas christiana" to be theCopts, and on 24 December of that same year he restored theCatholicCopticpatriarchate. Lastly, on 19 March, 1895, in amotu proprio, he again insisted on the reverence due to the Eastern Churches and explained theduties of Latin delegates in the East.

As a last example of all,Pius X in his Allocution, after the now famous celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy in his presence on 12 February, 1908, again repeated the same declaration of respect for Eastern rites and customs and the same assurance of his intention to preserve them (Echos d'Orient, May, 1908, 129-31). Indeed this spirit of conservatism with regard toliturgies is in our own time growing steadily atRome with the increase ofliturgicalknowledge, so that there is reason to believe that whatever unintentional mistakes have been made in the past (chiefly with regard to theMaronite andCatholicArmenian rites) will now gradually be corrected, and that the tradition of the most entire acceptance and recognition of other rites in the East will be maintained even more firmly than in the past.

Conclusion

On the other hand, in spite of occasional outbursts of anti-papal feeling on the part of the various chiefs of these Churches, it iscertain that the vision of unity is beginning to make itself seen very widely in the East. In the first place,education and contact with WesternEuropeans inevitably breaks down a great part of the old prejudice, jealousy, and fear of us. It was a Latin missionary who said lately: "They are finding out that we are neither so vicious nor so clever as they had thought." And with this intercourse grows the hope of regeneration for their own nations by contact with the West. Once they realize that we do not want to eat them up, and that theirmilal are safe, whatever happens, they cannot but see the advantages we have to offer them. And with this feeling goes the gradual realization of something larger in the way of a Church than their ownmilal. Hitherto, it was difficult to say what the variousEastern schismatics understood by the "CatholicChurch" in thecreed. The Orthodox certainly always mean their own communion only ("Orth. Eastern Church", 366-70); the other smaller bodies certainly hold that they alone have thetruefaith; everyone else — especially Latins — is aheretic. So, presumably, for them, too, theCatholicChurch is only their own body. But this is passing with the growth of moreknowledge of other countries and a juster sense of perspective. TheNestorian who looks at a map of the world can hardly go onbelieving that hissect is the only and wholeChurch ofChrist. And with the apprehension of larger issues there comes the first wish for reunion. For a Church consisting of mutuallyexcommunicate bodies is a monstrosity that is rejected by everyone (except perhaps someArmenians) in the East.

The feeling out towards the West for sympathy, help, and perhaps eventually communion, is in the direction ofCatholics, not ofProtestants.Protestantism is too remote from all theirtheology, and its principles are too destructive of all their system for it to attract them. Harnack notes this ofRussians: that their more friendly feeling towards the West tends Romeward, not in an Evangelical direction (Reden and Aufsätze, II, 279); it is at least equallytrue of other Eastern Churches. When the conviction has spread that they have everything to gain by becoming again members of a really universal Church, that union withRome means all the advantages of Westernideas and a soundtheological position, and that, on the other hand, it leaves the nationalmillet untouched, un-latinized, and only stronger for so powerful an alliance, then indeed the now shadowy and remote issues about nature andperson in Christ, the entirely artificial grievances of theFilioque and our azyme bread will easily be buried in the dust that has gathered over them for centuries, and Eastern Christians may some day wake up and find that there is nothing to do but to register again a union that ought never to have been broken.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT