Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Alexander_Roman]

The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox have the same faith that has been passed on by the Apostles so their churchs are valid. The only thing that is lacking is full communion with the Bishop of Rome and to be completely within the Holy Catholic Church, one must recognize the authority of the Pope. And since the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox don’t, they are not within the Church. Although they are forever linked to the Catholic Church in a special way that no one else will ever be and for this reason, Rome is pushing towards unity with these local churchs.

From the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) position, Rome’s primacy was lost as a result of heresy. The Primacy for the EO is now exercised by the Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople. The term “Roman” was never given up by the Orthodox Church. But they are quite serious that a Church that has fallen into heresy cannot exercise the Petrine Primacy over the Church. The full title of the Orthodox Church is “Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic” - so they’ve never given up the title “Catholic” and believe the true Catholic Church resides where there is the original Orthodox Faith. That an entire Church can fall into heresy is not new to the history of Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch representing the Miaphysite and Assyrian/Nestorian positions were both excommunicated.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

1Peter 5 :13The chosen one* at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS OF THE
COPTIC CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA
S. MARK TO THEONAS (300)
ARABIC TEXT EDITED, TRANSLATED, AND ANNOTATED
BY B. EVETTS

‘…Peter and Mark went to the region of Rome, and preached there the word of God.
And in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of Christ, the holy Peter sent Saint Mark, the father and evangelist, to the city of Alexandria , to announce the good tidings there, and to preach the word of God and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is due glory and honour and worship, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, the one God for ever. Amen.’

Irenaeus Against Heresies

all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful
everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to
the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed
Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

peace

Very good Patristic quote - which proves that the early Church Fathers never considered St Peter the first bishop of Rome, but the Roman Church’s founder and consecrator of its first bishop. If you can show me where this is said in this quote, I will recant!

Alex

 

[Nine_Two]

There are plenty of quotes that express the Peter and his succesors as the Rock of the church which ‘the gates of hell will never overcome’

and that this church ‘cannot err in the faith’…

should i believe the writings of Saints …or yourself and others like you who consider the Pope a heretic…?

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote regarding “plenty of quotes”. I only disagree that they refer to the holder of the office of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Of the many Orthodox Churchs
Which ones claim Apostalic origin?

Good question - all of them do or else they were established by Churches which had an Apostle as its Founder.

You have touched on a crucial issue here that is worth reflecting on. The Apostles not only established Churches that became great Christian centres in the East - they ordained bishops for very many towns and villages (which could likewise claim Apostolic origin).

In the West, the only Church that could do that was the Church of Rome, founded by Sts Peter and Paul. This is why when the Roman Church asserted its authority as apostolic - this was quite unintelligible in the East since apostolic foundation there was all over the place.

The East DID affirm the primacy of Rome and the role of the Roman Pontiff, especially in the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But this was done because of the martyrdom of the Chief Apostles at Rome, where their relics were enshrined, and because of the simple fact that Rome was capital of the empire and ALSO because the Eastern Patriarchs needed the Roman Pontiff in their struggles against the Byzantine Emperors. The Petrine Ministry and the primacy of Rome was always acknowledged by the East as a result.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

i already mentioned the verses in the bible…which catholics use…

you dont think that they have any relation to the Pope or papacy whereas Catholics are pretty sure they do…

i think the Orthodox believe that each and every bishop carries on the mission of Peter right?

so there is really no difference to your local Greek Orthodox bishop down the road and the Pope /bishop of Rome …?

both have equal divine power and authority in Christ and St Peters eyes …?

is that what you believe?

:hypno:

Not at all - that is not what the Orthodox believe. The Orthodox Church has its hierarchy which culminates not only in Patriarchs but also in who comes first and ahead of the other.

Orthodoxy is not against the Petrine Ministry. Once the issues that divide us regarding faith are resolved and unity is established, there is no question but that Rome will, once again, exercise the Petrine Ministry over the entire Church. Until such time, it is the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome that exercises such a ministry.

Alex

 

[Art321]

That St Peter, although he had the powers of a bishop, was not himself one since to be a bishop would have meant to remain within a See as its pastor. St Peter and the Apostles didn’t do that as they went from one place to another, setting up Churches and consecrating bishops for those places.

This is how the Christian East has always understood the role of the Apostles, so Peter was never “pope or bishop of Rome” but he was the Roman Church’s founder, together with St Paul, and consecrated its earliest hierarchs.

Alex

Well, quite honestly I can’t really give you a definite answer since I am not at all familiar with early Church history. All I can say is the Catholic Church’s view is different from what you and others have said.

 

[Art321]

From the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) position, Rome’s primacy was lost as a result of heresy. The Primacy for the EO is now exercised by the Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople. The term “Roman” was never given up by the Orthodox Church. But they are quite serious that a Church that has fallen into heresy cannot exercise the Petrine Primacy over the Church. The full title of the Orthodox Church is “Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic” - so they’ve never given up the title “Catholic” and believe the true Catholic Church resides where there is the original Orthodox Faith. That an entire Church can fall into heresy is not new to the history of Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch representing the Miaphysite and Assyrian/Nestorian positions were both excommunicated.

Alex

Yes, I am fully aware of the Orthodox position and I see what you mean coming from your position. Although I don’t agree with it at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter was given a special role to Christ’s Church that no other apostle was given and that is continued to be found in the office we believe he held for about 25 years in Rome. We believe he was the head of the Church because we believe it has an hierarchical structure of an episcopal nature.

So, we come to see that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not within the Church of Christ. We believe that the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to is found in the Roman Pontiff and all bishops that are in communion with him and we continue to believe that this Church is as Catholic and Orthodox as in the first 1,000 years.

So, from our position the Orthodox churchs are true and were a part of the Catholic Church before the schism. But as a result of this schism, they are not within the Holy Catholic Church yet they are still linked to the Church in a deep way.

Anyway in these talks of unity that are going on with our churchs, one of us will have to admit we were wrong. I mean from your position, Rome will have to admit that it was wrong on the doctrines of the papacy. And if it were to do so, Rome would thus admit that it was in heresy for almost 1,000 years and NOT apart of Christ’s Church during that time. Honestly, I think Rome will NEVER do such a thing since we believe we would then go into error for doing so.

 

[Wisely]

Yes, I am fully aware of the Orthodox position and I see what you mean coming from your position. Although I don’t agree with it at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter was given a special role to Christ’s Church that no other apostle was given and that is continued to be found in the office we believe he held for about 25 years in Rome. We believe he was the head of the Church because we believe it has an hierarchical structure of an episcopal nature.

So, we come to see that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not within the Church of Christ. We believe that the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to is found in the Roman Pontiff and all bishops that are in communion with him and we continue to believe that this Church is as Catholic and Orthodox as in the first 1,000 years.

So, from our position the Orthodox churchs are true and were a part of the Catholic Church before the schism. But as a result of this schism, they are not within the Holy Catholic Church yet they are still linked to the Church in a deep way.

Anyway in these talks of unity that are going on with our churchs, one of us will have to admit we were wrong. I mean from your position, Rome will have to admit that it was wrong on the doctrines of the papacy. And if it were to do so, Rome would thus admit that it was in heresy for almost 1,000 years and NOT apart of Christ’s Church during that time. Honestly, I think Rome will NEVER do such a thing since we believe we would then go into error into doing so.

Therefore, unity is 99,9% improbable.

 

[Art321]

Therefore, unity is 99,9% improbable.

It seems that is the way it will be unless one of us admits we were wrong, because we can’t both be right. I believe to do so would be watering down the issue at hand.

 

[Art321]

True.

 

[Wisely]

That’s the 0.01%

 

[hazcompat]

That St Peter, although he had the powers of a bishop, was not himself one since to be a bishop would have meant to remain within a See as its pastor. St Peter and the Apostles didn’t do that as they went from one place to another, setting up Churches and consecrating bishops for those places.

This is how the Christian East has always understood the role of the Apostles, so Peter was never “pope or bishop of Rome” but he was the Roman Church’s founder, together with St Paul, and consecrated its earliest hierarchs.

Alex

Where is the Chair of Peter?

peace

 

[adoglover1956]

Yes, I am fully aware of the Orthodox position and I see what you mean coming from your position. Although I don’t agree with it at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter was given a special role to Christ’s Church that no other apostle was given and that is continued to be found in the office we believe he held for about 25 years in Rome. We believe he was the head of the Church because we believe it has an hierarchical structure of an episcopal nature.

So, we come to see that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not within the Church of Christ. We believe that the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to is found in the Roman Pontiff and all bishops that are in communion with him and we continue to believe that this Church is as Catholic and Orthodox as in the first 1,000 years.

So, from our position the Orthodox churchs are true and were a part of the Catholic Church before the schism. But as a result of this schism, they are not within the Holy Catholic Church yet they are still linked to the Church in a deep way.

Anyway in these talks of unity that are going on with our churchs, one of us will have to admit we were wrong. I mean from your position, Rome will have to admit that it was wrong on the doctrines of the papacy. And if it were to do so, Rome would thus admit that it was in heresy for almost 1,000 years and NOT apart of Christ’s Church during that time. Honestly, I think Rome will NEVER do such a thing since we believe we would then go into error for doing so.

I think Vouthan has done some great research and posting to show that the Catholic Church reaches far beyond the visible Church. And he did it all referencing Bulls and Ex-cathedra statements from 1500 to 500 years ago. The Orthodox Church is Catholic.

 

[Wisely]

Where is the Chair of Peter?

peace

Oh! I know! I know!

Antioch!

 

[Art321]

I think Vouthan has done some great research and posting to show that the Catholic Church reaches far beyond the visible Church. And he did it all referencing Bulls and Ex-cathedra statements from 1500 to 500 years ago. The Orthodox Church is Catholic.

If the Orthodox churchs were truly Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any need for talks of reunion since they would be within the Holy Church. Also to note, Rome teaches that the visible Church of Christ is found with the Bishop of Rome and all bishops in communion with him.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, quite honestly I can’t really give you a definite answer since I am not at all familiar with early Church history. All I can say is the Catholic Church’s view is different from what you and others have said.

Sir, I am presenting the view of the Orthodox Church and possibly of some Eastern Catholics - that is all.

However, a few Catholic theologians have told me it would not be heresy to believe that the Roman Church was founded by Sts Peter and Paul and that Peter was not the first pope/bishop of Rome in the strict sense.

I don’t think this is a matter that should be something to divide East and West on and more than one view could prevail.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, I am fully aware of the Orthodox position and I see what you mean coming from your position. Although I don’t agree with it at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter was given a special role to Christ’s Church that no other apostle was given and that is continued to be found in the office we believe he held for about 25 years in Rome. We believe he was the head of the Church because we believe it has an hierarchical structure of an episcopal nature.

So, we come to see that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not within the Church of Christ. We believe that the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to is found in the Roman Pontiff and all bishops that are in communion with him and we continue to believe that this Church is as Catholic and Orthodox as in the first 1,000 years.

So, from our position the Orthodox churchs are true and were a part of the Catholic Church before the schism. But as a result of this schism, they are not within the Holy Catholic Church yet they are still linked to the Church in a deep way.

Anyway in these talks of unity that are going on with our churchs, one of us will have to admit we were wrong. I mean from your position, Rome will have to admit that it was wrong on the doctrines of the papacy. And if it were to do so, Rome would thus admit that it was in heresy for almost 1,000 years and NOT apart of Christ’s Church during that time. Honestly, I think Rome will NEVER do such a thing since we believe we would then go into error for doing so.

Dear and Revered Sir,

Again, I am ONLY presenting the Orthodox Church’s position. I am an Eastern Catholic with relatives who died as martyrs/confessors for union with Rome. That doesn’t mean I cannot present, in a dispassionate way, the positions of others.

I am for unity to be re-established between East and West with the Pope of Rome being the centre of that unity.

In terms of who was right or wrong - there is a myriad of ways that one may understand how this could come about. If Rome were to drop the Filioque in the Nicene Creed - that does NOT mean it was wrong before etc. It could say that it was returning to the original version.

There were and are Catholics who believe that Rome made a grave error in changing the liturgy and the Mass. For them, it was the same as Rome saying the old ways were no longer valid and yet I meet Latin Catholics today who study and know Latin and who want the Tridentine Liturgy and hunger for it. I’m not getting involved in that, I’m only reporting my experience in that regard. And I hope that by simply reporting it, I’m not demonstrating any bias one way or another.

If the Roman Primacy is to be redefined in terms of how it operates with respect to, say, the Eastern Churches - is that tampering with Tradition? I would certainly hope not. It does reflect development which is an ongoing thing.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Therefore, unity is 99,9% improbable.

No sir - Art’s position, while perfectly acceptable from a Catholic POV, is NOT the only position of the Catholic Church in its approach to Orthodoxy and certainly not the approach of Pope Benedict XVI. There is much that is written on this by Catholic ecumenical theologians and I could not possibly do them any kind of justice in a few lines here.

Orthodoxy represents the faith and practice of the entire Catholic Church prior to the breakup of East and West. The later Latin additions, especially the Filioque and what was promulgated in the 14 ecumenical Councils of the Latin Church - are these necessary to maintain the fullness of Catholic faith and practice when they were not around for the first 1,000 years of the Church’s existence? That is the question and time will tell what a possible Ecumenical Unity Council between East and West can come up with by way of an agreement.

Orthodox theologians, like Fr. John Meyendorff of blessed memory, have always been careful, whenever they write about these matters, to present positions that avoid the issue of the Pope having to admit he or his predecessors were wrong etc. We haven’t even scratched the surface concerning what Catholic theologians (who in fact know the Christian East better than many of us do) have said and written on this.

My own position is that I fail to see what the real difference is between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy today, apart from the administrative role of the pope and the fact that the two are in formal schism from one another.

I am an Eastern Catholic because, well, I was born into an EC family and there are other reasons why I remain with my UGCC. I’ve no problem accepting the primacy and leadership of the Pope or being in communion with him. I have always supported the right of the UGCC and other EC Churches to govern themselves. And have always been dismayed at how Rome, although it has the fullness of everything, will bow to what it perceives to be the sensitivities of Orthodoxy with respect to recognizing the patriarchal status of the UGCC.

I respect the papal loyalty evinced here - I just wish it reflected a reality that Rome once possessed but seems to no longer possess. I say this as an EC who, along with many others, would want the Pope to be MORE of a Pope than he has been in the last several decades.

Alex

 

[adoglover1956]

If the Orthodox churchs were truly Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any need for talks of reunion since they would be within the Holy Church. Also to note, Rome teaches that the visible Church of Christ is found with the Bishop of Rome and all bishops in communion with him.

The VISIBLE Church. Many are part of the Church that is not visible. That is clear from the many posts from Vouthan. All based on papal declarations.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Where is the Chair of Peter?

peace

With respect to the UGCC, the Chair of Peter seems to be in Moscow, the “Third Rome” with the Russian Orthodox Church since whatever IT says should be done with the UGCC (short of exterminating it altogether) is what Roman Vatican bureaucrats have accepted as defined doctrine (i.e. recognition of the patriarchate, accusations of all sorts of wrong-doing etc.).

My Church has no problem recognizing the Chair of Peter in Rome. It’s how the first Rome has been kow-towing to the Third Rome is what is annoying.

Alex