How To Respond To This Orthodox Argument About the Early Church

[Vico]

Then ya go with the historical docs that are there.

Of those that are easy to find, the name Orthodox Church is used in these recent writings from the 19th century, as mentioned before:

Encyclical of the Constantinople Synod (1838) - Against the Latin innovations

oodegr.co/english/biblia/unia1/B2.htm

The Patriarchal Encyclical of (1895) - A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

 

[DavidFilmer]

because knowledge matters.

OK, I think you’re cheating.

I had a beef and bean burrito for lunch today. That’s knowledge (and it’s truth). Before you read the second sentence of this post, you had NO IDEA what I had for lunch today. Now you do. That’s knowledge, but does it matter to you? Or anyone? It really doesn’t matter to me (I could have ordered the chicken burrito instead, but my choice would not really matter to me as I type at my computer at almost one o’clock in the morning). I cannot remember what I had for lunch three days ago. It doesn’t matter.

But, a deal is a deal. But, because I think you cheated, I will give you ONLY what I promised. I will transcribe the OED source information. But I won’t look up the abbreviations for the source documents in the appendix. But they might be sufficiently descriptive without the Index.

The OED begins by tracing the Greek etymology of the word-pair (“true teaching”), which I won’t bother to reproduce because I can’t readily type Greek letters on my American keyboard, and because you already know it anyway.

The OED then goes on to cite:

Cf. late L. Orthodoux-us (Jerome Codex-Just) and F.*orthodoxae *(a 1488 in Godef Compl.), which may have been the proximate source.

OK, so the full weight of the Oxford English Dictionary has now (finally) answered your question. Do you think it matters? Why?

 

[DavidFilmer]

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

But calling a tulip a rose doesn’t somehow make it a rose either.

I’m on Steve’s “side” here, but I don’t understand his reasoning.

Or, to better express my opinion, I THINK I understand Steve’s reasoning, but I don’t agree that it proves what he thinks it proves. I would LIKE to think that, but I cannot.

Here’s MY OWN INTERPRETATION of what Steve is saying (but I think I’m right, and so I’m carrying his water here):

• The Orthodox complain that the doctrine of the Papacy (particularly infallibility and universal jurisdiction) is not clearly established in any documents from the Apostolic Era.
• HOWEVER, the idea that the ancient Apostolic See of Constantinople exists on equal terms with, but apart from, the See of Rome is ALSO not found in any similarly ancient documents.
• THUS, the Orthodox have little room to complain, since their OWN claim to Apostolic authority is no better documented (and may be less well documented) than Rome’s claim.

I don’t disagree with this premise, but I don’t think it proves the conclusion. Because I don’t think that authority relies on ancient documents (one way or another).

 

[wynd]

Or, to better express my opinion, I THINK I understand Steve’s reasoning, but I don’t agree that it proves what he thinks it proves. I would LIKE to think that, but I cannot.

That’s where I’m at with the “first occurrence of the term ‘Orthodox Church’” issue. I’m assuming he thinks it’s proof that the early church was Catholic and not Orthodox, but it’s really a moot point because we understand ourselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[ericc]

What are those higher ‘powers’

*FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325)
Canon 4 “But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the
metropolitan bishop.”
Canon 6

• The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places…
• Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
• In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the
  consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be
  a bishop.

Unless I am understanding these incorrectly, the metropolitan bishop has the approval prerogative over the provincial bishops. If one needs the approval of the other, then it conveys a higher power over the other. Is this a reasonable postulation?

No bishop has power over another bishop.

If the provincial bishop were to go astray, does the metropolitan bishop has the authority and power to discipline the offending bishop? If yes, then the power of the bishops are not equal.

If a bishop is censored or anathemised, it is by a synod of his brother bishops. Now you are referring to synods, not individual bishops. You’ve just disproven your own argument.

I have not disproven anything. I made a statement that bishops could through councils cut across jurisdictions. You just repeated what I wrote. But the point I was trying to make is that councils can reach across jurisdictions to enforce their decrees. However, if bishops are indeed equal/independent of each other, then no council has any right to punish an offending bishop. The bishop could merely disregard anything the council says. The bishop just need not accept the rule of majority. But it is not so. There is no real equality of bishophood although one can perceive them to be equals. If they are equals then the Emperor need not go though the trouble to get his Bishop of Constantinople to move up the ranks to just below Rome in the Council of Constantinople 1.

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.

There is a difference between FYI only and consent needed. If it is FYI only, you may be right. And one wouldn’t even care if you got the memo or not. But if it is consent required, it is another matter entirely.

The letters I have in mind were the ones that Anatolius, the Bishop of New Rome aka Constantinople and Emperor Marcian wrote to Pope Leo asking him to ratify the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. The letters acknowledge that the Pope’s sanction is necessary for the validity of the canons.

What evidence are you referring to specifically?

Doesn’t the Patriarch has supremacy over his bishops? He can command his bishops to stay in line so to speak. It is not a matter of merely vote counts. It is of power and authority and influence and allegiance.

 

[steve_b]

OK, I think you’re cheating.

that’s rich!!! And that also wasn’t the deal.

You wanted my answer. I gave you my answer, knowing full well and upfront, you didn’t care one wit about my answer*. *

Remember? You are the one who set up the quid pro quo.

DavidFilmer forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

*I gave you my answer and Now you’re grousing about having to hold up your end of the bargain. *
D:

But, a deal is a deal. But, because I think you cheated, I will give you ONLY what I promised. I will transcribe the OED source information. But I won’t look up the abbreviations for the source documents in the appendix. But they might be sufficiently descriptive without the Index.

The OED begins by tracing the Greek etymology of the word-pair (“true teaching”), which I won’t bother to reproduce because I can’t readily type Greek letters on my American keyboard, and because you already know it anyway.

The OED then goes on to cite:

"Cf. late L. Orthodoux-us (Jerome Codex-Just) and F.*orthodoxae *(a 1488 in Godef Compl.), which may have been the proximate source. "

OK, so the full weight of the Oxford English Dictionary has now (finally) answered your question. Do you think it matters? Why?

THAT’s it? That’s what I’m waiting for? That’s the BIG DEAL you say you were put through to give me THAT answer?

So let me get this straight, your Oxford dictionary says 1488 is the earliest date “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing?

Is that your answer?

 

[steve_b]

That’s where I’m at with the “first occurrence of the term ‘Orthodox Church’” issue. I’m assuming he thinks it’s proof that the early church was Catholic and not Orthodox,

Okay, please quote for me properly referenced, when the Early Church called itself the “Orthodox Church”
w:

but it’s really a moot point because we understand ourselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It’s not moot

Those who successfully make the journey to unity will disagree with you

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

 

[DavidFilmer]

You wanted my answer. I gave you my answer, knowing full well and upfront, you didn’t care one wit about my answer*. *

I never said I didn’t care about your answer. I don’t ask questions if I don’t care about the answer (what would be the point?) I said that I would hold up my end of the bargain whether I agree with your answer or not. But I didn’t expect a silly answer. I thought you would take it more seriously.

So let me get this straight, your Oxford dictionary says 1488 is the earliest date “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing?

No, I’m pretty sure that my Oxford dictionary says that St. Jerome first used the term.

Why would it matter if it was Jerome or somebody in 1488?

I would have thought you would have been happy with an answer like 1488. What are you complaining about?

 

[catholic1seeks]

If I can just offer my two cents, which aren’t very valuable…

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the purpose of figuring out when the term “Orthodox Church” was first used. The name of a church does not equate to its historicity or authenticity. The church was not called “catholic” for at least a few decades after the church got started.

An Orthodox could argue that the Church was very well universally known as the Catholic Church but had to call itself the Orthodox Church to distinguish it from those who claimed to be Catholic but really went into schism because of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

The name of a church does not equate to its historicity or authenticity.

It’s a very good guage
c:

The church was not called “catholic” for at least a few decades after the church got started.

The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

So one THEN can ask, where does kata holos appear in scripture and particularly kata holos ekklesia ?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = The Kataholos Church.
c1:

An Orthodox could argue that the Church was very well universally known as the Catholic Church

And they would be correct.
c1:

but had to call itself the Orthodox Church to distinguish it from those who claimed to be Catholic but really went into schism because of Rome.

Because of Rome? It’s the same ole story, some bishops have problems with authority, and particularly anybody being over THEM, so they go into sedition or schism. Consider Clements letter to the Church of Corinth settling sedition among THEIR bishops. This was DURING the life of St John the apostle.

This argument over primacy was actually waged in of all places, after the last supper in the upper room between the apostles.

Jesus settled the argument

Lk 22:
24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζωνamong you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενοςlike the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

open the links to see the definition of those words

1. 
   *]Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
   *]Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected
   *]Did Jesus confirm this one would rule? Yes
   *]Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
   *]Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? Peter. Argument over.
   
   Jesus established the hierarchy in His Church with Peter at the helm, as THE leader, and not even hell will prevail against it. Yet Satan sifts, and he always seems to find willing participants who try to destroy that. What’s new?

 

[steve_b]

I never said I didn’t care about your answer. I don’t ask questions if I don’t care about the answer (what would be the point?) I said that I would hold up my end of the bargain whether I agree with your answer or not. But I didn’t expect a silly answer. I thought you would take it more seriously.

No, I’m pretty sure that my Oxford dictionary says that St. Jerome first used the term.

Why would it matter if it was Jerome or somebody in 1488?

I would have thought you would have been happy with an answer like 1488. What are you complaining about?

I didn’t ask for the word “orthodox” I asked for the name “Orthodox Church”. That’s what I’m asking for.

 

[wynd]

Okay, please quote for me properly referenced, when the Early Church called itself the “Orthodox Church”

Like I said, I have no idea

Like I also said, we consider ourselves the Catholic Church, the Church of the councils and creeds.

Let’s say the first occurrence of the phrase is in 1940 (randomly picking a year). Please tell me what you intend to prove by such a citation?

 

[steve_b]

Like I said, I have no idea

okay
w:

Like I also said, we consider ourselves the Catholic Church, the Church of the councils and creeds.

Those councils were in union with the successor of St Peter in Rome. THAT’s what makes their rulings universal. Without his approval, those councils are reduced to local councils. Those who ultimately ceased being united with the pope, ceased being Catholic. Thus their name change to “Orthodox Church”

I’m not asking you to take my word for this.

The Melkites were Catholic, then became Orthodox, and came back to union with the Catholic Church and are now Catholic.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome note the reference to canon law.

 

[DustinQuick]

Brother errham

The Primacy of honor argument is the later development, not actual authority.

Please watch and refer him to
youtu.be/FmEAuLNoP-Q

It sounds nice from our Orthodox brethren but it’s simply not historically accurate. This fallacy - and other strawmen - has been noted by Orthodox brother Tim Flanders. Since the time he wrote this he has come into full communion with Rome.
devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

All we can do is show love and keep praying for reunion daily.