AUTOCEPHALOUS
A Foundational Myth of "Official Branches" of Eastern Orthodoxy
As we stated "The "Eastern Orthodox Church" would include the 3 key Orthodox Groups"...
This does not mean that only these 3 groups make up those who are Eastern Orthodox, only rather that they are included among the other groups, that also consider themselves to be "Eastern Orthodox".
The fact is that there are many groups that have been part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many of these groups have - historically - fought amongst each other, and in several cases, attacked the legitimacy of the various "Patriarchates", their historical roots and authenticity.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has various categories of "belonging" or official recognition:
1. Groups within it that are granted legitimacy by its reigning Patriarch,
2. Groups that are historically valid - but still contested today or de-legitimized by today's EOC's hierarchy, and
3. Self-appointed groups that attach themselves to the Orthodox Church Teachings, (Or that claim to), but are not officially recognized.
----------
Officially, the Patriarch derives his own authority from prior Patriarchates or EOC Historic Jurisdictions, until going back far enough in time, one arrives back to the time of Jesus and the Church of believers that He established.
However, there are a number of problems with this thesis, beginning with its lack of historical foundation.
The Eastern Orthodox Church - prior to its split with the Roman Catholic Church in 1056 A.D., was still only the Eastern Half of the Roman Catholic Church.
For its first 600 years (from 325 to 1056 A.D), the Eastern Orthodox Church was simply the Roman Catholic Church...in the Geographical Eastern Half of the original Roman Empire.
The Doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church began with the founding of the Roman Catholic Church - AFTER the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
The Council of Nicea was the First Ecumenical Church Council. But who legitimized those who attended ? From where did those 318 attendees - derive their own power ?
The answer is that they derived their power from the consent of the governed. These were independent priests and bishops, elected from among the people in their own congregations, and answerable to their own local churches.
Skeptics will ask: If this is the case, and if there was no organized centralized hierarchy, then then what would have compelled them to come to Nicea (in Turkey) to attend this Church Council ?
The Answer is: A Roman Imperial Decree. It was the political & military power of the Roman Empire (and the Pagan emperor Constantine) that compelled these Bishops to obey the imperial call.
That is not a small point. The truth of this - establishes that the Council of Nicea was not called even by the Roman Catholic Church. Why didn't the Roman Emperor simply call up the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and order him to summon his bishops, archbishops, and cardinals to the conference in Nicea in 325 A.D. ?
The answer is: There was no structure to do this. There were no Roman Catholic Bishops, no Roman Catholic archbishops, no Roman Catholic cardinals...There was no Roman Catholic Church. For the first 300 years of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church simply did not exist. In authentic early Christianity, Christians existed and independent churches existed, but these were established by God working through his Bible, and by working through the twelve apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ - and not any Roman Imperial Legal Corporation - which is what Constantine created as the Roman Catholic Church. It could not have existed since ---> this entity did not exist until after the Council of Nicea, when the Roman Emperor Constantine agreed to support a bishop who was the bishop within Rome itself - the Imperial Capital of the Roman Empire.
The mere fact that Constantine called the First Church Council establishes that there was no Centralized Church Structure through which to work...The Churches that had existed until that time - within the Roman Empire - were decentralized and autonomous...most of the leaders had been severely persecuted.
Those pastors and bishops who attended the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D - had to be directly summoned by the Roman Emperor, since there was no structure, no organization, no centralized authority through which to appeal to them.
It was only when the Roman Emperor agreed to favor the creation of the Roman Catholic Church...that some men were attracted to fill ---> what they quickly grasped was a new political appointment {this being the seat of the "Bishop of Rome"}.
---
The Eastern Orthodox Church today likes to suggest that there were 4 ancient Patriarchates, and then attempt to link itself with those Patriarchates. As we will see, there are several facts of history - that stand in the way of their assertion.
The 4 ancient "Patriarchates" - according to the Eastern Orthodox Church - are:
1. Constantinople
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
Most of today's Eastern Orthodox church-attenders - are left with the impression that there is either a) historic continuity or b) ties between the Eastern Orthodox Church today, and those 4 Patriarchates.
The first problem is one of the "dating" of those 4 jurisdictions. The Eastern Half of the Roman Catholic Church did not itself begin, until around 400 A.D. If this is true, then what was the Status of those 4 Jurisdictions, for the first 400 years of Christianity ?
The fact is that 1. independent Christians did exist in those locations prior to 400 A.D, but there is no historic or documented proof of the existence of any ties between those independent local congregations, and 2. the acceptance of those independent congregations - of the authority or jurisdiction of the official "Eastern Orthodox Church" [meaning the Roman Catholic Church in the East].
The records that do remain, from 400 A.D., tend to show that most local congregations rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Roman Catholic Church in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (which became the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1056).
Far from being "accepted" or recognized as the official "heirs of christ", the authority of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy - was usually despised, ignored, or combated by local true Christian Congregations in the East. And, the Eastern half of the Roman Catholic Church served in the Eastern Roman Empire ...at the pleasure and appointments of the Roman Emperors.
These were appointments of political power, not appointments of true FAITH. Leaders in the Eastern Orthodox Church today like to point to John Chrysostom as proof of its own authenticity.
But isn't it interesting, that although the Eastern Orthodox Church claims a TWO THOUSAND year history (of which the first 325 are fiction), that those leaders always refer back to the career of One Man, [chrysostom] who served in his position as leader within the Eastern Half of the Roman Catholic Church, not for his entire life, but for Less than Ten Years ?
Why isn't his predecessor named ? or his successor ? And who named his successor ?
Chysostom was nominated by Roman Emperors and he was deposed by the Roman Empress. He died in exile, lonely and abandoned.
Now if the Eastern Orthodox Church was deriving its legitimacy from its own church leaders, then we would ask "on what basis did it accept Chrysostom ?" who was - in fact - appointed by the family of the Roman Emperor ?
On the other hand, if Chrysostom was indeed legitimate, then perhaps what was legitimizing the choice of Chrysostom ...was the fact that his appointment was made by the Roman Empire Itself [or its visible head - the emperor & family].
But at this point, we would do well to remember the claims of Rome itself: That it derived its power not from Political Appointment, but rather from being the successor to the Church as started by the Apostles of Christ.
Did the Apostles & Disciples of Christ - themselves become the Roman Emperors ?
And if they did not, then from where - is the legitimacy that Chrysostom presumed to have, actually derived ?
The more one studies the actual historical records, the more one will see that the Claims of legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church do not stand up to close historical scrutiny.
Concerning the authorship of what is today conveniently attributed to Chrysostom and his "liturgy", it is instructive to remember that many pieces of the "Cross of Christ" have been known to abound, since the time of His death and resurrection.
Perhaps you have heard it said that if all of the supposed wood of the Cross on which Christ was crucified - was assembled in one place, that there would be enough wood assembled for a great fire. What this saying means is that each parish or local church often would claim a special relic or a "proof", but there was simply too much wood from that cross around at those parishes, for all of them (if any) to have been authentic.
The same is true of the liturgy of Chrysostom. We are thankful for any good work that Chrysostom may have done. And for this good work, the Eastern Orthodox Church allowed him to be excommunicated, banished, imprisoned and abandoned.
Then, the Eastern Orthodox Church now would like us to revere a man over whose dethronement the E.O.C. played a great part.
Despite all of these things, much of what is attributed to Chrysostom does not date from the 4th century (little of it actually does). And the Eastern Orthodox Church has many works that are posthumously attributed to those who never claimed authorship of certain works - in their own lifetime.
There is an immense difference between what Chrysostom wrote, and what is today "attributed to" him. The Eastern Orthodox Church cannot substantiate much of its history.
The more one studies it, the more problematic it becomes.
The Bible is true, but the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox are usually not. That is not surprising, considering it was the Roman Catholic Church - for the first 600 years of its own existence. It was the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, that spun its own webs of misinformation, that E.O.C. Parishoners are being asked to subscribe to today.
The History of the Eastern Orthodox Church is not lost.
Facts of history - are - once again - a "mystery" that the Eastern Orthodox Church - would rather not address.
------
