History of the Orthodox Church

By The Honorable Claude T. Reno in 1926
(as quoted by Fr. Kohanik, whose source was the Orthodox Catholic Review)

We, Orthodox Catholic Christians, as the "Orthodox Catholic Review" (Vol. 1, No 1) stated some time ago: "Being painfully aware that to most Americans, even to many of our own faithful, the history and origin of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church in its numerous separate, but federated and united bodies is quite unknown, should give a clearer understanding about the historical position of our Church. We will do this with assistance of an American jurist, The Honorable Judge Claude T. Reno, of Lehigh County, PA.

The unsurpassed statement of the history of the Orthodox Catholic Church which judge Reno gave in his decision in a certain case in equity (No. 3. Jan. Term, 1926. Common Pleas, Lehigh Co., PA.), is so accurate, scholarly, judicially fair, and beautifully written, that it is worthy of wider reading than judicial decisions receive. Here is this statement:

"The institution which is frequently called the Greek Church, the Greek Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Eastern Church and sometimes by other similar names, is officially described as ‘The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church'. We shall hereinafter refer to it as the "Orthodox Church". It is the historical representative of the ancient churches of the East where Christianity arose. Greek was the language of the common people, as well as that in which the New Testament was written, and the rites of the churches were conducted in that tongue. Because Greek was the language of the original rites it is called the Greek Church; to distinguish it from the Roman Catholic Church it is called the Orthodox Church; and to recognize its separation from the Western churches which became the Roman Catholic Church, as well as to mark the place of its origin, it is called the Eastern Church. Frequently an adjective is affixed to the title to indicate the nationality of the persons composing a certain congregation or larger unit of the faith; thus, the word "Syrian" is attached to the churches whose members are largely Syrian by birth or ancestry, but the use of that word has no significance beyond that. (Our own comment: "The word "Russian", Greek", Serbian”, “Bulgarian” . . . is attached to the Churches whose members are "Russian", "Greek", Serbian”, “Bulgarian” or, similarly, of any other nationality).

“At first Christianity encountered the ruthless opposition of the Roman Empire. But under Constantine it became the official religion of the Empire. Constantine had divided his provinces into dioceses. and the church adopted a similar division. The unit was the parish, embracing a village or town; the diocese, embracing a number of parishes and co-terminous with the civil division of that name, was under the supervision of a bishop; the province consisted of a number of dioceses and was supervised by an archbishop or, sometimes, a metropolitan, so called because the largest city of the province (i. e. the metropolis) was usually the seat of that dignitary; the most preeminent of these dignitaries were called patriarchs and they had their sees in ancient Christian centers: Jerusalem, Rome Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The council of Nicea, called by Constantine and held in 325 A. D., the first of the oecumenical councils, recognized three patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. To this were subsequently added Constantinople and Jerusalem. When the Empire was divided there was only one patriarch in the West, viz., at Rome; while in the East there were two, Alexandria and Antioch; to which, as we have already seen, Constantinople and Jerusalem were added. In theory, at least, each of these patriarchs was sovereign within his own territory; the early church was governed by an oligarchy of patriarchs rather than a monarchy resident in one centre; but as a matter of practice, the Patriarch of Rome, or as he was more often called, the Bishop of Rome (and Patriarch of the West), was primus inter pares and frequently exercised power over the other patriarchs which, even if it was contested by some, was generally obeyed by the church as a whole. (This needs to be qualified by the understanding that the Roman Patriarch exercised such power not of his own initiative or will but only when called on by another to act in some dispute or to support the position or claims of a brother Bishop). Certainly, after the power of the Roman Empire was concentrated upon the Italian peninsula with provinces extending all over the known world, the Bishop of Rome occupied a position of great prestige and vast power, so much, indeed, that when he did not actually preside at the oecumenical council, the supreme governing body of the church, the decrees of the councils did not become operative until he assented to them".

(Comment of the Orthodox Catholic Review: However, this is not to say that they could not become operative without Roman patriarchal assent. As a matter of fact the failure of any of the Patriarchates to assent to the decrees of the councils regardless of the assent or dissent of Rome would have prevented them being generally operative unless the dissenting Patriarch were condemned for heresy and the assent of his Patriarchate secured thereafter. And let it not be forgotten that Honorius I., Bishop of Rome in the seventh century, was condemned for heresy for having taken the wrong side of the monothelite controversy and maintained only "one will" in Christ.")

"These conditions, which have been very sketchily portrayed, prevailed until 1054 A. D., when the Western and Eastern Church separated. For centuries there had been a lack of complete harmony between them, and the tie which bound them together was becoming more and more tenuous. The Eastern Church used the Greek language in its liturgy while the Western used the Latin language; the former remained dependent upon the State, while the latter became independent.

"The Eastern Churches thought the Bishop of Rome was exercising unconferred power, while Western Christians thought that the Eastern Patriarchs were departing from their earlier loyalty to the See of Rome. Minor differences of doctrine appeared. None of these differences was strong enough to sever entirely the relations between what had practically become two branches of the Church. But when the Western Church introduced the words "Filioque" into the Nicene creed, the separation became complete. The Western Church, under the leadership of the Patriarch and Bishop of Rome, thereafter called the pontifex maximus, the Pope, was henceforth known as the Roman Catholic Church; and Eastern Church, still divided into four patriarchates - Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem - became the Orthodox Church. Thus they have remained until this day; the efforts of zealous men on both sides to bridge the chasm have been unfruitful.

"Although the four ancient patriarchates still exist they do not by any means comprehend the whole of the Orthodox Church. Side by side with them are independent national churches. These churches, living in various countries, are in full communion with the Orthodox Church (at large) but are not within the jurisdiction of the patriarchs. They are practically autocephalous, for although subject to decrees of (the seven) oecumenical councils (the last of which was held in the year 787 A. D., over eleven hundred years ago), the facts that such councils have not been held many years renders them autonomous and sovereign within their own territorial boundaries. The various authorities differ as to the number and location of these independent establishments (the difference is in the matter of recognition of asserted independent status of several small groups, jurisdiction over which is at the same time claimed by a larger body or by a Patriarchate), but the following is a fairly accurate list of the separate national churches of the Orthodox faith as they existed before the World War: Cyprus, Mount Sinai, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Roumania, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Bulgaria.

"The formation of these independent churches are interesting historical episodes . . . But the circumstances which produced the separate Russian Orthodox Churches are quite typical of the rest. In 988 Prince Vladimir and his people embraced the Christian faith. The early Russian parishes were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose Metropolitan for Russia was seated at Moscow. In 1582, Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, raised Job, the Metropolitan of Moscow, to Patriarchal dignity, and his act was confirmed by a general council of the Church.

(It was not a general council, to be accurate, but a synod of the four Eastern Patriarchs in 1591, that confirmed the establishment of the Russian Patriarchate, thereafter generally accepted and recognized as the fifth Patriarchate on an equality with the ancient four.)

RUSSIAN MISSION IN AMERICA

After America and the New World have been discovered, settled, it became the object of true missionary efforts on the part of the Russian Patriarchate as well as of immigrant settlement by Orthodox Catholic families from all the patriarchates and national churches of Orthodoxy. In America there are not less than one and a half million members of the Orthodox Church [in 1926]. Hence, beyond ascertaining that a parish owes allegiance to that higher authority which has been designated for it by a church council, no finding of fact can be made upon that point, except that it is well established that in new continents or countries - meaning thereby continents or countries new to the Church - all parishes and churches are under the dominion of that ecclesiastical authority which organized the first church. Nor can we find as a fact that a congregation can, under the canons of the Orthodox Church, determine for itself the superior authority to which it shall adhere. If it is within the territory of a patriarchate, it is subject to the patriarch, or his metropolitan or bishop; if within the territorial limits of one of the countries having an Orthodox national church, it is subject to the synodical authorities of that church. In no sense is it permitted to remain independent in authority and also in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church . . .

"The Orthodox Church came to North America through Alaska. In 1793 a band of eight missionary monks was sent from St. Petersburg to Alaska and the first church was erected on Kodiak Island in 1794. These missionaries were led by Archimandrite Joasaph Bologloff who was soon consecrated as Bishop of Kodiak, Kamchatka and America. In 1840, Ivan Veniaminoff was consecrated Bishop of “Kamchatka, the Kuriles, and Aleutians" and was seated at Sitka.

After 1867, when Alaska was sold to the United States, the title of the see was changed to "Aleutia and Alaska" and afterwards to "Aleutian Isles and North America". In 1872 the Episcopal residence was transferred from Sitka to San Francisco where, as early as 1812, adherents of the church had settled. . . In 1905 Bishop Tikhon changed his see from San Francisco to New York and . . . the Russian Holy Synod raised him to the digntiy of an Archbishop, and created the offices of Bishop of Alaska and Bishop of Brooklyn as his assistants."

 

The above text was excerpted from The Most Useful Knowledge for the Orthodox Russian-American Young People, compiled by V. Rev. Peter G. Kohanik (Passaic, NJ: n.p., 1932–1934), using only minimal adjustments to the original text (such as correcting typographical errors and adding clarification in brackets of alternate transliterated spellings).