Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?

[steve-b]

Not sure of the relevancy to my question but it was two-fold:

1. My last Lutheran pastor basically stated that one doesn’t need to believe in the Resurrection or virgin birth in order to be a Christian.
2. Upon hearing that, I looked for a more solid church, and found that in the Orthdox church the services are so full of scripture and so much emphasize the resurrection that I never left after attending my first service.

Thanks for that history.

RE: relevancy to you question HERE

I would just say

To use a phrase made popular by then Anglican John Newman, who likewise was looking for answers and reasons for why all the divisions in Christianity and particularly why he was Anglican, a conclusion he came to was

“to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant”

AND,

using that format it’s also true that

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

AND

To go deepest in history, back to Jesus and His Church He builds on Peter, and the apostles united to Peter,

is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church

For space, here is a condensed history (properly referenced) HERE added to the scriptures I provided that you would have read HERE

I can add much more to that history if you are interested

 

[ziapueblo]

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

Again! The Latin Church and the Orthodox were in communion for a millennium. How can you say that Eastern Orthodox cease to exist?

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

Again! The Latin Church and the Orthodox were in communion for a millennium. How can you say that Eastern Orthodox cease to exist?

ZP

I’ve asked this question many times on these forums. No answer YET but I wait.

Show me where “Orthodox Church” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?

Please give me that reference

 

[ziapueblo]

The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors.

ZP

Again no answer to my question. But I wait.

As for “Catholic Church”, (in writing, properly referenced, going back to the beginning) have you not seen the evidence for that?

 

[ziapueblo]

Are you referring to document or father of the church?

 

[steve-b]

Are you referring to document or father of the church?

Here is my question again

Show me where “ Orthodox Church ” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?

Please give me that reference, whether ECF or whatever source you have. But follow the requirements of the question.

 

[Isaac14]

“to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant”

AND ,

using that format it’s also true that

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

AND

To go deepest in history, back to Jesus and His Church He builds on Peter, and the apostles united to Peter,

is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church

So reading between the lines, you do, in fact, believe I am condemned to hell?

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m not sure that one would, other than early fathers using the word orthodoxy, and that doesn’t really matter because east and west were in communion for a millennium.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant”

AND ,

using that format it’s also true that

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

AND

To go deepest in history, back to Jesus and His Church He builds on Peter, and the apostles united to Peter,

is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church

So reading between the lines, you do, in fact, believe I am condemned to hell?

Is my name on any of those documents in those sources I quoted? NO

Given that the opportunity presented itself, I merely gave references properly referenced. Paul gave those warnings. I’m just quoting him when those sins show up.

 

[steve-b]

I’m not sure that one would, other than early fathers using the word orthodoxy,

I’m not looking for the adjective. I’m looking for the name “Orthodox Church”. Are you saying you tried to find it, but you can’t find it in the 1st millenium?

ziapueblo:

and that doesn’t really matter because east and west were in communion for a millennium.

ZP

That is NOT what you said.

You said (emphasis mine)

“The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors”.

That is wrong.

St. Ignatius Bp of Antioch, (direct disciple of John the apostle), St Polycarp Bp of Smyrna,(also a direct disciple of John the apostle) , St Irenaeus, Bp of Lyon, (who knew Polycarp), THEY use the name "Catholic Church"in their writings

EVEN the Nicean creed, it is an article of faith to believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[RyanBlack]

This is such a non-argument, that it’s laughable-worse than laughable. I wish you would stop using it. There is a case to be made-and a good one-as to why the Catholic Church is the true Church. Make that case. This case based on when the term “Orthodox Church” isn’t it.

 

[steve-b]

This is such a non-argument, that it’s laughable-worse than laughable. I wish you would stop using it. There is a case to be made-and a good one-as to why the Catholic Church is the true Church. Make that case. This case based on when the term “Orthodox Church” isn’t it.

Yet one more person who has no answer to my question.

 

[RyanBlack]

It’s not worthy of an answer, because it’s beyond laughable. Make the substantive arguments as to why Orthodox should become Catholic. There are substantive arguments to be made that might actually persuade people. This is not one of them. It only invites ridicule. No one is going to take it seriously.

 

[Isaac14]

Yet one more person who has no answer to my question.

You’re asking a question that has no answer. There was no need for any church to be formally named the “Orthodox Church” until well after the break in communion was fully realized and only then was some way needed to differentiate between the two churches. As others have suggested, there are better points to discuss between the Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[steve-b]

It’s not worthy of an answer, because it’s beyond laughable. Make the substantive arguments as to why Orthodox should become Catholic. There are substantive arguments to be made that might actually persuade people. This is not one of them. It only invites ridicule. No one is going to take it seriously.

when it was said

“The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church” FROM

I have every right to ask where is “Orthodox Church” mentioned in writing going back to the beginning.

 

[Isaac14]

Given that the opportunity presented itself, I merely gave references properly referenced. Paul gave those warnings. I’m just quoting him when those sins show up.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. But, Ok, fine, you did not say I am condemned but you did say that since my “sins” have shown up, you felt compelled to quote St. Paul in such a way as to say I am condemned. Or would it be more accurate to say that I have condemned myself by my joining the Orthodox Church? Or am I misinterpreting what you’ve quoted and I am not actually condemned to hell?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Yet one more person who has no answer to my question.

You’re asking a question that has no answer.

Who told you there is no answer

Isaac14:

There was no need for any church to be formally named the “Orthodox Church” until well after the break in communion was fully realized and only then was some way needed to differentiate between the two churches.

AND point being

show me where schism is approved in scripture OR Tradition?

Isaac14:

As others have suggested, there are better points to discuss between the Orthodox and Catholics.

On the contrary schism is condemned in scripture. As in dividing from the only Church Jesus established, in the beginning, with the office of Peter and those in complete union with him. Jesus didn’t pray for a squishy union but a perfect union .

I posted all the scripture passages condemning division and the consequences for those who die in that sin

 

[ziapueblo]

Absolutely!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Given that the opportunity presented itself, I merely gave references properly referenced. Paul gave those warnings. I’m just quoting him when those sins show up.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. But, Ok, fine, you did not say I am condemned but you did say that since my “sins” have shown up, you felt compelled to quote St. Paul in such a way as to say I am condemned. Or would it be more accurate to say that I have condemned myself by my joining the Orthodox Church? Or am I misinterpreting what you’ve quoted and I am not actually condemned to hell?

Paul warned, Re: division, Gal 5:20-21 …dissension … "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

See the issue? People have choices in what they choose, and who they belong to. AND, we don’t live in a consequence free existence.

From the Greek NT in that scripture reference

Re: dissension διχοστασίαι = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects.