www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Picture of the Monastery of the Cave

Dear Angela,

There is also a Celtic connection to the Kyivan Caves Lavra, if you stretch things a bit, which is what I am wont to do . . .

Among the Venerable Saints is one "St Cassian" named for St John Cassian who figured so prominently in Irish monasticism.

St Olha received Celtic missionaries at Kyiv and the Celtic cross is to be found throughout that Lavra.

The monks there also followed a "strange" tradition of reciting 150 Hail Mary's on their prayer ropes, with prostrations after each.

Many Ukrainian and Russian monasteries still follow that practice.

I understand it's as old as the monastery.

Do you have anything in the Latin Church that remotely resembles that Orthodox devotion?

Alex

Dear eumz,

Yes, "Lavra" is an honorific title for an Orthodox monastery that is a true centre of Christian asceticism, holiness and teaching.

As far as I am aware, and the Orthoman can correct me, there are only four such Lavras in Russia and Ukraine: St Alexander Nevsky and Holy Trinity in Russia, Pochaiv and Kyivan Caves in Ukraine.

BTW, did you know I am actually descended from St Alexander Nevsky?

And we both share an interest in Crusaders!

Alex

Dear Orthoman:

The grandeur that is Rome; the beauty that was Greece!?


AmdG

Dear Eumir:

As your "kababayan," I am both surprised and fascinated by your apparent journey from our traditional (and national) Roman Catholicism headlong to Eastern Catholicism.

Then I remembered that we, Filipinos, are ORIENTALS, albeit hispanized for almost 400 years and americanized for another 50 years!

So, go ahead and discover for yourself the beauty of the Eastern Churches but, please, don't go all the way to the Orthodox.

"Eumir" is a bit "strange" to me if that's really your first or given name. It looks and sounds like Middle-Eastern or Arabic, or originally from Mindanao. But I have friends back there who are "Bautista"(s) from Malabon and elsewhere.

You have come to the right place for all things Eastern Catholic.

And Alex here will readily "baptized" you in His Holy Name. He is our unabashed choice for "Patriarch" extra-ordinaire, bar none!


AmdG

Dear Amado,

Please, Friend, I have trouble even playing pope, as some have said because I shook a finger at them for attending ROCOR services . . .

You raise a fascinating topic with respect to the Philippines.

As you know, the earliest Christian tradition in Asia was that of the Assyrian Church - in China, Tibet (T'ang Dynasty) Mongolia and India.

It is doubtful whether this means that Asia is the ancient "territory" of the Assyrian Church, but a claim could be made I suppose.

The Orthodox Church of Rus' was also represented in China through St Theodore Prince of Smolensk who married the daughter of the Khan. His two sons, also saints, were part Mongolian.

The Filipino people are very devout and I'm wondering if we can ever speak of a "Rite" that is closer to a given people's existing cultural heritage and self-perception.

Alex

Dear Alex


I know I said "let the education continue " but
please don't ask me to do prostrations .

My old bones and joints, you know

May Our Mistress keep you in Her care

Angela

Dear Alex:

Interesting, indeed!

If only St. Thomas the Apostle had lived long enough to push eastward from India through Sri Lanka, Burma, Indo-China, and across the narrow south China Sea to the Philippines then we, Filipinos, could very well be Oriental Catholics or Oriental Orthodox.

As it happened, the Spaniards, courtesy of the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan, reached us first after 1500 years of Indian Christianity, courtesy of the Assyrians.

And to think that the Philippines before the 1500's had been in trade and cultural contacts with much of China, Japan, India, and other Indo-Malay and Indo-Chinese nations.

Probably a significant factor why Christianity was late in coming to the rest of Asia or failed to take a deeper root is because Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism all pre-date Christianity.

Another interesting footnote. When the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines, various kingdoms and fiefdoms throughout the archipelago were apparently ruled by Datus, Rajahs, and Sultans and were, therefore, Muslims.

This tidbit of history certainly explains the continuing struggle (war of attrition, really) in Southern Philippines between the Catholic government and the Muslim population for almost 500 years now.

However, today Muslim Filipinos remain a minority of about 5 million in a total population of around 82 to 85 million, 65 million or so of which are Roman Catholics.


AmdG

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Just a note to correct this, Amado. 1500 years of Christianity in India is not courtesy of the Assyrians, but of Saint Thomas, one of the Twelve Apostles.

As for the Portuguese, don't get me started...

About the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the world was drafted by a treaty signed by both parties.

Mor Ephrem: you're right, that it is not the Assyrian church that brought early Christian tradition into this side of the world. That's why they are called Christians of St. Thomas or the Syro-Malabar Christians (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Back to the topic: the chapter in the book I'm reading is about the St Alexander Nevsky in Russia. Which is the birthplace of many bishops.

Praise our King…. Forever…
Eumir

p.s. Armando, I'm so glad to find a “kababayan”, are there many Filipinos there? In this forum?

Dear Phil & Eumir:

I stand corrected.

I did say that St. Thomas the Apostle first evangelized India and just followed through Alex's hypothetical assumption that the Assyrians might have Christianized portions of Asia, especially China.

As far as I know, I am the only Filipino here in Byzcath and in this Forum. Here in Chicagoland (including Northwest Indiana), however, we have the second largest concentration of Filipino immigrants, next only to LA-Orange counties in California. The third largest should be in the New York-New Jersey area. All told, there are about 3 million Filipino immigrants in the U.S., at least 80% of which are Roman Catholics.

Dear Eumir:

If you care to open your eyes to an undeniable reality, there are nagging facts buried under my previous post, to be unearthed now, for your consideration:

While Indian Christianity predates us by at least 1,500 years to the time of St. Thomas the Apostle, today there are only about 16 million Catholics (Roman and Oriental) in India, out of a population of slightly over 1 BILLION! (I do not know how many Oriental and Eastern Orthodox there are in India.) Whereas, the Philippines, Crhistianized much, much later in the 1500's via Spain and the Portuguese explorers under her employ, is arguably the only Catholic/Christian country in the whole of Asia: 82 % of its population of about 80 million are Catholics. Have you ever wondered why?

There are only about 100 million Catholics in all of Asia and fully 2/3 of them are Filipinos, or approximately 65 million. That is about 2.5 % in a 4 BILLION sea of humanity!

I would like to think that the "last" and "most challenging" frontier for evangelization is in Asia, especially the 1 billion Indians and the 1.2 billion Chinese. And to think that India is projected to surpass China in 2025 with a population of about 1.5 billion!

You will note that immediately to the South are Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore, all Muslim countries, except perhaps the city-state of Singapore(?), lending to the notion I advanced that once upon a time, we Filipinos were Muslims or, at the very least, were under Muslim rulers before the Spaniards "discovered" us.

But we have succeeded in evangelizing our own people since then.

So what happened, or what's happening, in India, China, and in the other parts of Asia?

We have gained a foothold in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world) in such areas as in East Timor, the Moluccas, and in some islands. The bulk of the Catholic missionaries there I heard are Filipinos. Ditto in the Indo-Chinese countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Therefore, are Roman Catholics more effective in evangelization than Eastern/Oriental Catholics or, for that matter, Eastern Orthodox? Or, is our zeal to spread the Gospel more fervent? What gives?

Think about it.


AmdG

Hard though it is for me to believe, it was almost exactly a year ago I was in Ukraine for the summer, and had the very great privilege of visiting both Lavras, Pochaev and Kyiv. They were stunning and, uncharacteristically, left me without words.
The Caves in Kyiv, especially the crypts and tombs, were profoundly moving: the devotion and holiness of those reposed there, and the piety of those still streaming there in the thousands each year. Best of all, we were able to be present on the Vigil of the Feast of St. Elias the Prophet for Great Vespers. All those monks in a blaze of light, glorious vestments, incense, and wonderful, wonderful singing. The many hundreds of us jammed into the chapel were annointed at the end. Even if one is a complete atheist, the architecture and iconography of both places is quite stunning and would alone justify a visit!

Dear Amado,

Gee, I'm posting more frequently...you're good.

Your facts are for the most part on target, if only concentrating on the numbers of Catholics involved (a quite allowable ultramontane tendency :p ).

I don't think one can say that the reason there are more Catholics in Asia, or the reason why there's such a concentration of them in the Philippines, or things like that is because of the more fervent missionary zeal of the Roman Catholic Church, although in some cases this is certainly true.

Let me tell you about India.

I don't pretend to know much about the religion of the pre-Christian Philippines, but, as you know, the vast majority of Indians are Hindu.

One concept that is taught in Hinduism is that all religions are ways that ultimately lead to God. Sure, roads may be different, and some more difficult than others, but in the end, all are tending toward the same thing: God. This is a completely different concept than that held by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, where it does matter which "road" you take. Part the reason Christianity hasn't caught on in India at large is because of this popular belief.

Father Lev Gillet, the "Monk of the Eastern Church", in talking about his moving from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, called it something along the lines of "not moving to a different light, but to a clearer one." In India, where nearly everyone believes that all religions lead to the same final destination, one would have to be convinced that one way was "a clearer light" than any of the others in order to make such a jump. If one wasn't convinced, or wasn't even interested, where is the benefit in converting? What difference does it make?

Furthermore, this belief is not proper only to the Hindus. Many, nay most, of our own Christian people believe this, even though when it comes to inter-religious marriages, they begin to think it matters a lot. So while there is missionary zeal on the part of Catholics and Orthodox in India, and it's yielding results, ultimately for the people it doesn't matter, and so evangelisation isn't a top priority with many.

Another thing that has hampered Christianity in India is that it is by and large associated with foreign powers. The Portuguese and the British, mainly. It is also associated with bad Christians. Gandhiji, upon being asked by British Anglican ministers why he didn't convert to Christianity, since he was sympathetic to Christianity, responded: "I would become a Christian if I could find other Christians." His point, and one which many pick up on, was that Christians aren't the best advertisement for Christ. He saw the British, others have seen the Portuguese...all Christian, all regarded as disagreeable. In general, Christian people, native and foreign, didn't live their religion well. Meanwhile, you have the Hindus. I have never met a Hindu that I've never felt was holy, be they high caste or low. All of them have something about them that screams to me "Holy". On the other hand, I've known many Christians, and I would only call a few of them "Holy".

Saint Thomas only preached the Gospel in the South. Hence, the vast majority of Christians in India are in the South, in two or three main kingdoms. Because India is such a huge place, and never used to be one country, but several, with several languages, customs, etc., traffic and communication up North was less than, say, in the nineteenth century US. Christianity only really came to much of the North (except the coasts around Goa, where the Portuguese made their home, and Saint Francis Xavier ministered) with the British.

As far as actual Church activity goes, for the most part, before the advent of the Portuguese, the Church in India was in the South, and all of those geopolitical (right word, I hope?) differences weren't encouraging to missionary activity.

After the Portuguese came, and with them the Roman Catholics, who viewed Orthodox as schismatic, Orthodox ability to preach was even more limited. With a large number of people flowing into communion with Rome for one reason or another (most, I'm sure, weren't convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt about Petrine supremacy, so there must've been other circumstances), the Syro-Malabar Church was formed. They were large enough to be a real missionary force, and could've done some real evangelisation, especially after India "got smaller" with technological advances under the British occupation.

The reason you don't see many more Syro-Malabarese up North, but rather Roman Catholics, is not because Roman Catholics are better missionaries. It is because Syro-Malabar clergy were allowed to evangelise "in their rite" in their traditional lands, mostly Kerala. Outside of that geographic area, Syro-Malabar clerics were obligated to adopt the Roman rite and do missionary work, make converts, celebrate the sacraments, etc. as Roman Catholics.

All of these, and other factors (such as the occasional martyrdoms of Christians), have hampered the success of Christianity in India, and the most weighty of reasons are those that are so much a part of who we are that we cannot shake it, not even from ourselves. Christianity is going to take a while to gain ground in India, a long while, and even then, I don't think it will ever become a major force as it apparently is in the Philippines.

And, while I do love Jesus, I kinda hope it stays that way.