How To Respond To This Orthodox Argument About the Early Church

[Duane1966]

Part 3

The Eastern Orthodox develop doctrine also. Here is what the early Church said on divorce and remarriage.

Historical tradition.

The Church Fathers in early Christianity, the Church Councils in later years, and various popes to the present time have consistently held that after a valid marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble until the death of one spouse.

Some examples:

The Shepherd of Hermas*(a.k.a.The Pastor of Hermas) describes a conversation between a Christian leader and a follower.

** “What then, Sir”, say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case”?35:17 “Let him divorce her”, said he, "and let the husband abide alone:"35:18*“but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise commits adultery.”**

Justin Martyr*(circa 107-176CE) wrote: "He that marries her that has been put away by another man commits adultery."*

Athenagoras*(134 - 190*CE) wrote “For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery.”

Tertullian(160-230CE) wrote: “They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away.”

Clement of Alexandria*(150-circa 220*CE) was very specific when he wrote: "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives.

Synod of Elvira*(300CE) issued Canon 9:“A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity.”

The Synod of Arles*(314CE) instructs those young men who had dismissed their wives on grounds of adultery to not remarry.

The Second Council of Mileve*(416), theCouncil of Hereford(673), and theCouncil of Friuli(791CE) made similar statements.

Pope Innocent I*(401 to 417CE) wrote: “Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides.”

Contrast the early Church with the development of Orthodox doctrine now. The following is taken from this website orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

.
REMARRIAGE

Despite the fact that the Church condemns sin, she also desires to bean aidto those who suffer and for whom she may allow a second marriage. This is certainly the case when the marriage has ceased to be a reality. A possible second marriage is therefore only permitted because of “human weakness”. As the apostle Paul says concerning the unmarried and widows: “If they can not control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7, 9). It is permitted as apastoral concessionin the context of “economia,” to the human weakness and the corrupt world in which we live.

Isn’t this unbinding what Jesus bound? Jesus called it the hardness of our hearts, changing the terminology to human weakness makes it okay? St. Paul is not talking about the divorced in the quote from above about the unmarried, because in other passages he clearly views the divorced as still married.

 

[Vico]

Also from Vatican I:1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

 2. So the fathers of the** fourth Council of Constantinople**, following the footsteps of     their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

 What is more, with the approval of the **second Council of Lyons**, the Greeks made the     following profession:

“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
Then there is the definition of** the Council of Florence**:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]
​

 

[steve_b]

So I had this dropped on me today:

" The simple fact is, that the Early Church - including the Early Church of Rome - never considered the Church to be a single corporate body united under the supreme and at times infallible authority of the Bishop of Rome. There’s simply insufficient evidence that this was a widespread belief before the 6th - 8th centuries. If there was, we’d have hundreds, if not thousands of patristic testimonies regarding this belief. Instead, we have the same couple-dozen selected excerpts that Catholics keep referencing every single time this argument comes up. This would not have been a minor doctrinal issue to be paved over - it would have been something that defined the Church at its very core and most basic level. And yet, no one can find any more than a couple dozen examples dating from before the 6th - 8th centuries. There’s a historical gap before then that simply can’t be even partially filled by the current examples Catholics are bringing up. It would simply take more than a couple-dozen testimonies to establish that this was a widespread belief in the Church - including in the Church of Rome - up until then. Like I said before, we’d have hundreds if not thousands of testimonies. And those just don’t exist. What we DO find, in hundreds if not thousands of testimonies, is that the Church was a locally-corporate Church, united in faith and doctrine, but with no bishop having direct authority over any other bishop. Which is the exact structure of the Orthodox Church today. What’s more, invoking the Council of Nicaea shows even more ignorance, because if it was a ranking of authority rather than honor you’d think that it would be clearly stated. And yet, no where in the records of the council is such a thing ever stated or even implied. Actually, we see the exact opposite - the Pope being regarded as the first AMONGST EQUALS. What would be the point of including these two words if not to specifically refute an argument about it being a ranking of authority? And if it was, what happened to the other four Church’s? Why didn’t Constantinople become second in command, Alexandria and Antioch third, and Jerusalem fourth? If they had such rightful authority granted to them by the council, they wouldn’t have given it up easily. And yet, they never claimed such authority, and specifically denied having such authority when the Church of Rome arrogantly invented the doctrine of its supremacy. "

How exactly would one respond to this?

I would ask them a few questions and make a few comments

1. 
   *]When is the first time in history we see “Orthodox Church” in writing and give the exact reference properly referenced. I’ve asked this question for years on these forums and have NOT gotten an answer yet from an “Orthodox” responder… You can guess the reason why.
   *]If NO bishop in the early Church ever had authority over any other bishop(s), then have them explain how Pope Clement in Rome was asked to settle sedition among the bishops of Corinth Greece in the 1st century. Keep in mind, John the apostle is still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome, and Corinth could have gone to Athens, 50 miles away, who had valid bishops, and their Church was mentioned in Acts. Why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle? The option was there. Why didn’t they do THAT? Why not go to Athens? Technically Corinth is in the East. Why not consult Ignatius of Antioch? Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome is. See also#123
   *]Re: no bishop has authority over any other bishop, have them explain the following. Bp Irenaeus, from Smyrna (today Turkey) made bishop of Lyon (today France) wrote in his work Against Heresies] that regardless of any particular Churches pedigree, (my paraphrase ) they ALL must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s pre eminent authority, and he says THAT is apostolic tradition coming from the 2 great apostles Peter and Paul [Bk 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3 v 2] . If that was an anomaly, why is that still true today? They have NO credible answer against that.
   
   Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus are all Catholic Bishops in the Catholic Church. East and West is represented there with these bishops. And those 3 bishops represents almost the 1st 200 years of the Church East and West.
   
   And note:
   So there is no confusion who “this Church” is, that Irenaeus writes about, he names 12 bishops of Rome, from Peter, down to his day, to show his readers he is talking about the Church of Rome and why it has pre eminent authority over everyone. [Bk 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3 v 1-3]
   In fact going back to Ignatius, he says in his letter to Rome, the Church of Rome holds the presidency. See his opening salutation earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html Ignatius doesn’t say that of any Church he writes to, except to Rome. Not even about his own see does he say that… Only to the Church of Rome. And we know because Ignatius teaches do NOTHING without the bishop, letter to Smyrneans ch 8] we know this letter to the Romans is meant for the bishop of Rome even though Ignatius doesn’t name him in his letter**. **Therefore Ignatius acknowledges the bishop of Rome holds the presidency.

 

[steve_b]

There are a great many sees besides the patriarchal sees, and in a Church Council a patriarch has no more voting power than the metropolitan of Thessaloniki or the bishop of Corfu. You’re trying to make a big deal about four bishops in the East when there were hundreds.

You describe why the Orthodox lack authority.

Re: the systems of “patriatchs” and “metropolitans” as well as 1st among equals, see the following

Jesus settled that issue of authority and who’s greatest among the apostles ergo greatest in the Church, in the upper room. And that hierarchical system of authority Jesus established is to continue. And notice who started the argument? Satan. Who keeps the argument going? Satan.

Peter is the greatest said in 3 different ways using Lk 22:24… and other passages
#30 ,#385 , and #660 ]

Then, Card Ratzinger who was head of the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

wrote:

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Another explanation of this from an Eastern Catholic Bishop

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

BTW Prodromos, I have a question.

when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced

 

[DavidFilmer]

BTW Prodromos, I have a question.

when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced

He might say that “Orthodox Church” is merely a “modern” name for the Church of Constantinople. It sure is easier to spell.

 

[steve_b]

He might say that “Orthodox Church” is merely a “modern” name for the Church of Constantinople. It sure is easier to spell.

That city doesn’t seem to be able to retain its name
-]Byzantium/-], -]Constantinople/-], -]New Rome/-], Istanbul

We know the name “Orthodox Church” appears in history, in writing.
I want to see **when **the name “Orthodox Church” first appeared in writing, properly reference of course

BTW as I understand, the largest and most vibrant Church in that city, is St Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

 

[DavidFilmer]

That city doesn’t seem to be able to retain its name
-]Byzantium/-], -]Constantinople/-], -]New Rome/-], Istanbul

I think “new Rome” was a nickname, not really a name.

But, yeah, it has changed hands a few times. And it is now in the middle of Muslim Central.

 

[prodromos]

BTW Prodromos, I have a question.

when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced

You seem so keen to know, why don’t you research and tell us? You have the same resources available as anyone else. I don’t know what you expect to gain from the knowledge but by all means, go for it!

 

[prodromos]

I think “new Rome” was a nickname, not really a name.

Istanbul is simply how the Turks heard the Greeks referring to Constantinople. It was often simply referred to as “the City”, so if someone was going to Constantinople and was asked where they were going, they would answer, “εις την πόλι”, “to the city”. For those who don’t know Greek, the letter “ν” followed by “π” is pronounced as “nb” so the expression sounds like “eestinboli”.

 

[prodromos]

And it is now in the middle of Muslim Central.

As is becoming the seat of the papacy in the 14th century, except that France has largely been succumbing to Islam without a fight.

 

[Vico]

…

when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced

How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
Fortescue, A. (1911). Orthodox Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I find this approach very weak, as it can justify anything.

For example, in ancient times the early church fathers predicted my presence and said that I should lead the church in 2015. It was never written down or referenced because it was widely accepted and everyone knew the prophecy, so there was no need to rehash it.

Does that convince you in any way?

Funny that. The same prophecy said that I’d be your right hand man!

So when you reference the prophecy, just give me a tinkle and I’ll be there in a flash.

 

[steve_b]

You seem so keen to know, why don’t you research and tell us?

The Catholic Church can show it’s been here in writing from the 1st century all properly referenced. #34

All I’m asking is, WHEN did the “Orthodox Church” first appear in writing? Properly referenced of course.
p:

You have the same resources available as anyone else. I don’t know what you expect to gain from the knowledge but by all means, go for it!

We know the “Orthodox Church” has been here a long time.

All I’m saying

Can we agree, that If you could show in writing, properly referenced, that the “Orthodox Church” was there from the beginning, that you as an Orthodox, would / could quote that reference in a heartbeat?

Do you have such a reference?

.

 

[steve_b]

How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
Fortescue, A. (1911). Orthodox Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

As that article stated , Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion.

I’m asking for the first time the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing.

The Catholic Church always had an Eastern part of the Church and still does. They are the Eastern Catholic Church and fully 100% Catholic.

The Orthodox aren’t Catholics nor are they the Catholic Church. But don’t take my word for it,

From an Eastern Catholic bishop who then quotes canon law
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[Vico]

From early times, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Orthodox Bishops.

Excerpt from the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.:

The holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We have added to these our own letters and that which it is necessary for you to hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Now this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost: But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

 

[steve_b]

From early times, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Orthodox Bishops.

Excerpt from the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.:

The holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We have added to these our own letters and that which it is necessary for you to hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Now this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost: But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

It’s doesn’t say “Orthodox Church” in the body of the article. But it DOES say “Catholic Church”

This article doesn’t negate what I said previously regarding the previous article you presented.

As the article you posted previously stated , Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion.

That’s really not specific enough for what I asked

I’m asking for the first time the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing.

The Catholic Church always had an Eastern part of the Catholic Church and still does. They are the Eastern Catholic Church then as they are the Eastern Catholic Church today, fully 100% Catholic.

The “Orthodox Church” otoh, is its own entity. It is NOT “Catholic” nor are they the “Catholic Church”.

again

From an Eastern Catholic bishop who also quotes Eastern Canon Law
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[SonOfMan]

It’s doesn’t say “Orthodox Church” in the body of the article. But it DOES say “Catholic Church”

This article doesn’t negate what I said previously regarding the previous article you presented.

As the article you posted previously stated , Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion.

That’s really not specific enough for what I asked

The same can be said about the Catholic Church. The way the term “catholic” was used was a generalized term that means “universal”, which is naturally claimed by people of every religion which includes the Orthodox, since their churches exist globally or universally.

The way the term catholic was used is not specific enough. It wasnt a title.

 

[steve_b]

The same can be said about the Catholic Church. The way the term “catholic” was used was a generalized term that means “universal”, which is naturally claimed by people of every religion which includes the Orthodox, since their churches exist globally or universally.

The way the term catholic was used is not specific enough. It wasnt a title.

On the contrary, it is used as a proper name.

What makes the Church Catholic is the same belief and structure of an organization worldwide. The Orthodox aren’t universal, they don’t have any ONE to make them (as in all of their individual churches) one. And they are not in union with the chair of Peter.

 

[Vico]

It’s doesn’t say “Orthodox Church” in the body of the article. But it DOES say “Catholic Church”

This article doesn’t negate what I said previously regarding the previous article you presented.

As the article you posted previously stated , Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion.

That’s really not specific enough for what I asked

I’m asking for the first time the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing.

The Catholic Church always had an Eastern part of the Catholic Church and still does. They are the Eastern Catholic Church then as they are the Eastern Catholic Church today, fully 100% Catholic.

The “Orthodox Church” otoh, is its own entity. It is NOT “Catholic” nor are they the “Catholic Church”.

again

From an Eastern Catholic bishop who also quotes Eastern Canon Law
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

The problem is that there is not merely one name that applies to all the various Catholic Apostolic orthodox jurisdictions simultaneously, some in communion and some not, and also in three major groupings of Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox.

It is possible to begin listing use of Orthodox from current day backwards in time, but then as Catholic Encyclopedia states, “East and West always claimed both names”.

 

[steve_b]

The problem is that there is not merely one name that applies to all the various Catholic Apostolic orthodox jurisdictions simultaneously, some in communion and some not, and also in three major groupings of Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox.

It is possible to begin listing use of Orthodox from current day backwards in time, but then as Catholic Encyclopedia states, “East and West always claimed both names”.

Here’s a list of Eastern Catholics in union with the pope
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-other-catholics-a-short-guide-to-the-eastern-catholic-churches.html

As I understand it, the Latin rite makes up ~98% of the total number of Catholics in the world, and Eastern Catholics of different rites, together, make up ~2% of the total number of Catholics in the world.

A Church being in complete union with the pope makes them Catholic.