How To Respond To This Orthodox Argument About the Early Church

[Vico]

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.

Of course, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, however those other particular churches maintain that they are Catholic and orthodox too.

 

[steve_b]

Of course, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, however those other particular churches maintain that they are Catholic and orthodox too.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Anyone in the East who can say yes to that is Catholic. Otherwise they are NOT Catholic

 

[Vico]

Who are they trying to convince? Certainly not the Catholic Church.

Convince of what?

 

[steve_b]

Convince of what?

I revised my post. Look at it again.

 

[Vico]

I revised my post. Look at it again.

I don’t know what your question is.

1. In general the Eastern Orthodox have always used the Catholic Church, in their synods. For example: 1351, 1484, 1672, 1691, 1727, 1836, and Patriarchs responding to Pius IX. See: The Encyclopedia of Christianity: J-O, By Erwin Fahlbusch, p. 867.
2. Eastern Orthodox Church was used in the synods of 1836, 1838, and 1895.
3. Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, used the titles Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, in 1967 when the anathemas were lifted, for example:
4. Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are
   responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again “one” as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know what your question is.

1. In general the Eastern Orthodox have always used the Catholic Church, in their synods. For example: 1351, 1484, 1672, 1691, 1727, 1836, and Patriarchs responding to Pius IX. See: The Encyclopedia of Christianity: J-O, By Erwin Fahlbusch, p. 867.

Here is a Church that WAS Catholic, then Orthodox, then back to Catholic.

Note what Bp John says

“In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

Orthodox are Orthodox because they can’t say yes to canon 43.
V:

1. Eastern Orthodox Church was used in the synods of 1836, 1838, and 1895.
2. Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, used the titles Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, in 1967 when the anathemas were lifted, for example:
3. Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are
   responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again “one” as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.

And the distinction is there.

 

[Vico]

Here is a Church that WAS Catholic, then Orthodox, then back to Catholic.

Note what Bp John says

“In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

Orthodox are Orthodox because they can’t say yes to canon 43.

And the distinction is there.

I am contributing to an answer to your question: "when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

The purpose is not to prove who is orthodox and Catholic! We already know that the Catholic Church holds that the Church of Christ subsists in it, but also that the particular churches (Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Old Catholic have valid sacraments).

 

[steve_b]

I am contributing to an answer to your question: "when is the first time in history, in writing, do we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

The purpose is not to prove who is orthodox and Catholic!

The question is, and it’s a simple one, when is the first time “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. I’d like to know that.
V:

We already know that the Catholic Church holds that the Church of Christ subsists in it, but also that the particular churches (Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Old Catholic have valid sacraments).

And that’s NOT the question being asked.

 

[Vico]

The question is, and it’s a simple one, when is the first time “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. I’d like to know that.

And that’s NOT the question being asked.

And the Catholic Encylopedia stated about the name Orthodox for the Church (see post #51) that “It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius” so there is a time frame.

 

[steve_b]

And the Catholic Encylopedia stated about the name Orthodox for the Church (see post #51) that “It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius” so there is a time frame.

That article from the encyclopedia doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. I’m looking for a primary source properly referenced, where the proper name “Orthodox Church” is used for the first time in history .

No Orthodox has answered this question and I’ve asked this question for years.

 

[DavidFilmer]

That article from the encyclopedia doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. I’m looking for a primary source properly referenced, where the proper name “Orthodox Church” is used for the first time in history .

OK, I’m no Orthodox, but I will play along. But I want something from you in return.

I am willing to delve into my largely obsolete library, to my Complete Compact Oxford English Dictionary (OED). A fearsome set of two large, thick volumes which reduce the entire 16-volume OED into four microscopic-sized pages per page. The set comes with its own high quality magnifying glass. Even WITH the magnifying glass and my own reading glasses, my 50-year-old eyes struggle to grasp the text.

Nobody uses the OED to look up the definitions of words (the usual purpose of a dictionary). The singular purpose of the OED is to research the ORIGIN of words (regardless of language of origin). If a word is used in English, the OED will strive to provide the first use of that word, even if it was originally used in a non-English text.

I have Volume-1 of the Compact OED before me, turned to page 2012, which describes the origin of the word “Orthodox” (not just the plainly obvious Greek pairs, but when the word was (apparently) first used in publication as a proper noun, in any language).

I am willing to strain my aging eyes behind reading glasses and a magnifier to manually transcribe the origin of the word, which I believe will (finally) answer your question in the best scholarly sense available. But I ask you to do something first. I ask you to explain why the answer (whatever it is) actually matters.

If the OED cites first usage of “Orthodox” as a proper noun in the pre-Nicene era, or in the late middle ages, I want you to explain why it matters either way.

If you do that, then I will transcribe what I find in my OED and post it here. I don’t care whether I agree or disagree with your reason - I will hold up my end of the bargain either way. I just want to know why you think it matters.

Here’s a photo of my OED opened in front of a draft version of this post, with the magnifier over the word “Orthodox” and the answer you seek. If you answer my question, I will answer yours.

lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6_zJhmlM_co/VYezEybq24I/AAAAAAAACUI/an6UdmJ9dms/w1269-h714-no/15%2B-%2B1

 

[prodromos]

If the OED cites first usage of “Orthodox” as a proper noun in the pre-Nicene era, or in the late middle ages, I want you to explain why it matters either way.

If you do that, then I will transcribe what I find in my OED and post it here. I don’t care whether I agree or disagree with your reason - I will hold up my end of the bargain either way. I just want to know why you think it matters.

Steve seems to think that by calling a rose a tulip, it somehow ceases to be a rose

 

[Vico]

That article from the encyclopedia doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. I’m looking for a primary source properly referenced, where the proper name “Orthodox Church” is used for the first time in history .

No Orthodox has answered this question and I’ve asked this question for years.

There is no way to know this for many historical documents were lost.

 

[steve_b]

OK, I’m no Orthodox, but I will play along. But I want something from you in return.

I am willing to delve into my largely obsolete library, to my Complete Compact Oxford English Dictionary (OED). A fearsome set of two large, thick volumes which reduce the entire 16-volume OED into four microscopic-sized pages per page. The set comes with its own high quality magnifying glass. Even WITH the magnifying glass and my own reading glasses, my 50-year-old eyes struggle to grasp the text.

Nobody uses the OED to look up the definitions of words (the usual purpose of a dictionary). The singular purpose of the OED is to research the ORIGIN of words (regardless of language of origin). If a word is used in English, the OED will strive to provide the first use of that word, even if it was originally used in a non-English text.

I have Volume-1 of the Compact OED before me, turned to page 2012, which describes the origin of the word “Orthodox” (not just the plainly obvious Greek pairs, but when the word was (apparently) first used in publication as a proper noun, in any language).

I am willing to strain my aging eyes behind reading glasses and a magnifier to manually transcribe the origin of the word, which I believe will (finally) answer your question in the best scholarly sense available. But I ask you to do something first. I ask you to explain why the answer (whatever it is) actually matters.

If the OED cites first usage of “Orthodox” as a proper noun in the pre-Nicene era, or in the late middle ages, I want you to explain why it matters either way.

If you do that, then I will transcribe what I find in my OED and post it here. I don’t care whether I agree or disagree with your reason - I will hold up my end of the bargain either way. I just want to know why you think it matters.

because knowledge matters.

 

[steve_b]

There is no way to know this for many historical documents were lost.

Then ya go with the historical docs that are there.

 

[steve_b]

Steve seems to think that by calling a rose a tulip, it somehow ceases to be a rose

No, I think there are people who call a rose a tulip and presto majesto it’s now a tulip to them

 

[ericc]

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.

And yet the power is not equal.The metropolitan bishop has higher powers than the others. If everyone is equal and the patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria has no power over the other or of any bishop of a small insignificant city, then the Church Council would be a time waster because no one can anathematize another. But it was not so. The Eastern bishops were there heavily participating in Church Councils condemning others, approving /disapproving bishops of other cities and all sorts of canons. The evidence therefore is implicit that disciplinary action can act across sees, countries, jurisdiction. If every bishop is equal, then they need not submit to the dictates of any one and all of us would be Arians or belonging to heresies of other doctrines if local popular vote is all that matters.

And yet there are customs and ancient tradition in force and recognized. If everyone is equal, no such recognition would be necessary. History show that the see of Rome continuously being referred to by the other sees to get its consent. Emperors and patriarchs wrote letters to Rome to get its consent on Church Councils decisions. The existence of such letters is sufficient evidence that Rome occupies a seat of certain approval making that stretches across jurisdiction other than its own.

The number of vote is one thing, but the power of the vote of Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria or Constantinople is definitely not equal to that of the bishops of the suburbs.

 

[wynd]

That article from the encyclopedia doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. I’m looking for a primary source properly referenced, where the proper name “Orthodox Church” is used for the first time in history .

No Orthodox has answered this question and I’ve asked this question for years.

I don’t know, I’m not a historian. But I’m not sure what it would prove or disprove either way

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know, I’m not a historian. But I’m not sure what it would prove or disprove either way

Okay, you can’t answer the question. I understand. It’s as I’ve said earlier, no Orthodox has yet, been able to answer that question and I’ve asked it for years on this forum. But I’m sure someone out there has an answer, properly referenced.

 

[prodromos]

And yet the power is not equal.The metropolitan bishop has higher powers than the others.

What are those higher ‘powers’

If everyone is equal and the patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria has no power over the other or of any bishop of a small insignificant city, then the Church Council would be a time waster because no one can anathematize another.

No bishop has power over another bishop. If a bishop is censored or anathemised, it is by a synod of his brother bishops.

But it was not so. The Eastern bishops were there heavily participating in Church Councils condemning others, approving /disapproving bishops of other cities and all sorts of canons.

Now you are referring to synods, not individual bishops. You’ve just disproven your own argument.

The evidence therefore is implicit that disciplinary action can act across sees, countries, jurisdiction. If every bishop is equal, then they need not submit to the dictates of any one and all of us would be Arians or belonging to heresies of other doctrines if local popular vote is all that matters.

What evidence are you referring to specifically?

And yet there are customs and ancient tradition in force and recognized. If everyone is equal, no such recognition would be necessary. History show that the see of Rome continuously being referred to by the other sees to get its consent. Emperors and patriarchs wrote letters to Rome to get its consent on Church Councils decisions. The existence of such letters is sufficient evidence that Rome occupies a seat of certain approval making that stretches across jurisdiction other than its own.

Letters were written to Ephesus and Carthage and other major metropolitan sees requesting the same consent. This is the normal state of affairs where those who were not present are informed of the synods decisions. Rome being the imperial city, and the fact that this see was often not represented at synods in the East and Africa etc. naturally means a lot of the aforementioned letters.

The number of vote is one thing, but the power of the vote of Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria or Constantinople is definitely not equal to that of the bishops of the suburbs.

You make the claim, now back it up. How is there a difference?