A NEW BUD ON AN ANCIENT TREE
A tree grows because of its trunk and its roots, because of the gradual growth by which elements are composed into structure Their nourishment and strength is owing to its foliation, those who are tempted to detach selected end products of Christian life from the roots, overlook the secrets of its life, and quickly demonstrate that you cannot liberate the bud from the branch which bears it. The right reverend Alexander Turner, “Ecumenism and Sobornost”, Orthodox; VOLUME 6, no 10, 1955
Before there were churches, there was the Church…One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic…founded at Jerusalem by our Lord who gave to it the Apostles as chief pastors (bishops). The Bible tells us that our Lord commanded the apostles to teach and practice certain things, to baptize, to forgive sins, to preach. And “go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” Matthew 28;19, 20 Jesus Christ was the vine, the Apostles the branches, the faithful the new buds directly dependent. It was at first a Church of the East – notably of Jerusalem and Antioch; a church of the region wherein its Lord was born; where he died; where he rose from the dead and where he ascended to sit at the right hand of his Father. It would be years into the future before this Church would be planted in the West-chiefly at Rome. From Jerusalem and Palestine, the church spread. First into the larger centers such as Antioch and then into the smaller communities. James was at Jerusalem (Gal. 19); Paul at Cyprus and Athens (Acts 13:4-12) and also at Antioch; Alexandria was evangelized and its church organized by Mark; Thomas went into India; Andrew evangelized northern Greece and is credited with founding the Church at Byzantium (Constantinople); Peter taught at Antioch and later, according to tradition, at Rome, where he assisted Paul in the organization of the Church there. Thus, very soon after the Ascension took its origin in the rushing wind of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit dispatched the apostle’s disciples out into the by-ways, teaching the good news of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. In the new places where they went, native elements were used to implement true teaching (orthodoxy). As they heard and understood, each in his own language at Pentecost, so did each community hear and learn the good news; live and practice the new faith according to local characteristics and indigenous customs. Paul declares that he must “be all things to all men” so that the gospel of Jesus may be furthered, reaching out and touching and embracing and being concerned for all ( catholica) and their spiritual needs. Through his evangelical and sacramental ministry, Paul discovered very quickly that what was comprehended or what was effective in Corinth did not always inspire and motivate the Athenians. Thus from place to place, the truth, the Incarnation, the Spirit, was “clothed” in different garb, but it was always the same true-teaching orthodoxy, the same Incarnation the same Spirit. As the Lord often used folk stories “Parables” that the people of different places and of different levels could better understand his teachings, so did his apostles by using native forms and terms and symbols, so the people could both understand and appreciate. If uniformity of doing had been the basis of Jesus and His Church, then it would have been a historical fact that the apostles and presbyters would have met at regular intervals to discuss any potential changes in the methodology of teaching doctrine or in liturgizing. Yet, the very opposite is true. After the general council in Jerusalem in A.D. 50, never again do we see the apostles and presbyters gathered together in a common body to determine pastoral, doctrinal, or liturgical needs for the universal church. In fact, the very results of the Jerusalem Synod proved the need for local coloration in effectively implementing the ministry of Jesus. If one lived in Jerusalem or other Jewish community, then a modified version of the Mosaic law was expected to be observed (circumcision and dietary regulations, for example); but elsewhere this was not the case and these particular regulations were not observed (cf Acts 15). The Church was made up of fallible humans, unlike its divine head. And disputes arose, even among the apostles. But these questions and disputes were settled early by conciliation as the church has continued to do for two thousand years. Acts XV describes how the apostles and elders held a council to settle questions that arose regarding gentile converts. It was such a gathering which would determine church policy for centuries to come; a matter of such gravity as to call forth the highest authority the church possessed – the whole of the episcopate. no one individual was appealed to above or apart from the others; the custom of one group did not rule over the custom of another group. Rather, the whole episcopate took counsel. So while those who had actually walked with Christ and who learned at his feet; those who had been personally selected by him, should have known the answers each one of them, we find not one assuming to such status and authority, but appealing to the wisdom and discipline of the greater whole. Therefore, the Universal (Catholic) Church’s ministry of Jesus overflowed with the richness and truths (orthodoxy) of his teaching through the Holy Apostles guided by His Spirit as he promised, and it began to reach “the ends of the earth.” (Matthew 18) No one was required to give up his basic cultural orientation to belong. Enriched with this independence to form and to nourish local communities of faith, the worship of Andrew is different from that of Thomas in India; is different from that Mark in Alexandria; and that of Peter at Antioch was different, even, from that of James at Jerusalem. In all things, the unity of truth guided by the Holy Spirit is present…in and with the Church. Jesus did not seek his Church to be uniform in words nor even in liturgical action, but rather one (unity) in truth and holiness. Christians do not worship words and formularies, they worship the unity of God as visually expressed the life of Jesus. The Scriptures bear testimony to the fact that details were unimportant in the infant church. The variations in scriptural details, (e.g., whether the sinful woman anointed the head or the feet of Jesus) did not shake the foundations of the early church. They immediately recognized that the core truth was: she repented from her sin. Whether the Priest stands without shoes as in the Ge’ez or Ethiopian liturgy, or in resplendent vestments as in the Byzantine liturgy, does not add to or take from the centrality of truth; Jesus is present eucharistically upon the altar under the forms of bread and wine, during the liturgy (mass), by action of the Holy Spirit and the faith of the people. And so it was to remain for the next 800 years…, each apostolic community united in its orthodoxy (true-teaching) and living and expressing and practicing this faith within the discipline of its own indigenous culture and customs.
THE HISTORIC CATHOLIC CHURCH:
As we use the word ‘Catholic’ it must be understood that the writer uses it accurately and not in the aborted sense. It is employed as it is understood in the Creeds, and as it is used by all scholars and theologians who write correctly. Thus, the “Catholic Church” is the Historic Church of Christ, preserving the orthodoxy (correct-doctrine) of the Great Ecumenical Catholic Church of the Councillor era, and united in the maintaining without alteration the Apostolic Episcopate and Seven Sacraments. The Church of the East – the Oriental Church – is the original trunk of this great Tree. And the non-orthodox Catholic Churches of the West are but severed ‘branches’ of it.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH:
For the first centuries, the church had little jurisdictional organization. It was not divided into provinces and dioceses until after the time of the “Peace of Constantine” and then only by voice and authority of the whole body of bishops in council. Persecution of the Church continued on and off, to a greater and lesser degree, until 312 A.D. when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which made peace with the Church and ended State persecution. Christianity was established as the State region. Thus, no longer fighting for its life and not so-plagued with external strife, the Church could now turn its interests to the building up and strengthening of administration elements of its life. Following the already established system of secular rule (of the territories of the Empire), provinces and dioceses were now established in the Church. In the secular realm a province was headed by a governor, but a church province by a bishop (usually an Archbishop). His residence, like that of the governor, was located in the major of the province, known as ‘metropolis.’ From this came the title “Metropolitan as a designation for the bishop of the chief city, i.e. of the metropolis. The early metropolitan areas were Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome. This was the beginning of the patriarchates, though the title was not yet in use and the designation of special status for the apostolic Churches. In A.D. 325 a council of all bishops of the Church was held at Nicea. The sixth and seventh canons of this Council may be considered the legal origin of the patriarchates. Here the voice of the whole church designated the primary churches (Constantinople was not yet among them). This council also designated the territories or boundaries of these churches, based on custom. According to the ancient custom, the Church at Rome enjoyed certain prerogatives, being the church of the imperial city. This metropolis had become an important spiritual center for Christians and was recognized as possessing a bishop who was “first among equals.” The Council of Nicea stated “let the ancient custom be preserved” and recognized the Bishop of Rome in such capacity, as it also recognized the prerogatives of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, et. The jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was determined to extend only over southern Italy and the islands of Corsica, Sicily, and Sardinia. In like manner, the council confirmed (according to custom) that the Bishop of Alexandria ruled over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, and “let the churches at Antioch and in other provinces also preserve their privileges.” Thus we see that in the fourth century just as in the first, it was the Church-in-Council who made decisions concerning the whole Church.
INAUGURATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE:
Although the Emperor had attained to peace with the Church, the empire was not yet to know peace. Threats of a barbarian invasion plagued the empire and this had much to do with the decision of the Emperor to move his court to safer quarters in the East – to a rather insignificant city called Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. The new imperial city the new Rome as it were – was inaugurated in May 330 A.D. As a result of this, at the second ecumenical council. (381 A.D.) the Fathers declared: “let the Bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honor (priores honoris parties) the Bishop of Rome was not especially happy with this ruling, not because he opposed such honor being given to the Church of the new imperial city, but because (he felt) it violated the decisions of the first ecumenical council which had accorded Antioch second rank after Rome. A century later, in 451 A.D. at the fourth ecumenical council of the holy. Fathers stated in their 28th Canon: In all things following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and recognizing the canon just read (the third of the second ecumenical council), we decree and establish the same thing touching the privileges of the holiest church of Constantinople, the new Rome. Most justly did the Fathers grant privileges to the See of ancient Rome because she was the reigning city. Moved by the same motive, the one hundred and fifty bishops well-beloved of God, grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, thinking very properly that the city that has the honor to be the seat of the empire and of the Senate, should enjoy in ecclesiastical things, the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city, since the former (Constantinople) although of later origin has been raised and honored as much as the latter (Rome)…” Thus, in the witness of the whole Church, we see the reason for the Bishop of Rome being recognized as “first among equals” it was because he was bishop of the imperial city. When the royal city was moved from Rome to Constantinople, for the same reason the Fathers accorded a like honor to the Bishop of the New Rome. Politically, because it pleased the Emperor to have all power and authority close to him, he readily agreed with this and other councils. And there seemed no limit to the honors accorded the Bishop of Constantinople. Things now were in reverse. The Church of Constantinople, the favoured right arm of the Emperor, experienced new splendor the old Rome, now out of favor, was quite forgotten. The Bishop of Rome fought this change and struggled to maintain certain prerogatives. And it has been suggested that in the whole affair the Bishops of Constantinople showed some degree of arrogance toward those of Rome, who now had only the memories of a glory becoming dimmer each day. Such was the beginning of the struggles between the two Churches and the motive that impelled the Roman Bishops to find a solution – a new answer for themselves in supporting the establishment of a new Western Empire. This would soon offer the Western hierarchy the opportunity to recapture what had been lost and to enlarge their prerogatives. These and such like struggles, to the shame of both East and West, led eventually to the rupture between the two in the eleventh century; doctrinal and theological. Misunderstandings, politics, and human vain-glory as Pope John XXIII observed, there have been faults on both sides.
Introduction of Division:
Before and after the “Peace of Constantine” and as the Church developed, Rome the Church of the imperial city expanded and grew up frequent conflicts with the civil order. The Bishop of Rome, because of his position, often became the spokesman for his brother bishops of other western provinces and territories in dealing with the Roman State. But when the Empire disintegrated, leaving Rome without any effective military protection against the barbarians, and without any capable civil government, the Bishop of Rome naturally assumed certain temporal powers. Thus did the Roman Church begin its evolution to be one of the world’s strongest organizations. Once launched on this dual temporal-spiritual career, it took unto itself more and more authority in matters secular. But in midst of all this was the continued friction between this Western see and Constantinople in the East, with Rome seeming to confuse its assumed temporal-civil authority with spiritual and church authority. For example, the Roman Patriarch Gregory II attempted issuing orders requiring a more uniform liturgical and musical celebration and practice for the whole of the Church. He implied a universal rather than a unilateral pastorate. The Eastern Churches, of course, never having recognized such pastorate at Rome and not about to depart from their usages received from the Apostles, simply ignored the Pope. The emperor reacted to the ego of the Roman Bishop by bestowing the imperial crown on the head of the Patriarch of Constantinople, an emblem of office which is worn even today by Eastern Orthodox bishops rather than the Episcopal miter. Such incidents of the struggle for power continued on and off into the 11th century. What initially was a political power struggle soon eroded into real and imagined doctrinal questions. The prominence of the Roman Patriarchate in centuries past and even today, as well as that of Constantinople (in the East), should not allow one to overlook other patriarchates which are equally apostolic and more ancient than either, and which equally share in a precedent as primary spiritual jurisdictions.
The patriarchates:
The five apostolic centers of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, formed and composed the Catholic Church, equal in apostolic authority and different only in worldly rank. They were knit together as one church by the acknowledgment of a common unchanged faith and heritage. But in time, one patriarch, the Patriarch of Rome, shattered this pristine united Catholicism by departing from its fellowship, its faith, and practice; in time permitting new and unsound doctrines, disguising others, and rearranging critical facts of Christian history so that the life and spirit of the once-orthodox Church of Rome of the first eight centuries became a complete stranger to its life and spirit of succeeding centuries. On the subject of the authority of various Bishops, and of the ideals of unified truth. Saint Jerome had this to say: “We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is losing authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a bishop, be he at, Rome, or at Eugubim; Constantinople or at Rhenium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a bishop neither greater nor less…” It cannot be more distinctly stated that the rule of truth dwells only in the entire Episcopal body, and not at one church; that the Bishop of Rome (and also he of Constantinople despite what honors or status civil authority of wealth should bestow) is no more, a bishop than the humbled bishop of the Church; that the status, the power or authority he possessed because of things, not of the Church did not make him superior in the church to the sacrifice of all other bishops.
THE GREAT SCHISM :
We have seen already that in the fourth century as in the first; in the fifth century as in the fourth; in all centuries of the Church, it was the Church which bestowed its honors, even upon the highest bishop. And it was the Church – speaking with one voice in council, which exercised the final judgment of its teaching. But within the context of the times, the Bishops of Rome took to themselves, from the whole church, more and more power and privileges, implying by action that the whole church in council was unnecessary. Once done, the claim of Divine Sanction was then claimed for the assorted innovations and therefore novelty and innovation became tradition and firm “fact.” Very early this became the attitude. Later, in an official document printed by a license of Pope Gregory XIII, we find the following: “all the Pope’s acts must be considered as God’s acts.” And worse, “The Pope can do all things God can do.” This developing papal mentality was gradual. But it was detected early by the Apostolic Churches in the East. The climax was not to come until some centuries later, in the 16th and 19th centuries, at the Lateran Council (1512) and Vatican Council I (1870). At the Lateran Council, the pretensions of the ninth to the 12th centuries developed into heresy. At this council, it was said that the Pope is “a second God upon the earth.” Like all metropolitan sees, Rome was looked to for guidance, especially from its dependencies in the West, and not infrequently from churches in the East. Rome naturally carried more influence than the lesser Western churches, and it was not uncommon that the influence of Rome easily translated into that of the ruler. But there were some who became nervous over a slowly developing encroachment. As early as the fourth century, a Council at Antioch ordered Pope Julius to cease his attempts to interfere (in eastern affairs) and threatened him with ex-communication. But not all such attempts were challenged, and therefore they became precedents for papal pretensions and later the presumption of one Bishop of Rome became the sanction of another. The Pseudo-Clementine epistles, claiming to be written by Pope Clement I, appeared as the first written evidence of Rome’s Petrine claims. These now are known to be false documents. Indeed, Rome is guilty of having attempted to back up its claims and prerogatives by the utterances of the Forged Decretals. There has not been in the whole history of the world so huge and successful a forgery. The DecCetals, now acknowledged by Rome to be forgeries, claimed to include writings of the Bishops of Rome of the first three centuries, as well as enacted canons. They were entered into the canon law of the Church and formed the basis on which the modern papal claims rest. Within these false papers is the claim that Emperor Constantine made a gift of a portion of Italy to the Pope. This has been quoted to uphold the temporal power of the papacy, but likewise has been proved a forgery. Patriarchates, Dioceses, and the like are mentioned in these alleged writings of the first three centuries, but such organization did not come into existence until the fourth century. Appearing in the later centuries, Pope Nicholas I eagerly seized the opportunity of the Decretals in support of his new claims. And such claims via the alleged ancient canons were generally accepted in the dependent Western Churches, which really had no cause to question and did much to establish the theory – in the West, at least that the Church of Rome did indeed possess its position by Divine Right, and that its bishop was the vicar of Christ. Well did the Roman Catholic professor, Gratry ask: “does God need man’s lies to forward or uphold His Kingdom?” The year 1054 is more symbolic than actual in dating the Great Schism. It was seeded by some petty issues which, as such, produced a smoke-screen to hide the profound underlying causes. And yet, the causes have been exaggerated. At this particular point, the Emperor in the East faced attack from the Normans. He wanted to solicit the help of the Germans and Italians, but in order to obtain this, he needed the influence and cooperation of the Bishop of Rome. To accomplish this, he needed to conciliate the Pope who had influence among these people. The Emperor wrote to the Pope that he wanted to re-establish friendly relationships between the two chief churches. He then persuaded (forced, some would say) the Eastern Patriarch Michael Cerularius to write in the same tone to the Pope, Leo IX. As a result, Pope Leo sent legates to Constantinople with two letters…, one for the Emperor and one for the Patriarch. At this time, however, the Pope was held by the Normans and died before his legates reached the East. The Patriarch questioned the credentials of the legates who, in turn, their Bishop being dead sought to undermine Michael’s authority with the civil government, especially since he had declined to communicate with them. Patriarch Michael, on his part, felt the papal letter to be filled with arrogance claiming rights and authority for the popes which were previously unheard of in the Church. The papal legates, thus rebuffed, went to the Church of St. Sophia during the hour of the liturgy and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the altar against the patriarch and his associates. Among their grievances were charging that the East had…excluded the filioque’ from the Creed and that eastern clergy was permitted to be married. Patriarch Michael then issued alike Bull, not against the Roman Church but against its errors…that of inserting the ‘filioque’ in the Creed, the refusal to communicate beaded clergy, the denial of marriage to the clergy, and persecution of married clergy. (The married clergy of Rome – when ordered by the pope to give up their wives – said they would rather give up their priesthood, and wondered if, under such conditions, angels and not men should have been called to the priesthood.) There were trivial complaints on both sides. But to what degree had either church innovated? Beneath the surface complaints rested the greater conflict between primitive orthodox Christianity which the East proclaimed it alone kept alive, and the developing of the Church of Rome into a monarchy that tended to promote novelty. In time, the balance of the Catholic Church in the East – Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., followed the Church of Constantinople, leaving Rome the dissenting Church.
Re: Married Clergy:
The Word of God said: This is a true saying if a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, married, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (I Tim. 3:12, 13) Let the deacons be married, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 3:1, 2) The Church of Rome within its western rite does not allow married clergy, contrary to scripture. However, the Eastern Rite under Rome is allowed married clergy (creating a double standard).
ORTHODOX CATHOLICISM vs. ROMAN CATHOLICISM :
If the modern mind questions how such a state of affairs could come about. One must remember that the Roman drift from Orthodoxy was not sudden. It happened over a very long period of time. Except for scholars, few in the west were even aware of any change. In the West – as in the East – habits of thought were easily formed and what one thought to be fact, to be true, became fact accept whatever was presented from the only Patriarchal Church in the West and often to bow to its decisions, even to the sacrifice of indigenous spirituality. But the same happened in the East in relation to the ‘lesser’ Apostolic Churches with the ‘major’ Eastern Patriarchal Church – Constantinople. In this spirit, the chief Churches could present claims and positions – out of context – and find them readily accepted by their dependent Churches. Scriptural passages, canons of Councils, and the like, could be quoted out of context and thus used to support a belief, a cause, a claim. Certainly, even a casual reading of Scripture would have dispelled some of these. But in that age, theologians alone read Scripture. The people merely listened and followed. An example: Pope Saint Gregory the Great, venerated the councils as the four gospels, as the stones four-square on which the structure of faith rests. But who knew this in the eleventh century? This same Orthodox Pope noted (in a series of correspondence with the Patriarch of Antioch) that any bishop who desired to be called the universal bishop was taking from others what was (also) theirs. And that such a person who dared to covet such a title was the forerunner of the Anti-Christ. A later Roman Patriarch, Leo XIII, apparently was unaware of this stance of the great Gregory when he erred to himself as “we who stand on this earth in the place of God.” One will look in vain for evidence that the Apostles knew anything at all about the claims made in later centuries by the bishop of Rome as well as he of Constantinople Our Lord was very clear as to the powers which He delegated. The Apostles must have understood His words correctly, seeing received “the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.” There is no evidence in Scripture that the Apostles understood Christ’s words (Thou art Peter ) as giving that Apostle any jurisdiction or authority over them. The Lord expressly forbade any such exercise of the authority of one over the others and said: “it shall not be so among you.” Cardinal Newman said, “of the first twelve Apostles not one was possessed of universal jurisdiction.” It may be sufficient to quote from the learned Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, Dr. Kenrick, who said “if we are bound to follow the majority of the Fathers…then we are bound to hold for certain that by the “Rock” should be understood as the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the Faith.” Of interest: every historical fact on which Christianity is based and found in the Creed is recorded in Scripture. If Peter was the Apostle of Apostles, and if the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Bishops, it should be found in the same place, It is not. Forged claims are the dearest confession that he who makes the claim has no claim at all. The pseudo-Clementine epistles, the later false Decretals; the Dacridium of Gratia, the Donation of Constantine, are among the first innovations of the Roman Church. While these forgeries are now admitted, the die long ago was cast, albeit with deception and falsehood, which permitted the Church of Rome to gain a strong grip on the mind and thinking of people that she claims to be.
Regarding the Primacy of Peter:
Saint Augustine has said: “he had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons…
Thou art Peter:
The majority of Church Fathers understood these words of Christ to mean the faith confessed by Peter, healing of his thrice-denial. Among those who taught this were St. Hillary, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, Chrysostom, etc. St. Augustine explains: (in calling him the rock) “Christ meant by this rock the one Peter had confessed in saying, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Peter as Bishop of Rome:
The tradition of the second century was that Linus, not Peter, was the first bishop of Rome. Certainly, Peter visited Rome and is believed to have assisted Paul in the organization of the Church there. But neither Peter nor Paul were diocesan bishops. Such office or rank did not exist then. As Peter resided and taught at Antioch; as Paul taught at Antioch and other places, so did they establish and teach at the Church at Rome. St. Irenaeus said, “the blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) when they had founded and organized the Church of Rome, gave to Linus the episcopate and the care of governing that Church…”Eusebius and Tertullian mention this also, saying the Bishops are listed as Linus being the first, then Anencletus and Clement. “Clement was the third, since the apostles, who had charge of that episcopate.”
The Immaculate Conception:
This doctrine is both profane and futile. It is at least an indirect result of the teaching of St. Augustine that in fallen man conception cannot take place without sin. Therefore every child that is conceived is stained with sin. Catholic-Orthodox doctrine rejects the Immaculate Conception since it also rejects the Augustinian doctrine of “original guilt. historic Catholicism-Orthodoxy teaches a loss of supernatural grace and a hereditary tendency to sin. But the Bishop of Rome elected to publish this new doctrine and required that all Roman Catholics believe it under pain or loss of salvation.
Papal Infallibility:
History shatters the argument put forth by Vatican Council 1870 that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and always has been. Where was such infallibility when Pope Nicholas I told the church of Bulgaria that baptism in the name of Jesus was sufficient? And what of the case of Pope Honorius who was condemned as a heretic b the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and by all his Roman successors down to the eleventh century)? And though it was opposed by Rome’s most able theologians, the pope went ahead in 1870 and saw to it that the Council of that year bowed to his pre-determined wishes and proclaimed the dogma. History shows seeking Christians, that claims made by the papacy, the Bishops of Rome were unknown in the Apostolic Church, and began emerging in the eight to the thirteenth centuries; that they have been invented by individuals known and unknown and advanced by various means, including forged documents. And while it is true that for eight centuries the Church of Rome was the Orthodox Catholic Church in the West, it departed from Orthodoxy (true doctrine) and separated itself from its own history. The teachings of the Church of Rome of the first eight centuries all that is required for salvation – is not the same as put forth in later centuries. The deposit of Faith was closed with the death of the last apostle. The seven ecumenical councils of the Church did not introduce new articles to be accepted as necessary for salvation but merely defined that which had existed from the beginning, each portion of which is in perfect and total harmony with Scripture. The first and second Ecumenical Councils (accepted and endorsed by Rome) taught correctly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and together with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified. This is true since it was taught by our Lord himself. Yet in the Church of Rome (at first in lesser Western churches), the papacy eventually endorsed addition to the Creed, teaching that the “Holy Spirit PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON…And finally, the Eucharist – the precious Body and Blood of Christ which is the heart of liturgical worship for all Catholic Christians. From the very beginning Rome and Constantinople, and all other Catholic Churches of the Orthodox position taught and believed that the faithful receive the true and actual Body and Blood of the Lord as the bread and wine are changed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is accomplished by the descent of the Holy Spirit invoked by the prayers and actions of a lawfully ordained priest. The priest has only the authority to invoke the Holy Spirit and He descends to “Change this bread”… “and that in this cup” making them the “precious Body of Your Christ…” and the “precious Blood of Your Christ”… nothing is present except common bread and wine. And yet, in later centuries within the Roman Church, we are told that the change is made when the priest recites the words of the Lord at the Last Supper: “This is my body, this is my blood” without…, the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
The name of the Church is not Orthodox. Its name is CATHOLIC, from ancient times. Orthodox is a Creek term – a combination of two Greek words – of ancient stability which describes what the Church is. It is, indeed, only a temporary designation, one which will have no justification when the reunion is achieved. This time-honored term was applied to the historic Catholic Church in the East as early as the fifth century to identify its teachings from those who had taken issue and were in heresy (hereto-dox) concerning the Divinity of Jesus. The Council of Ephesus (431) defined as a matter of faith a number of doctrines about Jesus Christ (that He was both God and man, but one divine person with his divine and human natures joined in a special union called “hypostatic”) and this council also solemnly declared His Mother, Mary the virgin to be the “Mother of God (Theotokos).” This council deposed Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople for holding an opposite doctrine. Nestorius and his followers taught that God merely dwelt in a human nature assumed by him in the womb of Mary. This resulted in the formation of a schismatic Church that exists to this day in the East. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined that Jesus was perfect God and perfect human IN (not OF) two natures, without confusion, without change, without separation from his divinity, without division, both natures being fused in the one person and the one hypostasis. This also caused a schism, for there were those of Antioch and Alexandria and other regions who thought this was contrary to the confession of Cyril of Alexandria and therefore rejected it. Generally, these people were called Monophysites ‘one-nature’- being charged withholding that the two natures were so perfectly blended and joined as to result in one nature only. (Later theological scholarship, however, recommends these initial “charges” of heresy were themselves in error.) In opposition to these doctrinal confusions and errors the historic Catholic Church came to be identified also as Orthodox (of the correct doctrine; the true teaching concerning the Person and Natures of Christ).
Catholic (also a Greek word) is the name of the Church.
It is a term that means “universal” but more properly should be rendered “embracing the whole.” For this Church of Jesus, which had as its first pastors the Holy Apostles, in the New Dispensation of God through Jesus given to all people for all times. Unfortunately, little catecheses have been done in the past to expose the general laity to some profound facts. Within the umbrella of Roman Catholicism, there are numerous Rites that use the basic liturgy of the East, i.e., Melkite, Maronites, |Ukrainian, etc.) Because the Latin Rite – the former rite of the Church of Rome – has been predominant, it has become customary to associate the word “catholic” with the Roman Catholic Church. A similar fact is true in the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are many national Churches under the umbrella of Orthodoxy, e.g., Greek, Syrian Albanian, Ukrainian, Russian, America, etc. But because the Greek Orthodox Church (Constantinople) has predominated, it has become customary to associate Orthodoxy with the Greeks (and also with the East). ALL are Catholic Christians (of the Universal Church) and ALL are Orthodox (correctly-teaching) so long as the Churches of the East and of the West adhere to the faithful disposition of the Sacraments and remain faithful to the true elements for salvation the teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ
Articles of Faith
The bond of unity between the Churches is that of FAITH, handed down to us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit from the Apostles, and declared true by seven ecumenical councils: Nicea, 325 A.D.; Constantinople, 325 A.D.; Ephesus, 431 A.D.; Chalcedon, 451 A.D.; Constantinople II, 533 A.D.; Constantinople 680 A.D.; Nicea II, 787 A.D. \The Western Orthodox-Catholic Church joins in faith, hope and love with churches possessing and exercising this Faith and the ministry of the apostles. We hold fast to the ancient Faith as taught by the Apostles in the Creed, and taught faithfully by the Churches during the first one thousand years of undivided Christendom. With love and respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we do not accept Her as necessary for salvation that she was conceived immaculately. We honor and accept the Theotokos to be the pure and spotless one, but reject the tradition which holds that salvation is contingent upon this statement. We accept the concept of the “expectant” state in which man is prepared to come into the blessed vision of the Godhead. We reject the doctrine of purgatory as unnecessary for salvation and not founded in tradition or scripture. The departed are our brothers and sisters for whom we perform prayers and good works beseech the mercy of God and who intercedes for us before God. Though departed from the earthly Church they remain of the Church nevertheless. We sincerely believe that in the Sacrament of the Altar, we truly receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, under the elements of Bread and Wine, which mystery is beyond our human understanding and is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The celebration of the Eucharist is not a constant repetition of the atoning sacrifice which Christ offered once and for all upon the Cross; but it is a perpetual remembrance of that one sacrifice, a representation on earth of that one offering of Christ for the salvation of all mankind. According to Hebrews 9:11, 12, this is continually presented by Christ in Heaven, where he now appears in the presence of God the Father for us (Hebrews 9:24). This is the true relationship between this memorial on earth and the one-atoning, perpetual sacrifice of Christ in heaven. It is at the same time a sacred feast in which the faithful receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in Communion with one another. The clergy of the Western Orthodox Catholic Church, believing this and more, are exhorted to promulgate these doctrines of faith in their sermons and in their daily lives and actions, and they are exhorted to avoid carefully offending those who hold beliefs different, treating each person not as in error but as uninformed or misinformed, experiencing them in love and in the truth of Jesus. In such a spirit of charity will we truly exhibit the Spirit of Jesus who is Savior to all. We believe that by holding firm to the true teachings of Jesus, as promulgated in the early life of the apostolic Church while rejecting all error through which the weakness of mankind has mingled with it, and also, all ecclesiastical abuses. And hierarchical ambitions, that we do our most to counter-act the unbelief and religious indifference which are now the moral evils of our age, validity ordained ministry in apostolic succession is not sufficient for Christians and Christian unity. We must accept the Universal Symbol of Faith, the Nicene Creed, without the addition of the filioque clause. For Christ, himself taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and not also from the Son or any additions or subtractions from the original deposit of |Faith. We acknowledge and accept the dogmas taught by the seven concise statements on these doctrines taught by the Universal Church of Jesus Christ. We reject and deny the claim to infallibility by any Patriarch as contrary to the canons of the ecumenical councils and the living history of the Church, and as well reject the claim of any patriarch or bishop to sole and supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church of Jesus Christ. We venerate reproductions of the spiritual likeness of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Mother and the Saints, respecting and honoring them as representing sacred persons. In no way are they upheld to worship. We believe firmly in the inspired teachings of the Sacred Scripture that there is only one Mediator between God and Man, who is Jesus Christ P(1 Tim, 2, 5).
We believe in intercessory prayers of the saints who are our glorified brothers and sisters in the Church on earth, for we are united in the one communion of the saints which we declare to believe in the Creed. We reject the theory that somehow there is a treasury of merits of the saints and that we on earth may share in these“excessive merits.” Finally, we permit no dissent from the Orthodox doctrines of our faith, for no one way add to it or take away from the fundamental faith of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Faith.
THE GENESIS OF WESTERN RITE ORTHODOXY IN NORTH AMERICA AND ASIA:
When Orthodoxy first reached the shores of America in the eighteenth century, certain ethnic traits from the Eastern Hemisphere crossed the ocean with the Faith. With the passage of time, these characteristics should have disappeared. Or, at least, receded into the background. Unfortunately, however, foreign nationality ideologies were to dominate and even retard the normal development and growth of the Church in North America. Emphasized and perpetuated has been a proliferation of nationality variations. This has created ethnic islands in the church, each adding a flavor, a cultural deviation, a national devotion to the sacrifice of an authentic indigenous Orthodox Catholicism. The manifestation of all these tended to cut the Church off from the rest of America and to confirm in the thinking of many that what was suspected really was true. The Orthodox Church is a foreign Church. In accordance with Church tradition and canons, the Orthodox Faith in a new nation should arise from a mission to its people. Its missionaries will concentrate on developing an indigenous church for the nation, employing not only the local language, the customs and traditions of the people but also sanctifying…orthodoxy if you will – the people’s native characteristics. Many Orthodox bishops and priests felt it a mistake to try to perpetuate in America the ecclesiastical order of the past as the norm for the new Church of America. They argued, and with justification, that the ethnic traits of their people most of whom came from Eastern national cultures – coexisted uneasily with the Anglo-Saxon mentality prevalent in America. But they were hesitant, however, to do anything to change the situation. American Orthodoxy thus became little more than colonies of Greek, Russian and Syrian religious life planted on western soil. But there is a moment of grace for which one must know how to patiently wait. It has been seldom that the ancient Eastern Patriarchs, “Mother Church of American Orthodoxy”, has understood this attitude among their American children. And to this day they hardly grasp the essence of the problem.
The mandate:
Ancient canon law gives primacy of honor, in church administration, to that group of Orthodox bishops which first establishes an Orthodox Church in a new area. Since the missionary monks who founded the Orthodox Church in North America were from the Orthodox Church of Russia, the primacy of the Russian Church is a matter of common knowledge. In 1794 eight monks arrived in Alaska from Russia and began their mission.
The Russian presence in North America:
Parallel with and as a part of the development of the Russian Church in America was the development within it of a number of parishes of Creek, Syrian, Serbian, Romanian, and other nationalities of Orthodox Christians – including some American converts. This development of several national dioceses in America, all within the general oversight of the Russian Church was consistent with the (now) famous “Plan” of Archbishop Tikhon proposed to the Synod in November 1905. Thus we have seen the Russian archbishop in America) to organize the Church as one Federation of several national or linguistic groups under the primacy of the Russian Archbishop the Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church of America being one of this number. Had the plan been put into effect, and had the exarchate envisaged as inevitable and necessary for America, been established and in operation before World War 1, the political events in Europe would have had little or no effect on the Church in America beyond rendering its independence and unity as a peculiarly American body still more complete. Unfortunately, the American Exarchate as envisioned by Abp. Tikhon never succeeded. This was due in part to his recall to Russia, his later election as Patriarch, and the 1917 Russian Revolution.
A NEW BUD ON AN ANCIENT TREE
On the feast of the Holy Pasha in the year of our Lord 1965 by Sacred, Decree from his Holiness, Alexis, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, of Moscow and of all Russia, and by His Eminence, Archbishop John Wendland, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in North and South America, that during the celebration of Pontifical Divine Liturgy, in Saint Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral, that on the Feast of Holy Pasha, 1965, that he Father Joseph John Skurith, O.M. an Orthodox Priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, being (BI-RITUAL) was duly elevated and consecrated from the office of Priest to the office of Bishop, by the laying on of hands, through the grace of the holy spirit, and His jurisdiction will be known as the Western Orthodox Catholic Church in America. The Mariavite Diocesan Province of Indiana and North America.
On the 4th day of May in the year of our Lord 1989 at Merrillville Indiana in the U.S.A. the rev. Father Christopher Wicks and Ross Michael Lloyd were Consecrated to the office of Bishop by the Most Rev. Edward K. Hale of the Liberal Catholic Church and His Eminence the Archbishop John Joseph Skurith, O.M. of the Western Orthodox Catholic Church in America The Mariavite Diocesan Province of Indiana and North America.
Their community will be known as St. Jude’s Mission International
On the 15th day of June 1989 at Portage du Fort Quebec, the Orthodox Priest Emilio V. Rana was consecrated to the office of Bishop by the Most Rev. Christopher Wicks and the Most Rev. Ross Michael Lloyd. Bishop Rana was installed as Bishop of the Philippines on the 23rd of September 1989, at the parish in Santa Cruz, Laguna, Philippines. On the 24th day of February 1990, the Bishops Christopher Wicks and Ross Michael Lloyd and their Canadian and Philippine province were taken under the Paternity and Protection of Primate John Joseph Skurith and were appointed as Bishops of the Western Orthodox Catholic Church diocese of Canada and the Philippines. A community of St Jude’s Mission International. On the 4th day of February 1990. The Orthodox Priest Oscar F. Tadle was Consecrated to the office of Bishop by His Eminence Archbishop Christopher Wicks and assisted by his Eminence Archbishop Ross Michael Lloyd, Bishop of Canada and Archbishop Emilio V. Rana, Bishop of the Philippines. The consecration took place at the parish of St. Jude in Santa Cruz, Laguna, Philippines. Bishop Tadle was installed as an assistant to Archbishop Rana, and held that office until his transfer to Canada January 15, 1994.
January 15th, 1994. His Holiness John Joseph Skurith retired as Primate of the Western “Orthodox Catholic Church on the 25th day of October 1990 due to health problems. Before he retired he appointed Archbishop Christopher Wicks as his successor, which was also ratified by Archbishop Ross Lloyd of Quebec, Archbishop Rana of the Philippines and Bishop Oskar Tadle also of the Philippines.