The Founding of Orthodoxy

Part I

Most Rev. Archbishop Gregori

From Pentecost to the Present:

The true orthodox way of thought has always been historical, has always included the past, but has never been enslaved by it. . . [For] the strength of the Church is not in the past, present, or future, but in Christ.    -Fr. Alexander Schmemann

The Orthodox Church is history in the flesh, in a manner of speaking, because of the fact that the teachings of the Bible take place in a historical context. In other words, they are a revelation of historical data, a narrative of God’s actions in history. Thus, Orthodox worship is a witness to history, from the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, saints, monks, mystics, ascetics, martyrs, and theologians. It is this fact that lies at the root of Orthodoxy's conviction that it is the true Church of Christ on earth. Of course, the Church has evolved and changed over the centuries, but through its basic and essential identity and its organic and spiritual continuity, it has remained coextensive with the Church founded by the Apostles. It is the living extension in both time and space of the primitive Church in Jerusalem.

The birth and evolution of Orthodoxy began on Pentecost in Jerusalem with the out-pouring of Holy Spirit upon the small group of the Disciples of Jesus Christ. It was at this event that the Apostles, who were eye witnesses to the messianic earthly ministry of Jesus, felt authorized to preach and spread the Gospel (the Good News) to the world. It was on Pentecost that the Apostles were able to fully understand the glorious mystery of Pascha, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Thus they went forth preaching this Good News.

This birth and growth of the early Church was froth with problems and growing pains. Most of the Apostles, along with many of their followers, faced persecutions and martyrdom, yet the Church grew in numbers and survived and by the third century, even though the various individual Christian groups were unevenly scattered, Christians made up approximately ten percent of the total population of the Roman Empire, which made it a strong enough force to compel the emperors of Rome to end the persecutions. This was aided by the conversion of Constantine the Great along with his mother Helena, who gave legal recognition to the Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century (312 A.D.). By the end of the fourth century, Christianity became the official religion of the empire under Theodosius (392).

There were many reasons for the success of the Church and led to its victory over its persecutors. Among these reasons was disciplined hierarchal structure of the Church which was made up of Patriarchs, Metropolitan Archbishops, Archbishops, Bishops, Presbyters (priests), Deacons, etc. In the beginning, the ministry of the Apostles was itinerant, not stationary. After founding a community the Apostles would depart for another mission, leaving behind others to administer the new congregation and preside over the Eucharist and Baptism. In effect, a local hierarchy developed whose functions were stationary, administrative, and sacramental in contrast with the mobile authority of the Apostles. The presiding officer of each community, especially at each Sunday Eucharistic meal, was the episcopos, or bishop, who was assisted by priests and deacons. By the early second century, this settled system with its threefold pattern of bishop, priest, and deacon was already in place in many areas. This type of hierarchal authority should come as no surprise; after all, the Last Supper -- the first liturgy -- could not have taken place without the Lord's presiding presence. From the beginning, the existence of a presiding head was taken for granted by the Church. This establishment of a local "monarchical" episcopate is still at the very center of Orthodox ecclesiology. Another reason for the success and survival of the infant Church was its care for the poor and the deprived and the message of Christianity about the equality of mankind in the eyes of God made a deep impression on the urban populations of the ancient world. Also, Christianity appeared to some to be an exclusive group that seemed to give one a sense of belonging, and this attracted new followers. But the real reason for the success of the Church was its saving message of the Gospel which promised liberation from bondage and the corruption of death, along with reconciliation and forgiveness of sins.

Both the Roman Empire and the civilization of Europe, which followed, reaped the benefits of the Church’s victory. The first four centuries of the Christian Church were, to a large extent, it’s most creative. It was during that time that the Church acquired its sense of self-identity which has remained the norm for Orthodoxy today. At the beginning of the Church, there was no New Testament. At that time, “Scripture” simply referred to the Old Testament writings. As the Church grew and developed, the early Church Fathers began to see a need to place all of the writings of apostolic origin or inspiration into a single canon. To this day, this collection of twenty-seven books still constitutes the total apostolic witness for the Church and is identical with our present New Testament. The most significant event in the history of Christianity during this period was its transformation, into a religion of two Testaments. Scripture in the Orthodox Church is routinely interpreted within the context of Tradition. Early Christians lived solely by Tradition handed down from the Apostles and their successor’s decades before the content of the New Testament was determined.

The fourth century was the start of a new civilization, the founding of the Christian Byzantine Empire in the city of Constantinople which became the center of Roman government when Emperor Constantine the Great moved the seat of Government to Byzantium from Rome in 330. The importance of this event in the history of Eastern Christianity cannot be exaggerated. This capital situated in the old Greek city of Byzantium, soon became the focus of the new emerging Orthodox civilization. Its lasting legacy lies mainly in the area of religion and art. The new cultural synthesis that developed was very clearly Christian, dominated by the Christian vision of life, rather than the pagan. One need only turn to Justinian's (532) "Great Church" of the Holy Wisdom -- the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople -- to realize this. Constantinople not only became the “New Rome”, it also became the undisputed center of Orthodox Christianity. It was at this point in the history of the Church that the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of "ecumenical patriarch. The Byzantine Empire was the single longest chapter in the history of the Church. It survived for over a millennium until its fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

It was during the period of the Byzantine Empire that the Seven Ecumenical Councils took place. The seven ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are of great importance as these Synods (assemblies) were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine and as such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the persons of Christ, the incarnation. The decisions of these councils remain binding for the whole Church; non-acceptance constitutes exclusion from the communion of the Church which explains the separation from the body of the Church of such groups as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. Ultimately, acceptance of these councils by the entire community of the Church is what gave them validity and authority. The acceptance of these decisions was due to the great theologians of the age. The literary defense, of these decisions, found in the theological writings of such Church Fathers and saints as Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, still constitute an inexhaustible theological source for the contemporary Orthodox Christian.

The First Seven Ecumenical Councils are very important for another reason. The threefold ministerial structure of the Church was already a reality in many communities by the post-apostolic period. Each of the self-contained local churches, had its own independent hierarchical structure, was a self-governing unit. But, exact standards governing the relations of these churches with each other had not yet been defined. Yet, a certain "power structure" modeled in the main upon the organization of the Roman Empire eventually emerged, and even before the fourth century a provincial system had developed in which churches were grouped in provinces. In such cases it was customary to give greater honor to the "metropolitan" or bishop of the capital city (metropolis) of each province. Similarly, given the importance of certain cities in the Roman administration, special precedence was accorded the presiding bishop of the three largest cities in the empire: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The Fathers of the first council (325) formally recognized the status of the three dioceses of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. With the emergence of Constantinople as the new capital of the empire, this patriarchal system was further modified. At the council of 381, Constantinople, as the "New Rome," was accordingly given second place after the old Rome, while Alexandria was assigned third place. This legislation received further confirmation at the fourth council of Chalcedon (451), when Constantinople, along with Jerusalem, was granted patriarchal status.

By the fifth century, a "pentarchy" or system of five sees (patriarchates), with a settled order of precedence, had been firmly established. As the ancient center and largest city of the empire, Rome was given primacy of honor within the pentarchy into which Christendom was now divided. Thus, this system of patriarchs and metropolitans was exclusively the result of ecclesiastical legislation; there was nothing inherently divine in its origin. None of the five sees possessed its authority by divine right. If they had, then Alexandria could not have been demoted to third rank in order to have Constantinople exalted to second place. The determining factor was simply their secular status as the most important cities in the empire. Each of the five patriarchs was totally sovereign within his sphere of jurisdiction and the primacy of Rome, as such, did not entail universal jurisdictional power over the others. Just the opposite, all bishops, be they patriarchs or not, were equal. No one bishop however exalted his see or diocese could claim supremacy over the others. The Bishop of Rome was simply vested with the presidency, as the senior bishop - the first among equals.

Byzantine religious art is among the empire's most enduring legacies. An iconoclast victory would have altered the course of Byzantine painting. Iconoclasm is often viewed apart from the Christological debates with which the earlier ecumenical councils concerned themselves, but the issue, to a large extent, was Christological in its nature. How could the divinity of Christ -- suggested the iconoclasts -- be depicted or represented without lapsing into idolatry? Veneration of the Lord's icon was nothing less than idolatrous worship of inanimate wood and paint; and that expressly was forbidden by Scripture to the Christian. This seemingly cogent argument, however, did not convince the Fathers of the Seventh Council. The Council stated that it is true, icons are made of wood and paint, but that they are only a symbol and not an object of absolute veneration or worship. The Church Fathers went on to state that icons are only relatively venerated since the true object of veneration is ultimately the person imaged or depicted in the icon, not the image itself. The Fathers concluded that it is altogether unlawful to worship icons, for God alone is worshipped and adored, but they could and should be venerated, however. The insistence that icons should be honored brings us to the Church's second crucial argument -- the Christological. This argument maintains that a representation of the Lord or of the saints is entirely permissible and in fact necessary because of the incarnation. In other words, the Son of God, the image of the Father, can be depicted pictorially precisely because he became visible and describable by assuming human nature and by becoming man. The defeat of the iconoclasts is celebrated annually by the Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Lent. This "Feast of Orthodoxy" commemorates the final restoration of images (11 March 843).

The Byzantine period not only influenced the devotional art of the Orthodox Church, it highly influenced the liturgical life and development of the Church. Before rising to political prominence in the fourth century, Constantinople was only a minor see and it did not have any liturgical tradition of its own. This situation changed as Constantinople slowly absorbed various liturgical elements and traditions from older centers such as Antioch and Jerusalem which made major contributions to the "process of Byzantinization", the formation of the Byzantine Rite. Another major contributor to this process was Constantinople’s own resident imperial court with its own elaborate ceremonial. Due to Constantinople’s growing importance in the Church, this new liturgical synthesis became the standard and eventually replaced all other local rites within the Church by the time that the ninth century rolled around. The liturgy and the whole cycle of services, such as compline, vespers, etc., used today in the Orthodox world, are substantially identical with the original Byzantine rite of Constantinople.

Byzantine monasticism played a vital role in the victory of the Church against iconoclasm. They also had a large part in the formation of the liturgical regulations governing the cycle of Orthodox services today. Monasticism had large and vital impact on Orthodox Christianity as it was all encompassing and far-reaching. Before the fourth century, monasticism as a permanent institution did not exist. The foundations of monasticism are anchored in the totality of the Gospel message - the source of both its creativity and strength. The purpose of withdrawing into the desert or a monastery is the renunciation of the world and of Satan to which every Christian commits himself at baptism. This renunciation is a basic condition to being a Christian. The monastic life is intimately bound to the baptismal vow. Entering a monastery is simply another means by which some have chosen to live the absolute ideal of the Gospel.

It is due to its essentially Christian goals that asceticism spread and influenced Orthodox spirituality, prayer, piety, and general Church life. Besides, the Church itself supported and promoted it, having recognized its unique charismatic ministry, usefulness, and potential for holiness. It was from the countless monastic communities that the Church often recruited its episcopate. Mt. Athos, alone, produced 144 bishops and provided the Church with 26 patriarchs. Indeed, virtually two thirds of the patriarchs of Constantinople between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries were monastics. As the established faith of the Byzantine Empire, the Church was often in danger of identifying itself with the state, of becoming worldly and thus losing its eschatological dimension. The monastic presence was always there to remind the Church of its true nature and identity with another Kingdom. Its fierce opposition to any compromise of the Christian vision was crucial in the Church's survival and independence. Often, the Byzantine/Orthodox Church has been described as a "state" or "national" Church, which is untrue. However, the Byzantine world did become more Greek, both in its language as well as geographically. This was the result of the defection of the non-Greek speaking areas of Syria and Egypt during the period of the ecumenical councils.

The schism between Eastern and Western Christendom didn’t help matters any, as it further isolated and confined Christian Byzantium. The loss of the non-Greek speaking areas and the schism between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church were a considerable loss and it was a tragedy both for the Church and the empire. Though the Church is "eastern" due to its geographical location, its theology and tradition is Catholic and Orthodox. The Byzantine Church itself was never so confined or isolated as the Byzantine Empire and the vitality of its missionary efforts in Eastern Europe and the Slavic world, soon after the iconoclastic controversy, is perfect evidence to the contrary.     

The Founding of Orthodoxy

Part II

Eastern Patriarchates

Most Rev. + Gregori

The Christianization or evangelization of the Slavs was initiated by Patriarch Photius, one of Byzantium's most learned churchmen. His appointment of the brothers Cyril and Methodius for the mission showed a real sense of missionary insight, as both brothers spoke the Slavic dialect then in use among the Slavic settlers near their native city of Thessalonica. Upon receiving their commission from Patriarch Photius, they immediately created an alphabet, the so-called Cyrillic alphabet; and then proceeded to translate the Scripture and the liturgy. This was the origin of Church Slavonic, the common liturgical language still used by the Russian Orthodox Church and other Slavic Orthodox Christians.

Their first mission to Moravia was unsuccessful, as they were forced to flee by German missionaries and the changing political situation, but their work was not in vain. Soon, Byzantine missionaries, including the exiled disciples of the two brothers, turned to other locations. At the beginning of the eleventh century most of the pagan Slavic world, including Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia, had been won for Byzantine Christianity. The Church at Constantinople officially recognized Bulgaria as a patriarchate in 945, followed by Serbia in 1346, and Russia in 1589. The conversion of Russia actually began with the baptism of Vladimir of Kiev in 989, on which occasion he was also married to the Byzantine princess Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II.

The expansion into the Slavic world created an Orthodox "Commonwealth." Byzantine art, literature, and culture were no longer confined within Byzantium's own political boundaries but extended far beyond into the Balkans and the north of Russia to create a single Byzantine Orthodox commonwealth. The Slavic nations, in reality, were not only Christianized, but civilized by the Byzantines. The conversion of the Slavs was not only pivotal in the destiny of the young Slavic nations, but it was equally decisive for the future of the Church. The addition of Slavic Orthodoxy into the Orthodox “family” permanently enlarged the Church's area of geographic distribution; the Slavic element brought immense riches into the Church's midst. Few people, perhaps, have embraced the Orthodox faith with such love and devotion as the Slavs.

This chapter of Church history also serves to show another major point. Western Christianity at this time was zealously imposing a uniform Latin liturgical language on converts, whereas Byzantine Christianity refused to do so. Greek was seldom used as a missionary language among the Slavs. The idea of a single liturgical language was shunned. The Cyrillic alphabet and liturgy, which employed the vernacular language of the peoples, created native-speaking Churches in the Balkans and elsewhere. The Orthodox Church insisted on preaching the Gospel in the ordinary language of the people so as to be directly and immediately understood by the new converts. And that, after all, is the goal of Christian mission. In the history of Orthodoxy, this legacy of the "Apostles to the Slavs," Saints Cyril and Methodius, is among the most precious and it is held very dear in the hearts of all Orthodox Christians.

The tragic event of the medieval Church was the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity. This sad division was not a single event, but a prolonged process spanning centuries. The cracks and fissures in Christian unity are arguably visible as early as the fourth century, which makes the year 1054, the traditional date marking the beginning of the schism and the excommunication of patriarch Michael Cerularius by papal legates, false. In reality, there is no exact date for the schism. The schism was a result of a complex chain of events whose climax was only reached in the thirteenth century with the sack of Constantinople by western Crusaders (1204). Keep in mind that the events leading to schism were not always exclusively theological in nature. Cultural, political, and linguistic differences were often mixed with the theological. Unlike the Copts or Armenians who broke from the Church in the fifth century and established ethnic churches at the cost of their universality and catholicity, the eastern and western parts of the Church remained loyal to the faith and authority of the seven ecumenical councils. They were united, by virtue of their common faith and tradition, in one Church. The transfer of the Roman capital to the Bosporus inevitably brought mistrust, rivalry, and even jealousy to the relations of the two great sees, Rome and Constantinople. Sadly, it was easy for Rome to be jealous of Constantinople at a time when it was rapidly losing its political prominence.

Rome refused to recognize the conciliar legislation which promoted Constantinople to second rank. This estrangement was also helped along by the German invasions in the West, which effectively weakened contacts. The rise of Islam with its conquest of most of the Mediterranean coastline (not to mention the arrival of the pagan Slavs in the Balkans at the same time) further intensified this separation by driving a physical wall between the two worlds. Communication between the Greek East and the Latin West by the 600s had become dangerous and all but ceased.

The rift widened further in the ninth century when the missionary ambitions of the two communions clashed over the Christianization of Bulgaria and Moravia. The election of Patriarch Photius even caused a temporary division, known as the "Photian Schism." It is the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor by the pope and the revival in 800 of a western "Roman" Empire which best shows how far the gulf had widened. The West was acting as if the Roman Empire, with its legitimate emperor in Constantinople, had ceased to exist. The Byzantine Empire's claims to world sovereignty were being totally ignored. Charlemagne's new "empire" was usurping the legitimate role of the Roman Empire in Constantinople. This declaration of independence and emancipation from Byzantium was not only a threat to the unity of Christendom, but also indirectly, to the shared faith of the one Church.

Today these historical factors no longer exist, yet the schism continues, which means that we must seek further for the ultimate root cause of schism in the intellectual and theological differences rather than in the political, geographical or historical factors. The primacy of the bishop of Rome and the procession of the Holy Spirit -- were involved. These doctrinal novelties were first openly discussed in Photius's patriarchate. To re-iterate, Christendom was divided into five sees with Rome holding the primacy. This was determined by canonical decision; it had nothing to do with any hegemony of any one local church or patriarchate over the others. During the progressive alienation Rome began to interpret her primacy in terms of sovereignty, as a God-given right involving universal jurisdiction in the Church. The collegial and conciliar nature of the Church, in effect, was gradually abandoned in favor of supremacy of unlimited papal power over the entire Church. More than enough has been said about early ecclesiology to realize how much Rome’s understanding of the nature of Episcopal power was in direct violation of the Church's essentially conciliar structure. Rome insisted on basing her monarchical claims to "true and proper jurisdiction" (as the Vatican Council of 1870 put it) on St. Peter. This "Roman" exegesis of Mathew 16:18, however, was unknown to the Fathers who had ruled on the Church's organization. To the Orthodox, St. Peter's primacy could never be the exclusive prerogative of any one bishop. All bishops must, like St. Peter, confess Jesus as the Christ and, as such, all are St. Peter's successors.

Equally problematic to the Christian East was the western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy, this too developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of the Latin phrase filioque ("and from the Son") to the Creed. The original Creed sanctioned by the councils and still used by the Orthodox Church today did not contain this phrase; the text simply states "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father." The Latin interpolation was unacceptable to the Byzantines, theologically, because it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone. In short, the balance between the three persons of the Trinity was altered. In addition to the dogmatic issue raised by the filioque, the Byzantines argued that the phrase had been added unilaterally and, therefore, illegitimately, since the East had never been consulted. The councils, which drew up the original Creed, had expressly forbidden any subtraction or addition to the text. Thus the West's tampering with the major creedal formula of the Church was, all in all, inadmissible.

As if these problems weren’t enough, mention should be made of Rome's proselytizing pressure. Evidence for this is appallingly and abundantly plentiful. Missionaries were prepared in special schools such as the College of St. Athanasius in Rome (opened in 1577) and then sent to the East in order to engage in direct proselytizing of the Orthodox. This network of Roman propaganda also embraced the Orthodox Slavic world. The pressure of the Catholic Polish monarchy and Jesuits in Poland and Lithuania on Orthodox dioceses canonically dependent on Constantinople is well enough known. The Uniat Ukrainian Church was, in part, the result of such pressure through the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596. There was, of course, little that the Orthodox Church could do to counter this aggressive Romanization, given the historical situation. Rome’s defection left Constantinople with undisputed primacy among the other eastern patriarchates.  This is how Constantinople became the primary see of Orthodoxy. How the patriarch of Constantinople became the senior bishop in Orthodoxy is understandably a major theme of Orthodox Church history. Although the patriarchate’s primatial status has never been in question - it is, and remains, the first see of Orthodoxy - its geographical frontiers were considerably reduced as a result of the struggle for freedom undertaken by the various Orthodox nationalities under Ottoman rule. The new independent nation states could not remain ecclesiastically under the jurisdiction of a patriarch who was still within the orbit of the foreign and hostile Ottoman state.

One of the first nations to be influenced by the French Revolution's explosive ideas was Greece; it was the first to break the Turkish yoke, winning its independence early in the century. It didn’t take long before a synod of bishops declared the Church of the new Kingdom of Greece autocephalous. The New Greek nation, in short, could not be headed by the patriarch. Greece's autocephalous status, recognized by Constantinople in 1850, meant that it could elect its own head or kephale. The Church of Greece is today governed by a Holy Synod presided over by the Archbishop of Athens. Mt. Athos and the semiautonomous Church of Crete alone remain under the patriarch's jurisdiction. The island of Cyprus, however, is independent of both Constantinople and the Church of Greece. Its autonomous status dates from the third ecumenical council (431) which accorded it this unique position. Up to that time, it had been subject to the patriarchate of Antioch. Like Greece, this ancient Church is governed by a synod of bishops and a presiding archbishop.

The ethnarchic system introduced by the Ottomans brought most of the autocephalous and patriarchal Slavic Churches under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. This subjection, with its loss of patriarchal status, was never popular. As a result, several independent national Churches came into being once political freedom was achieved. The Church of Serbia, which had lost its patriarchate in the Turkish period, became autocephalous in 1879, and its primate was recognized as patriarch by Constantinople in 1922. Romania, today the largest self-governing Church after Russia, was declared autocephalous in 1885 and became a patriarchate in 1925. Finally, the Church of Bulgaria declared itself autocephalous in 1860, but it was not until 1945 that Constantinople recognized it; its metropolitan in Sofia assumed the title of patriarch in 1953. Constantinople recognized Russia, which was outside the Turkish fold, as a patriarchate in 1589. Peter the Great, the tsar of Russia, abolished the patriarchate in 1721, replacing it by a governing Synod. This Synodal Period lasted until the Bolshevik Revolution, when the patriarchate was once again restored (1917). Today, Russia ranks fifth after the four ancient patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The ancient sees of the Near East also achieved greater freedom as a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. For these, too, were often under the influence of Constantinople during the period of Turkish captivity. Even though Egypt defected in the fifth century (it refused to accept the fourth ecumenical council and created a national Coptic Church) the patriarchate of Alexandria continued to survive. The ancient title of the patriarch is still "pope and patriarch" an eloquent illustration that the designation of "pope" was never the exclusive privilege of the bishop of Rome in the Church. Today, the patriarch and the clergy of this see are Greek. Significantly, its jurisdiction extends over all Orthodox on the African continent. There is a flourishing Orthodox Church now exists in Uganda. Antioch, which was one of the largest cities of the Roman Empire, now ranks third after Constantinople. It consists of Arabic-speaking Orthodox Christians living in Syria and Lebanon. Until the late nineteenth century its patriarch and bishops were Greek, but since 1899 they have been Arabs. Jerusalem has been an independent patriarchate since the fifth century. Unlike Antioch, its patriarch is Greek although its faithful are for the most part Arabs. This venerable see is the guardian and protector of the Holy Places. On the whole, the strength of these ancient sees has been sapped under Islam.

The authority enjoyed by Constantinople today is no longer based on any vast ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In the last century and a half it has been stripped both of its former territories and most of its flock. Greece and the Balkans are no longer under its jurisdiction. Inside Turkey itself, moreover, the Orthodox Christian communities of Asia Minor have disappeared. The patriarch's immediate flock today is, in the main, composed of those Orthodox still living in Constantinople. The patriarchate's position rests on its primatial status, rather than on any wide territorial jurisdiction. No less striking is the fact that world Orthodoxy, like the ancient Church, is essentially a decentralized body consisting of four ancient patriarchates and numerous local or national Churches, most of which enjoy full self-governing status. The Orthodox community of Churches is decidedly not a monolithic structure. Despite the lack of a centralized authority, however, all members of this living body are bound together by a common canonical and liturgical tradition, by a single doctrinal and sacramental unity, and by a common faith stretching back to the original Christian nucleus of Apostolic times. Behind the historical reality lie the true Catholic and universal Church. In Christian history, catholicity has never been coextensive with organizational or institutional uniformity.

St. Paul stated, "It was given to us not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him" (Phil. 1:29). The tragedy of the Orthodox Church for much of the twentieth century has been to suffer under the new political framework of atheistic totalitarianism and growing secularism. There is one really big and significant difference between this latest crisis and those of the past: the previous non-Christian political regimes under which the Church had to live were rarely deliberately anti-Christian. There has never been an exact precedent for the communist catastrophe. None of the past regimes were ever as insistent as communism in its belief that religion must not be tolerated. We thought that this ended with the fall of communism and the old Soviet Union, but it appears that we are wrong, as there is a growing trend throughout the world, especially in Europe and America, to force religion, namely Christianity, out of the public venue. According to Lenin, a communist regime cannot remain neutral on the question of religion but must show itself to be merciless towards it. There was no place for the church in Lenin's classless society. Today, we are witnessing the same thing, only this time; it is coming from so-called democratic societies that are pushing secular humanism under the guise of political correctness.

Will we, once again, see the Church transformed into a persecuted and martyred Church? Thousands of bishops, monks, clergy, and faithful died as martyrs for Christ, both in Russia and in the other communist nations, and their numbers may well exceed the Christians who perished under the Roman Empire. Just as frightening for the Church was communism’s indirect, but systematic, strangulation policy.  During the Soviet Union era, in addition to the methodical closing, desecration and destruction of churches, ecclesiastical authorities were not allowed to carry on any charitable or social work. To some extent, we are witnessing the same thing happening today. Many members of the clergy are being arrested and brought to trial to face charges of preaching hate for speaking out against homosexuality, which the Church views as a sin (the sin being the homosexual acts, not homosexual tendencies). Here in the United States, various priests and pastors are facing federal charges and the loss of their church’s tax exempt status for speaking out against individual politicians’ programs and political stances that are in direct violation of the Church’s moral teachings ( such as same-sex marriages and unions, abortion and euthanasia ). Can Orthodoxy, the TRUE Church, survive under this new on-slaught of anti-religious, anti-Christian attacks? Only time will tell.

Eastern Patriarchates

The Eastern Orthodox Church is hierarchically arranged. Each Patriarch is considered equal to the others in primacy, although Constantinople enjoys pride of place throughout the Orthodox world as the chief religious leader of the Imperial City.

There are five main Patriarchates, these are: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow. The "Patriarch of Constantinople" is the first in honor among equals in jurisdiction.

The "Russian Church", with 88 million members, is the largest, so the Patriarch of Moscow became the "fifth Patriarchate", and with the "Russian Diaspora", has spread the Orthodox to America and Western Europe.

The "Church of Armenia", with its important offshoot in the U.S.A., belongs today to the Oriental rather than to Eastern Christianity.

ALEXANDRIA, located in Egypt. The city, founded by Macedonian occupation in the 4th century B.C. has been of absolute primary impact to Western culture from the very beginning. Here was the site of the famous Library and museum, and here saw the writing of the modern Pentateuch. This Patriarchate was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist.

ANTIOCH. The city of Antioch was founded in 300 B.C., as the capital of the Seleucid Empire. Located at the angle of Asia Minor and the Levant, it has been a center of historical process from its inception. The Patriarchate of Antioch was founded by St. Peter the Apostle.

PATRIARCHATE OF ARMENIA: (Not one of the main Patriarchates) The people of Armenia have seldom held a secure and independent realm of their own, but have often been at the mercy of the neighbors. In some ways resembling Diaspora Jews in that Armenians have normally been found as isolated communities throughout the Middle East, their religion has been a powerful source of unity to them, and has been enormously influential in preserving the identity of the culture. Since the 15th century, the seat of the Patriarchate has been in the ancient city of Etchmiadzin, about 10 miles west of the current Armenian capital of Yerevan, and about 7 miles north of the Armenian/Turkish frontier. The Armenian Church is a Monophysite communion, and therefore is most closely related to Syrian, Coptic and Ethiopian branches of Christianity. It is believed that this Patriarchate was established by St. Thaddeus the Apostle.

CONSTANTINOPLE: Although the Christian community here is not the oldest, this Patriarchate comes closest to being the recognized head of the whole Orthodox world, by reason of its association with the Imperial City. The first Bishop of Constantinople, during the Roman period, was St. Andrew the Apostle. Constantinople did not become a Patriarchate until the rise of the Byzantine Empire. St. Alexander was the first Patriarch of the Byzantine era.

JERUSALEM: Perhaps one of the best-known places on earth; the Old City is situated on a bluff overlooking the Valley of the Jordan to the east, a site in continuous human habitation for a minimum of 7000 years. The Christian community in Jerusalem can justly make the claim of seniority over all others, since there has been a contiguous Christian presence here since the time of Jesus and his immediate followers. The Church at Jerusalem was established by St. James, the Brother of our Lord.

MOSCOW Patriarchate: The Russian Orthodox Church has been the essence of what has kept this culture vibrant and alive through every time of trouble. Originally, Moscow fell under the Jurisdiction of Kiev. St. Jonas is considered the first Patriarch of Moscow, as he was the first to be elected without the sanction of Constantinople, thus establishing the Russian Church as a fully independent body.

The "Uniate" Churches: (Orthodox Catholics): Some churches maintain their traditional Eastern rites and liturgies, but recognize the supremacy of the Pope, and obey him, like the Ukrainian, Rumanian, Maronite in Lebanon, India...

A "Patriarch", in the Catholic Church, is a "Bishop", subject only to the Pope, and he is the head of the faithful belonging to his rite throughout the world. In 1994, there were 8:

... 1- Alexandria, for the Copts.

... 2- Three in Antioch: One for the Syrians, one for the Greek Melkites, one for the Maronite.

... 3- Babylon, for the Chaldeans.

... 4- Cilicia, for the Armenians.

... 5- Jerusalem, for the Latin Rite.

... 6- East Indies (Goa, Damao...).

There are many more independent Orthodox Church groups, but for the sake of time and space, I have not listed them here.

All of the other Catholic jurisdictions, such as: Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Anglicans, the Philippine Independent Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church and ALL of the various Protestant sects, etc., are break-away groups from the Church of Rome, therefore, they are not only in Schism from Rome, but they are also in Schism from the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Catholics are, in effect, the only TRUE Catholic Church, having maintained the faith as handed down by the Apostles and the early Church Fathers with no changes, additions or alterations. I am not saying this because I am Orthodox; rather I am stating it because it is the TRUTH.

Ever since the Great Schism between East and West, Rome has introduced all kinds of false teachings into the Church that were not held by the One Church of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. And each group that schismed from Rome added new and different innovations which widened the chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy even further.