In what order did each church appear?

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

OK Fr. Ambrose…since I respect, in all humility, your position and expect and as I urge you to respect my position as well…can’t we not set aside the differences and sit down and talk about the glorious days when you and I were one and united? Talk about the same root from where you and I came from? Take that early experience when you and I were one as an inspiration towards the road to unity? You can say that we just cannot set aside those differences because it is from those differences that make us so unique from each other or simply you just cannot compromise, but again…Can’t we not respect each other’s differences and from such respect, build a common ground in unity? In other words, let’s set aside pride and let’s set an example of humility and respect to each other. Now that would be awesome, wouldn’t that be?

Lumen, I was responding to your post (#79) in which you portayed your Church as our “Mother.” You said: **“Think of the Roman Catholic Church as the mother and the Orthodox Church as the son gone astrayed.” ** In other words you placed your Church in a superior position. You then said that we should “come home” and what else does that imply except that we have gone astray and are in error. And then you went on to call us a “wayward son” and that implies again that we are wrong and have to be sensible, renounce our silliness and come home to mother.

Now all this language is suffused with superior terminology and a terminology of power and control? Don’t you honestly see that? Where is the humility which you desire? and the respect which you seek? We are being treated an inferiors who have gone astray!!

God bless you

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Fr. Ambrose,

I take responsibility with my personal opinion. Let’s face it.Opinions are opinions. The analogy I gave was a mere opinion - my own position and it is in regard to that opinion that I am asking for respect on each other’s position.

Well, I didn’t really mean any superiority, power or control on that analogy. In fact, it was an analogy to show the Orthodox church as branching away - breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church. Now that was from my point of view regardless as to what officially my church look at it. That was my position and I know certainly you do not agree of which I humbly respect.

Let’s set aside any feeling of superiority and inferiority, and just respect each other’s position from within each other’s perspective. I believe that in the road to ultimate unity of our churches, as what Christ desires, dialogue between the laity should also be a reality and not just only dialogue between the heirarchy and patriarchates. Thank God we are talking about this here.

PAX

Lumen, I was responding to your post (#79) in which you portayed your Church as our “Mother.” You said: **“Think of the Roman Catholic Church as the mother and the Orthodox Church as the son gone astrayed.” **In other words you placed your Church in a superior position. You then said that we should “come home” and what else does that imply except that we have gone astray and are in error. And then you went on to call us a “wayward son” and that implies again that we are wrong and have to be sensible, renounce our silliness and come home to mother.

Now all this language is suffused with superior terminology and a terminology of power and control? Don’t you honestly see that? Where is the humility which you desire? and the respect which you seek? We are being treated an inferiors who have gone astray!!

 

[PJR]

Fr. Ambrose and Lumen,

I am learning so much from these posts. What hits me the hardest is that we have so much in common, and basically share all doctrines. Aren’t our differences matters of discipline?

Do the Orthodox then claim no connection to Peter? Were the Eastern Churches represented at the councils prior to 1054?

I am not as learned by any means, and can’t quote early fathers off the top of my head; but haven’t the differences in liturgy between the east and west always been there? Does that prove any disunity? I believe it was Matthew in an earlier post who suggested that the differences in Sacraments of Initiation and Liturgy prove that we have always been separate and distinct.

The Eastern Rites in communion with Rome have the same practices don’t they?

By the way, I do think the Eastern and Orthodox have beautiful and rich traditions. I wish we were in full communion with each other. Our “spat” about primacy unfortunately gives fuel to the fires of people who then can say their church was founded by John the Baptist. How convenient, the “we’ve been hiding in the desert for 1500 yrs, and we’re the true church” argument. My sister uses that one.

Thanks in advance if you could address my questions. Paula

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Hi Paula.

I myself have learned so much from the forums, and I agree that the Roman Catholic Church has so much in common with the Orthodox Church and vice-versa. Fr. Ambrose said it’s almost like 90%. I’ve learned so many things from Fr. Ambrose as well.

Fr. Ambrose and Lumen,
I am learning so much from these posts. What hits me the hardest is that we have so much in common, and basically share all doctrines. Aren’t our differences matters of discipline

I guess, Fr. Ambrose know more on this. I leave it up to him to answer this question in an Orthodox perspective.

Do the Orthodox then claim no connection to Peter? Were the Eastern Churches represented at the councils prior to 1054?

The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has even more in common with the Orthodox Church as far as liturgies and traditions are concerned. I suggest you go to this thread where you can read more about what the Byzantine Catholics say about the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3769

I am not as learned by any means, and can’t quote early fathers off the top of my head; but haven’t the differences in liturgy between the east and west always been there? Does that prove any disunity? I believe it was Matthew in an earlier post who suggested that the differences in Sacraments of Initiation and Liturgy prove that we have always been separate and distinct.

The Eastern Rites in communion with Rome have the same practices don’t they?

I also wish, but actually hope with prayers to the Blessed Mother, the Queen Of Hope, for her intercession in the unity of the church which is what Christ our Savior desires.

For now, if you are very much interested with the traditions and treasures of the east, I suggest you to learn more about the Eastern Rites which I believe serves as the bridge between the east and the west in the Catholic Church, and which to me serves as a perfect example to the Orthodox Church.

By the way, I do think the Eastern and Orthodox have beautiful and rich traditions. I wish we were in full communion with each other. Our “spat” about primacy unfortunately gives fuel to the fires of people who then can say their church was founded by John the Baptist. How convenient, the “we’ve been hiding in the desert for 1500 yrs, and we’re the true church” argument. My sister uses that one.

God Bless.

Thanks in advance if you could address my questions. Paula

PAX

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

myself have learned so much from the forums, and I agree that the Roman Catholic Church has so much in common with the Orthodox Church and vice-versa. Fr. Ambrose said it’s almost like 90%. I’ve learned so many things from Fr. Ambrose as well.

I am just about to turn off the computer-beast and get some rest. It’s c~o~l~d here as winter has come in with a cold blast of hail and snow and Sam is curled up on the bed asleep already and warming it up for me. Sam, by the way, is my cat!!

Anyway, Lumen, I am so touched by your nice words that I am going to bed in a very happy frame of mind…

God and Mary bless you.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

That means very little. Just because you don’t find “Orthodox” when you look up “Catholic” doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church does not make the claim to be Orthodox… and vice versa.

[snip]… for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church

… contrary to the universal Confession of **the Catholic Church **

… Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically,

[snip]

that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of **the Catholic Church **with such is unlawful.

The whole Encyclical is here…
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

PS: Have to cut back on postings as we are now entering Holy Week.

Here’s my questions to you.

When was the first time [O]rthodox was used? And who used it? I’m not talking about [o]rthodox, I’m speaking of [O]rthodox

Now, from that encyclical

".§ 4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10)."

1. This encyclical can’t figure out whether they are Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Catholic, or Catholic Orthodox. Do the Orthodox speak with one voice? NO! The various patriarchs aren’t in union with each other. i.e. Your own ROCOR has a big problem with Alexey and are not in communion with him, understandably so.
2. The writers of this encyclical would choke on their words today, if they saw how billions of people poured out love for JPII. And seeing their own patriarch of Russia and his bishops becomel KGB agents ruining the faith of so many people.

Maybe the Orthodox today have changed from when this encyclical was written.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

I agree with you that Protestant denominations were started by people. They have never claimed anything else. A denomination is a man made institution in which to follow and accept Biblical teachings and the salvation of Christ. As far as Jesus establishing the Catholic Church being historical fact, can you point me to primary documentation .

Sure: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will found my Church and I will give you the Keys of the Kingdome of heaven and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

BTW, as to your believing Biblical teachings, you received the New Testament from the Catholic Church. The New Testament Cannon was defined by Catholic Church councils.

Now a challenge for you. Please tell me where, when and who confirmed the New Testament Councils.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

CatherineOfA:

*I agree with you that Protestant denominations were started by people. They have never claimed anything else. A denomination is a man made institution in which to follow and accept Biblical teachings and the salvation of Christ. As far as Jesus establishing the Catholic Church being historical fact, can you point me to primary documentation *

Of course you already understand that it was with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Authority granted by Jesus Christ that the Catholic Church determined the New Testament.

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

Sure: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will found my Church and I will give you the Keys of the Kingdome of heaven and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

BTW, as to your believing Biblical teachings, you received the New Testament from the Catholic Church. The New Testament Cannon was defined by Catholic Church councils.

Now a challenge for you. Please tell me where, when and who confirmed the New Testament Councils.

Yours in Christ.

I will clarify or mention something that I have stated on other threads. I am in the process of examing the history of early Christianity. So, if you are asking me for dates and locations of specific participants, I am “in study” of this period. So, when I complete what I am doing, I will be ready and glad to discuss the specifics.
I am Southern Baptist and know that people in my denomination as well as other Protestant denominations are aware that there was Catholic Church influence on the assembly of the Biblical texts into a unit. However, they do not see this as proof of correctness or superiority on the part of the Catholic Church to be the “only church”. They don’t because they see Christians as the body of Christ working and acting for God and influenced by the Holy Spirit to bring about his will for mankind. The Catholic Church was the tool that was used by early Christians to see to what became the Bible. The Christians were Christians who happened to operate within the confines of the man made institution that represented the Christians involved. Had it not been the Catholic Church, it would have been another group of Christians. The Catholics succeeded because they were Christian or used by God on his behalf and not because they were part of a specific church label.
You mentioned the Biblical mentioning of Peter as historical evidence that he was the first in the Catholic Church and that church had to be the church of Christ. However, that is not documentation of an historical nature because it does not reference nor can it be verified. In addition, the text does not use the word Catholic nor does it specify a church hierarchy. Documentation would involve information that could be verified by any historian using primary sources and would not be influenced by personal interpretation or speculation or theology.

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

Ignatius:

Of course you already understand that it was with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Authority granted by Jesus Christ that the Catholic Church determined the New Testament.

I agree and so do “Protestants”. However, they think it was because they were Christians who happened to be Catholic and not Christians who had to be Catholic.

 

[CatherineofA]

steve b:

I prefer not to use historians if I can use primary sources first. It takes the filter issue away of going through a historian with a bias.

I totally agree. Historians are useful in allowing you to see how they or others have come to their conclusions. In their writings, they still have to provide the reader with the resources they used for those conclusions. If anything, the historians are useful in discussing the primary resources available for study.

 

[CatherineofA]

Lumen Gentium:

Most, if not, all church history books always start with the Catholic Church. I’m sure Protestant, Orthodox or any church seminaries or even historians who teach about church history know about it. Prejudice starts where teachings of other churches become twisted or heretic from the point in time when they broke away from the Catholic church. That is why an Orthodox priest-historian, even if he knows who the real church is, wouldn’t be Catholic.

I am not against reading anything from a non-Catholic point of view. It serves as a way to know where the truth was twisted. It’s actually a way to find the truth - to know the other side of the story, and in a way, to strengthen and defend what I know the truth is.

I think assuming that an Eastern Orthodox who is nationally regarded as an authority on early church history has his beliefs due to the twisting of the facts is living in a fool’s paradise. That is, unless, you have actually read the historian in question and know what he uses as the basis for his argument and can argue his points.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Here’s my questions to you.

When was the first time [O]rthodox was used? And who used it? I’m not talking about [o]rthodox, I’m speaking of [O]rthodox

Big O [O]rthodox was used since the very first days. Lower case letters were not introduced into the Greek alphabet until the early middle ages.

So the distinction which you wish to make was non-existent and could not be made for most of history and the Greeks wrote “Catholic” as KATHOLIKOS and “Orthodox” as ORTHODOXOS every time…

For example they wrote: "In the beginning was the word, and the word… " like this:

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟC…

The Latins based their alphabet on the Greek alphabet in the form used by the Etruscans. It also did not have lower case letters until, I think, the Renaissance. Someone may need to check just when the lower case letters were invented for the Latin alphabet. Wasn’t it via the Irish and their creation of uncial letters which then spread to the Continent?

So, the answer to your question: “When was the first time [O]rthodox was used” is - always.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

Ignatius:

I agree and so do “Protestants”. However, they think it was because they were Christians who happened to be Catholic and not Christians who had to be Catholic.

The only christian church at the time was the Catholic Church.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

I will clarify or mention something that I have stated on other threads. I am in the process of examing the history of early Christianity. So, if you are asking me for dates and locations of specific participants, I am “in study” of this period. So, when I complete what I am doing, I will be ready and glad to discuss the specifics.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your search for the TRUTH.

I am Southern Baptist and know that people in my denomination as well as other Protestant denominations are aware that there was Catholic Church influence on the assembly of the Biblical texts into a unit. However, they do not see this as proof of correctness or superiority on the part of the Catholic Church.

Do you believe that the New Testament is the TRUTH? On ecannot deliver what one does not have. If the New Testament is the TRUTH, then the Catholic Church must have the TRUTH. In fact Paul says that the Church (the only one that existed at that time) is “the Pillar and foundation of Truth.”

May the love of God the Father, the peace of His Son Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

 

[MrS]

Ignatius:

CatherineofA:

The only christian church at the time was the Catholic Church.

And no protestant can reference a legitimate source that shows otherwise. They continue to re-write and re-invent “history” to create some level of confidence in their beliefs.

There was no “Roman” Catholic Church either. That title developed from the insult begun by the Church of England. They wanted the exclusive name Catholic. Romish, or Romans eventually became that “Roman Catholic Church”.

You know, sometimes I actually fall asleep with a slight smile thinking about the attacks and perversions laid on my Church. They, the attacks, are one more evidence of the only True Church. We will be persecuted to the end. May we thank God for this cross, and pray for the Grace to bear it for His sake, as He did for ours.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I don’t have to read what your Orthodox historian says and neither do I have to argue his points. Fact that he’s Orthodox and that his church separated from the Catholic Church is more than enough for me to believe what he writes about church history can be twisted and therefore he’s biased.

Didn’t you just agree to what Steve said about going through a historian with a bias? Now where is your consistency?

But then again, It would be good to know what your Orthodox historian’s arguments are and what he uses as basis for his arguments. As I said, it’s always good to know the other side of the story.

The problem with you is when you come to the forum, mention a certain Pontius Pilate being so and so, wonders why this Pontius Pilate isn’t so and so, and without presenting what this Pontius Pilate’s views and arguments are, expect people to know what this Pontius Pilate’s arguments are and argue his points. Heck, do I care about your Orthodox nationally aclaimed historian. My Jesuit professor is also a nationally aclaimed church historian - in my country and not yours! But I won’t mention his name here because I don’t wonder why he’s not Orthodox at all.

CatherineofA:

I think assuming that an Eastern Orthodox who is nationally regarded as an authority on early church history has his beliefs due to the twisting of the facts is living in a fool’s paradise. That is, unless, you have actually read the historian in question and know what he uses as the basis for his argument and can argue his points.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

Fact that he’s Orthodox and that his church separated from the Catholic Church all.

Fact: The Church now known as the Roman Catholic Church (one of a communion of 22 sui juris Churches) separated itself from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century.

Fact: From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church it makes no sense to say that the Orthodox Church separated from it. The schism was not something initiated by the Orthodox. In fact the Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome by a Bull of Excommunication in 1054 AD which accused them of 1) omitting the “filioque” from the Creed and 2) having married priests. This is a piece of historical idiocy on both counts but it was used as the justification to break communion with the Orthodox and to create an independent Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Toni]

boppysbud:

Nonsense, there were only three original Protestant churches.

The Lutherans, founded in what is now Germany by Martin Luther in the early 1500’s.

The Calvinist/Reformed founded by John Calvin in Geneva also in the early 1500s.

The Anglicans/Church of England founded by Cramner and Henry viith in the mid 1500s.

All the other Protestant denominations came from splinters from these original three.

The Presbyterians in Scotland, came from the Geneva Calvinist/Reformed.

The Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists and many others came from splinters from the Anglicans, and from further schisms from schisms.

This is 100% correct according to any history book I have read. Great answer to the original question that appears from what I read.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I think Fr. Ambrose is setting up a good example here:
that we don’t need to be “nationally aclaimed” early church historians to show our prejudice.
PAX
Fr Ambrose:

Fact: The Church now known as the Roman Catholic Church (one of a communion of 22 sui juris Churches) separated itself from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century.

Fact: From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church it makes no sense to say that the Orthodox Church separated from it. The schism was not something initiated by the Orthodox. In fact the Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome by a Bull of Excommunication in 1054 AD which accused them of 1) omitting the “filioque” from the Creed and 2) having married priests. This is a piece of historical idiocy on both counts but it was used as the justification to break communion with the Orthodox and to create an independent Roman Catholic Church.