I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Hesychios]

So you are saying that there is nothing really “Greek” about the Greek Orthodox Church or that one would not find many Greeks there?

In ecclesiastical usage, it would more correctly refer to liturgical practice.

Most Greeks are Orthodox, but most Orthodox are not Greek.

Also, why are there many Orthodox Churches, as opposed to one?

Thanks for the answers - I’ve always wondered about the Orthodox Churches.

It only seems like many.

All Orthodox believe the same things and are in communion. The church is organized by synods.

You can see this throughout church history, the local church gathered in local Councils: The Council of Arles, the Council of Carthage, the Council of Orange etc. This is somewhat reflected in the earlier liturgical rites:

The Ambrosian rite (northern Italy)
The Gallic rite (Gaul)
The Mozarabic rite (Gothic Spain),
and I suppose some mention of the Celtic rite should be made, although it was later in forming (probably influenced by the Gallic rite).

Eventually as the concept of nation-states arose the local-regional churches organized themselves along those same lines.

The Church of France, the Church of England, the Church of Spain, etc.

In Holy Orthodoxy the church is organized in a fashion similar to the early church. The very first autocephalic church was actually on Cyprus, recognized by Ecumenical Council in 431AD. As new nations arose in the Christian community there was a tendency to organize their churches along national lines. The Bulgarian church dates from the conversion of the Bulgars, for example (thanks in no small part to the conversion of their king). The Kyi’van Rus church was established when their king converted. Later these churches gained full autocephaly, which means that they can run their own affairs without referring back to their mother church of origin.

One can see the Eastern Catholic churches still following this pattern (as Synods), which they inherited from their own Orthodox origins.

The Melkite Patriarchal synod, the Maronite Patriarchal synod, the Ukrainian Sobor etc.

Today there is still a reflection of that principle in the Latin Catholic church. The earlier western Episcopal synods had pretty much been reduced after the suppression of Conciliarism (following the Council of Constance and the suppression of the Council of Basle), and the concept was destroyed after the Gallican controversy, but some Episcopal Conferences were revived during the time Pope Benedict XV in the early 20th century. Modern Roman Catholic Episcopal Conferences exist in just about every nation today, and most seem to date from the time of Vatican Council II. Examples:

the *Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano
*the *Conférence des évêques de France
*the Konferencja Episkopatu Polski
the Conferencia Episcopal Puertorriqueña
the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales
etc.

Orthodox synods are no different than Catholic Episcopal Conferences in these ways: They are local manifestations of the one universal church. All believe and teach the same core dogmas, are in communion with one another, concelebrate the Eucharist when their clergy or bishops worship together and care for other Orthodox individuals when these travel or visit.

 

[lax16]

In ecclesiastical usage, it would more correctly refer to liturgical practice.

Most Greeks are Orthodox, but most Orthodox are not Greek.
It only seems like many.

All Orthodox believe the same things and are in communion. The church is organized by synods.

You can see this throughout church history, the local church gathered in local Councils: The Council of Arles, the Council of Carthage, the Council of Orange etc. This is somewhat reflected in the earlier liturgical rites:

The Ambrosian rite (northern Italy)
The Gallic rite (Gaul)
The Mozarabic rite (Gothic Spain),
and I suppose some mention of the Celtic rite should be made, although it was later in forming (probably influenced by the Gallic rite).

Eventually as the concept of nation-states arose the local-regional churches organized themselves along those same lines.

The Church of France, the Church of England, the Church of Spain, etc.

In Holy Orthodoxy the church is organized in a fashion similar to the early church. The very first autocephalic church was actually on Cyprus, recognized by Ecumenical Council in 431AD. As new nations arose in the Christian community there was a tendency to organize their churches along national lines. The Bulgarian church dates from the conversion of the Bulgars, for example (thanks in no small part to the conversion of their king). The Kyi’van Rus church was established when their king converted. Later these churches gained full autocephaly, which means that they can run their own affairs without referring back to their mother church of origin.

One can see the Eastern Catholic churches still following this pattern (as Synods), which they inherited from their own Orthodox origins.

The Melkite Patriarchal synod, the Maronite Patriarchal synod, the Ukrainian Sobor etc.

Today there is still a reflection of that principle in the Latin Catholic church. The earlier western Episcopal synods had pretty much been reduced after the suppression of Conciliarism (following the Council of Constance and the suppression of the Council of Basle), and the concept was destroyed after the Gallican controversy, but some Episcopal Conferences were revived during the time Pope Benedict XV in the early 20th century. Modern Roman Catholic Episcopal Conferences exist in just about every nation today, and most seem to date from the time of Vatican Council II. Examples:

the *Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano
*the *Conférence des évêques de France
*the Konferencja Episkopatu Polski
the Conferencia Episcopal Puertorriqueña
the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales
etc.

Orthodox synods are no different than Catholic Episcopal Conferences in these ways: They are local manifestations of the one universal church. All believe and teach the same core dogmas, are in communion with one another, concelebrate the Eucharist when their clergy or bishops worship together and care for other Orthodox individuals when these travel or visit.

Thank you for your thorough answer.

Is it correct to say that each Orthodox Church (or synod?) has its own patriarch?

Are the Coptic Christians in Egypt considered part of Orthodoxy or are they different?

 

[dzheremi]

The Coptic Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, not in union with the Eastern Orthodox churches which accepted the concept of the hypostatic union (that is, two separate but united natures in the person of Christ, as opposed to the belief that the two natures are not separate, held to by the Oriental Orthodox) put forth at the Council of Chalcedon from which the Egyptians and others dissented. Which side is considered “Orthodox” of course depends on who you ask.

 

[Lapell]

St Peter was a Roman pontiff!?!

Why should one eek at this? He died in Rome as her bishop, didn’t he? And he was made the visble head of Jesus’ Church by Jesus Himself (Mt 16)?

 

[Lapell]

At the time of Saint Peter, that would have been insulting to say, and he would have been horrified to hear the term used in his own case.

The college of pontiffs were pagan priests for the city of Rome. The Pontifex Maximus was the chief among them, and among his duties were the selection of young women to serve the goddess Vesta in her temple.

This is most certainly not a title that should be used anachronistically, but instead avoided in referring to bishops for the first three centuries at least.

It might be better to drop the title altogether, it is unbecoming for a Christian priest or bishop. :sad_yes:

I think mickey was the one who used the term “Roman pontiff”. The other was responding more to the idea it conveys than to the term itself.
Until the schism, it was “the Church”, even the “Catholic Church” according to saint Ignatius of Antioch. But Peter was indeed the visible head of the Church until his death in Rome as her bishop. Like I said, there were popes ever since, and they were all successors of saint Peter, with the exception of the time there were 3 popes and it wasn’t sure which one was the legitimate one then. But that was it. There had been “antipopes”, but I doubt they had any legitimacy. A 1,000 years, a little more, before the Schism, and there were popes until then!

 

[Mickey]

The number of Catholic clergy who abused minors is no higher than clergy of other denominations, and no higher than the general adult male population estimation.

Can you show stats?

Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals is a scholarly work that shows sexual abuse is not particularly prevalent within the Catholic hierarchy and that abuse is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.

Do you have the numbers and sources?

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse By Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP, Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University says:

Yes. You have already posted this silly article. It tells us nothing.

To the linked article I gave you from 8 years ago, I think the same people are continuing to run Pokrov

LOL! That explains a lot! I can show you plenty of sites where disgruntled Catholics have created websites to attack their own Church with imaginary offenses and vitriol. Your sources are not reliable. Again, I am not denying that the Holy Orthodox Church is filled with sinners. But the stuff you are posting here is suspicious. It seems that you have an axe to grind.

 

[Lapell]

Rome was founded by St Peter and St Paul.

(Lapell) I thought it was founded in 754 or 758 B.C.!!

So did St Paul.

Only to Peter did Jesus say He would give him the keys to the Kingdom of God (or of Heaven), though all the Apostles received from Him the power to bind and to unbind…

Yes. Rome was Orthodox at one time and then separated herself from the rest of the Church.

Return to the Church of the first 1000 years.

Let us not start this argument yet again here. There are many threads for that.

 

[Mickey]

**(Lapell) I thought it was founded in 754 or 758 B.C.!!
**Sarcasm aside–you know what I mean.

Lapell:
**Only to Peter did Jesus say He would give him the keys to the Kingdom of God (or of Heaven), though all the Apostles received from Him the power to bind and to unbind…**And hence all the Apostles held the keys (Matt 18:18). Christ did not bestow the title of supreme infallible pontiff upon St Peter.

 

[marlo]

as i always observe every time on your post, it seems that you are happy to see the catholic church in bad light, because it justify your transfer to the eastern orthodox church, you do not believe in the orthodox church, you just see the issues in the catholic church to justify that the orthodox is correct, but there is really nothing in the orthodox church that you really love, you just believe that the catholic church is wrong to justify your transfer, i pitty you. you were once a gentle person, now you have become so rude and arrogant. you have become a guy full of hatred to the church of God for you believe that you are in the body of christ. it doesnt work that way.

Can you show stats?
Do you have the numbers and sources?
Yes. You have already posted this silly article. It tells us nothing.

LOL! That explains a lot! I can show you plenty of sites where disgruntled Catholics have created websites to attack their own Church with imaginary offenses and vitriol. Your sources are not reliable. Again, I am not denying that the Holy Orthodox Church is filled with sinners. But the stuff you are posting here is suspicious. It seems that you have an axe to grind.

 

[Lapell]

Rome was Orthodox at one time and then separated herself from the rest of the Church.

(LAPELL) It is true that the Church was “orthodox” in her teachings, but who called the Orthodox Church back then?

Return to the Church of the first 1000 years.

O.K., then tell me which dogmas defined by the Catholic Church after the 1054 Schism is not true, and please explain us what’s wrong there, if there’s any.

Let us not start this argument yet again here. There are many threads for that.

You stated your arguments here and want them left unanswered? This thread raised the question of the authority of the Catholic Church being proper or not, so I think the present points of argument are not really closely unrelated at all. You have a right to speak up and so do I.

 

[marlo]

Most of the Orthodox in this forum, has tied up with the idea of pagan rome and true Christianity, Anything coming from Rome, even if its correctly and properly used is evil. the title Pontifex Maximus was used by the most early, most holy and greatest Orthodox Saints of Rome namely, Pope Callistus I, Pope Damasus I Pope Leo I Pope Gregory I , and Pope Siricius, if you say its unbecoming for a Christian priest or bishop, then these holy bishops are also unbecoming, i could not believe that this type of mindset would appear from a christian. i could not even stomach such comment.

At the time of Saint Peter, that would have been insulting to say, and he would have been horrified to hear the term used in his own case.

The college of pontiffs were pagan priests for the city of Rome. The Pontifex Maximus was the chief among them, and among his duties were the selection of young women to serve the goddess Vesta in her temple.

This is most certainly not a title that should be used anachronistically, but instead avoided in referring to bishops for the first three centuries at least.

It might be better to drop the title altogether, it is unbecoming for a Christian priest or bishop. :sad_yes:

 

[Lapell]

Sarcasm aside–you know what I mean.

And hence all the Apostles held the keys (Matt 18:18). Christ did not bestow the title of supreme infallible pontiff upon St Peter.I am not sure that it necessarily means than the other Apostles also held the keys, too! Ever heard of Shebna the governor, who was given the keys in the same fashion (but to the various doors of David’s palace)? Anyone else having also received those keys back then?

 

[Mickey]

Ever heard of Shebna the governor, who was given the keys in the same fashion (but to the various doors of David’s palace)? Anyone else having also received those keys back then?

Yeah. That’s used often here. And the only source I have ever read who tries to connect that to St Peter—is Scott Hahn. In fact, Scott has lots of “different” theology–even by Roman Catholic standards.

 

[Mickey]

as i always observe every time on your post, it seems that you are happy to see the catholic church in bad light, because it justify your transfer to the eastern orthodox church,

You are terribly and sadly mistaken. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. The RCC led me to the path I am now taking. In particular, I am deeply saddened and pained by the trials and tribulation that the RCC is now experiencing in relation to the multiple sexual abuse scandals.

you do not believe in the orthodox church,

On the contrary–I truly believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

but there is really nothing in the orthodox church that you really love

Wrong again. I love everything about the Holy Orthodox Church. Why are you so angry?

i pitty you.

Thank you. I deserve to be pitied. I am a wretched sinner.

you were once a gentle person, now you have become so rude and arrogant.

I have not changed at all. When I was an apologist for the RCC–all the Orthodox and protestants thought I was harsh. If anything I am quite stubborn.

But you do not have to resort to name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

you have become a guy full of hatred to the church of God

May God forgive you for that comment.

 

[Lapell]

Yeah. That’s used often here. And the only source I have ever read who tries to connect that to St Peter—is Scott Hahn. In fact, Scott has lots of “different” theology–even by Roman Catholic standards.

Oh, I would doubt that he would be the only one. One New American Bible I have at home, at the passage where Jesus tells Peter He will give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, there is a letter, and the note at that letter gives the reference of the passage about Shebna’s being given the keys. and that when he opens no one can close, and when he closes no one can open.

 

[Lapell]

You are terribly and sadly mistaken. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. The RCC led me to the path I am now taking. In particular, I am deeply saddened and pained by the trials and tribulation that the RCC is now experiencing in relation to the multiple sexual abuse scandals.

On the contrary–I truly believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Wrong again. I love everything about the Holy Orthodox Church. Why are you so angry?

Thank you. I deserve to be pitied. I am a wretched sinner.
I have not changed at all. When I was an apologist for the RCC–all the Orthodox and protestants thought I was harsh. If anything I am quite stubborn.

But you do not have to resort to name calling and ad-hominem attacks.
May God forgive you for that comment.

Say, were you born a Catholic? And you were an apologist? Now, this intrigues me. Not Bob Sungenis, by any chance?

 

[Mickey]

** You have a right to speak up and so do I.**

Thank you Lapell. Truly, you have a right to speak. As you know, I have problems with many of the post schism doctrines of the Latin Catholic Church. Many of the Eastern Catholics are also not comfortable with some of these doctrines. Our differences have been debated infinitely on this forum–but when all is said and done–you are my brother in Christ.

And now, since marlo has become incensed and resorted to personal insults, I am compelled to leave this thread. I would be pleased to correspond with you privately or on another thread. But I will be gone for a while because we are coming upon Holy Week and I must retreat into prayer with my family in quietude. Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

May God bless you abundantly and may you have a fruitful and blessed Holy Week, Pascha, and Bright Week.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[Lapell]

Anyhow, whoever you are, you have the right to be happy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, I doubt that you are, or else you wouldn’t be so eager and apparently boastful as to speak against the Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

Say, were you born a Catholic? And you were an apologist? Now, this intrigues me. Not Bob Sungenis, by any chance?

Yeah–38 years Latin Catholic and more than eight years Byzantine Catholic.

Sungenis? No. But I like to watch him debate James White. He always tears him up.

 

[Mickey]

Anyhow, whoever you are, you have the right to be happy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, I doubt that you are

It grieves me that you could say such a thing. You do not know me. Happy is an emotion.

I am filled with the joy of Christ.