Did Eastern Churches expand?

[Volodymyr]

Yes,
It is my impression that there are essentially two Orthodoxies; somewhat united but somewhat divided. One is Eastern Orthodox, the other is Oriental Orthodox. Within those two are also divisions; not theological, I believe, but territorial.

As I understand it, then, Eastern Orthodoxy considers that Catholicism has no business being in the Americas at all. Pope’s jurisdiction (if they allow any at all) would be limited to the immediate environs of Rome;

That really isn’t quite theological either, (though Orthodoxy rejects Catholicism totally) but based on history.

Catolicism does not deny to the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox the “right” to be anywhere they want to be. To my knowledge, the only place where denial of Catholicism’s “right” to be somewhere has become a serious issue is within Russia itself, and that sometimes involves the state as well.

Greece within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The disputes are on the peripheries.]

POOR UNDERSTANDING, ERRONEOUS IMPRESSIONS

But your understanding and your impressions are quite erroneous and prejudicial. Holy Orthodoxy does not include churches which do not accept the Seven Universal Councils. These churches include such heretical groups that call themselves in English Oriental Orthodox - Coptic monofysites, assyrians. These churches ceased to be Orthodox by rejecting Universal Councils. You should read church history on this subject. I believe even Catolic church considers these non-khalkedonian churches to be heretical - although some theological problems may be misunderstandings - but still they do not accept Orthodox teaching.

Orthodox theology has supported idea that Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of Western church and does not limit his interests to city of Rome. This is also historical nonsense. Again I suggest you read Church History. If you can find Mikhail Posnov book - it is excellent.

As some one else has explained Orthdox of Greece are avtocephalic. This also is a historical problem relating to power of Ottoman empire.

 

[marlo]

we know you had missionaries, but the quantity is so small compared to what the Catholich church had done, in fact, if you say the word orthodox, the world knows it as the Jews, if you say the word catholic, the world knows it as the catholic church.

This of course is typical Roman Catolic view of history ignoring great missionaries of Russian church carrying Holy Orthodoxy to Urals, Siberia, Far east, china and Japan. Also fails to recognize the oppression by Arabs and Ottoman empire on non Russian churches in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt.

while the sacking is true, the Orthodox also had cases of abuse and murders to Catholics during the same period.

Holy Orthodoxy has been church suffering for 600 years, while Western Christians ofered no help only sacked Constantinople, taking religious artifacts back to Venice and Rome.

 

[manualman]

There is reason neither to be smug nor defensive. Neither church can accomplish anything without Grace. These conversations always turn into juvenile “my dad is bigger than yours” pushing matches. Hey, guys: we have the same Father.

It is quite simply a fact of history and geography that the eastern churches were a lot closer to the demographic and military base of the burgeoning Islamic empire when it happened. Catholicism may have done no better if the geography had been reversed. They weren’t very nice guys. Many still aren’t.

But then again, God is often pretty subtle, isn’t he? I figure that if he can use Nebuchadnezzar (forgive my spelling butchery) for his purposes, why not Muhammed?

We don’t agree on issues of authority. Nobody is going to fix that in this thread.

To the original poster, honest catholics should agree that it is hard to send a lot of missionaries out when your whole church is in occupied territory and are dhimmi (look it up).

 

[prodromos]

Christ is risen!

Greece is an autocephalous church, the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece.

I know his title states “All Greece”, but the northern regions of Greece (the so called “New Territories”) are actually under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

John

 

[Vico]

did Eastern Churches expand the same way or in a similar way the Western Church did?

i’m just curious because i grew up in the Philippines which is geographically east, but Christianity was virtually never heard of in that region until the Spanish and Portugese came

Take a look at the book below if you can find it. I got to read it in 2009 and it is interesting.

The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How It Died, by John Philip Jenkins

He details how Christianity began in the Middle East and spread to Asia and Africa, before Europe even. Also he says that the history has been mostly forgotten for Egypt, Ethiopia, India, China, and Japan. There was successful expansion in those outlying areas till the 14th century.

 

[ciero]

Take a look at the book below if you can find it. I got to read it in 2009 and it is interesting.

The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How It Died, by John Philip Jenkins

He details how Christianity began in the Middle East and spread to Asia and Africa, before Europe even. Also he says that the history has been mostly forgotten for Egypt, Ethiopia, India, China, and Japan. There was successful expansion in those outlying areas till the 14th century.

At last we agree on something! Excellent book! A fantastic read.

 

[angelic06]

This of course is typical Roman Catolic view of history ignoring great missionaries of Russian church carrying Holy Orthodoxy to Urals, Siberia, Far east, china and Japan. Also fails to recognize the oppression by Arabs and Ottoman empire on non Russian churches in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt. Holy Orthodoxy has been church suffering for 600 years, while Western Christians ofered no help only sacked Constantinople, taking religious artifacts back to Venice and Rome.

Half truth and half lie.

The popes dispatched the Latin crusaders to the East because the Muslims were oppressing the Christians in the East and blocking access to the holy sites for pilgrims. Often it was in response to the Easterners request for direct help.

Unfortunately, the Latins often wanted to plunder and steal (whether it be fellow Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever) more than fight the wicked Muslims (now, before anyone pounds me, not all Muslims are/were wicked, nor were all Latins at that time) who were obstructing the holy places. Unfortunately, the popes sometimes came to the aid of the East more so for political purposes, than for spiritual ones or legit temporal defense.

If you want to post info, you should post the whole truth, whether it defends, refutes, or does both for your side.

Don’t just accept by osmosis that anti-Latin vile which often passes for “history”.

Paul R. Viola

See this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm

medievaleurope.mrdonn.org/crusades.html

 

[Hesychios]

Half truth and half lie.

The popes dispatched the Latin crusaders to the East because the Muslims were oppressing the Christians in the East and blocking access to the holy sites for pilgrims.

By the time the First Crusade was launched, the pilgrimage route was already open once again and there was peace in Palestine.

Often it was in response to the Easterners request for direct help.

The actual request was for assistance to the Byzantine royal government to fight the Turks and restore lost territories to the Byzantine-Roman crown. Unfortunately what came was largely a bunch of rapacious self-aggrandizing thieves. They did not help restore lost provinces to the empire, they took the lands as personal possessions.

Unfortunately, the Latins often wanted to plunder and steal (whether it be fellow Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever) more than fight the wicked Muslims (now, before anyone pounds me, not all Muslims are/were wicked, nor were all Latins at that time) who were obstructing the holy places. Unfortunately, the popes sometimes came to the aid of the East more so for political purposes, than for spiritual ones or legit temporal defense.

If you want to post info, you should post the whole truth, whether it defends, refutes, or does both for your side.

Don’t just accept by osmosis that anti-Latin vile which often passes for “history”.