Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[anthony022071]

There was no entity called Orthodox Church prior to the Great Schism. The faith was often called orthodox,but the Church was called Catholic.

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2
(c. A.D. 110).

“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

…while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25 (A.D. 350).

"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

from: google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loupizzuti.com%2Fbartonic.htm&ei=Ad2bSNYZmc61A9vi4ekH&usg=AFQjCNGwpPcIwmB2MOxftf9U-w404qrnOQ&sig2=B6PciYtAUv776SCi9OyBUQ

The Catholic Church shows the roots of Immaculate Conception being understood as early as the 4th century when

St Ephraim the Syrian (AD 306-373) wrote:
"Thou and Thine mother are the only ones who are utterly beautiful in every way. For in Thee, O Lord, there is no stain, and in Your mother no stain” (ie. implying no actual sins or original sin).

St Ephraim continues with, “Mary and Eve were two people without guilt. Later one became the cause of our death, the other cause of our life." (“Guilt” must mean the inherited taint of original sin on the soul, as well as actual sins. And Eve later did sin, thus obtaining guilt.)

Also, St Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395) wrote about the Blessed Mother as “Mary without stain” (of sin).

St Ambrose (c. AD 430) wrote of Mary as, “…a virgin not only undefiled, but whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain.”

St Severus (d.538), Early Church Father and bishop of Antioch taught: “She (Mary) formed part of the human race and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.”

St Sophronius (AD 556- 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote Many saints appeared before you, but none has been filled with grace as you, no one has been purified in advance as you have been."

St John Damascene
(c.675-c.749 AD) wrote “Your immaculate body, which was preserved from all stain of sin, did not remain on the earth.”

St John’s key words of “all sin” must include original sin.

so where are your quotes denying a dogma that was not formulated yet lol. Or something suggesting she suffered OS or even personal sin.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

There was no entity called Orthodox Church prior to the Great Schism. The faith was often called orthodox,but the Church was called Catholic.

Yeah. I’ve been over this before and never could figure out why they would not have retained the “Catholic Church” title since this was the traditional name.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s hard to get it from a bunch of chauvinistic orientals.
hello, kettle.

Happily, he has it now.

What does pope Pius XII sound like (Fulgens Corona):

If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?

I expected more of you, Isa! Are you referring to the Synod of Carthage, which was not ecumenical at all?

Yes, I am referring to the “the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them,” which the 6th (Quintsex) and 7th Ecumenical Councils explicitly adopted.

An African synod held under the very guy Stephen was fighting with, which was soundly repudiated,
By whom? Evidently not the Fathers.

is supposed to move my conscience to admit the truth of rebaptism? I wasn’t aware the East still held to this error!

Of course we hold the boundary mark our Fathers set.

The Synod of Carthage called for rebaptism against the Divine law and the Apostolic tradition.

Tell that to the Fathers of Nicea (canon XIX):
Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

Error abounded in the east. It seems like the only one not in error was the Pope

Honorius.

You don’t like the East because Nicea was there?

So we’ve discovered a new date for the Great Schism, have we? 256?

The Great WESTERN Schism? Cyprian was in Rome’s Patriarchate of the West. At the time, it wasn’t abolished yet.

No, I’m simply trying to illustrate the continuity of papal teaching. Pope St. Stephen may not have made the argument explicitly, but his position reflects its truth.

Yes, and St. Ignatius wrote Pastor Aeternus.

We’re not totlally in the dark about Stephan’s arguments, though they are mostly from his opponents’ presentation (and why, if St. Stephen was so authoritative, it is his opponents’ arguments that survive?).

There were times when the East got a hold of their pride deferred to the Holy See of Rome.

Yes, 1098, 1099, 1204, 1438/1568/1701,…

And the Vicar of Christ is wrong because a rebellious synod says so?

Vicar of Christ? I don’t think the pope of Rome had given himself that title yet.
No, the pope of Rome is wrong because he departs from what you call the deposit of Faith.

FONT=Times New Roman]And I suppose artificial contraception is just dandy because the Canadian Episcopal conference rejected Humanae Vitae?

Btw. elsewhere I have brought up that Humanae Vitae, great document that it is, has nothing of patristics in it.

O Wait! I forgot the EO fell for that error too!

Just insisting that the story in Humanae Vitae be supported.

Which fathers? Be specific.

I quoted Nicea above.
As for universal jurisdiction, I mention the “whole Church,” with Pope Victor. Or better yet, the Fathers of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumencal Councils. And the Second Ecumenical Councils, who were not in communion with Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In fact, some Orthodox do call it “Assumption”.

and some Orthodox barely speak English.

And as I’ve pointed out it is also called “deathless dormition”. I think there is a good reason for that. It is something of a blasphemy against the resurrection to speak otherwise.

The hymns say she fell asleep. Btw, are you aware that the Dormition has her epitaphion/winding sheet?

As to the Fathers’ understanding, I think we both know that the Orthodox literature is all over the map on original sin. But again that is a separate issue that just confuses discussion of the IC.

No, it’s at the very center of it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Curious, where are your people denying the IC explicitly or implicitly?

When we are dealing with the Vatican, because that’s the only time when it comes up.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

When we are dealing with the Vatican, because that’s the only time when it comes up.

so you admit you have nobody to support the Orthodox position. Good! progress.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Very well put, brother. I often find EO polemicsts coming up with all sorts of false dichotomies and imaginray problems just to maintain their false agenda that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are completely incompatible.

Blessings,
Marduk

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are completely compatible.

In fact, some of us say one and the same.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you want to have a discussion, then it is important that words, generally, mean one thing at a time. I cannot be sure that you want one.

If we are talking about what your church teaches, that’s one thing.

But the OP is another, and we can’t beg the question.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There was no entity called Orthodox Church prior to the Great Schism. The faith was often called orthodox,but the Church was called Catholic.

I’d make a comment, but I will first ask, your point?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

from: google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loupizzuti.com%2Fbartonic.htm&ei=Ad2bSNYZmc61A9vi4ekH&usg=AFQjCNGwpPcIwmB2MOxftf9U-w404qrnOQ&sig2=B6PciYtAUv776SCi9OyBUQ

The Catholic Church shows the roots of Immaculate Conception being understood as early as the 4th century when

St Ephraim the Syrian (AD 306-373) wrote:
"Thou and Thine mother are the only ones who are utterly beautiful in every way. For in Thee, O Lord, there is no stain, and in Your mother no stain” (ie. implying no actual sins or original sin).

St Ephraim continues with, “Mary and Eve were two people without guilt. Later one became the cause of our death, the other cause of our life." (“Guilt” must mean the inherited taint of original sin on the soul, as well as actual sins. And Eve later did sin, thus obtaining guilt.)

Also, St Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395) wrote about the Blessed Mother as “Mary without stain” (of sin).

St Ambrose (c. AD 430) wrote of Mary as, “…a virgin not only undefiled, but whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain.”

St Severus (d.538), Early Church Father and bishop of Antioch taught: “She (Mary) formed part of the human race and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.”

St Sophronius (AD 556- 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote Many saints appeared before you, but none has been filled with grace as you, no one has been purified in advance as you have been."

St John Damascene
(c.675-c.749 AD) wrote “Your immaculate body, which was preserved from all stain of sin, did not remain on the earth.”

St John’s key words of “all sin” must include original sin.

so where are your quotes denying a dogma that was not formulated yet lol. Or something suggesting she suffered OS or even personal sin.

Did you miss this post?

Yes, YOU are.

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn’t give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican’s jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don’t see the Vatican’s theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don’t mean what you claim by them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yeah. I’ve been over this before and never could figure out why they would not have retained the “Catholic Church” title since this was the traditional name.

If you looked in the Services, that’s what the Church is called. Orthodox is just something thrown in.

Btw, in Orthodox languages, like the Slavonic, Arabic and even Romanian (Latin!) the word for Catholic 1) Universal and 2) under the Vatican are too totally different words, 2) being a load "catolik.

Of course the distinction can’t be made in Greek, because Catholic is a Greek word!

The distinction can be made in Latin (St. Gregory’s whining about the EP getting the title Ecumenical shows that), but of course the Vatican had no interest in doing that.

Sort of reminds me of the JW argument that Easter is pagan, because it’s named after a Spring goddess (supposedly) Russell evidenlty didn’t know that no language except German, and ALL others use the word for Passover, which it is.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

so you admit you have nobody to support the Orthodox position. Good! progress.

No, its like Christ’s prophecizing of Muhammad’s coming (something else that didn’t happen). It comes up only speaking with or about Muslims and their claims.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Come home to Rome.

Perhaps once the latin church comes home to Rome the Orthodox Church will also Come home.

The environment of the last 40 years that produces carefree annulments, general absolutions, folk guitar masses, clown masses, fr feurio 15 minute low masses, giant mega parishes…is not conductive for Orthodox to come home.

 

[Dauphin]

Yes, I am referring to the “the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them,” which the 6th (Quintsex) and 7th Ecumenical Councils explicitly adopted.

May I see a source for that? I’m not clear in what sense an Ecumenical Council “adopts” a Canon.

By whom? Evidently not the Fathers.

By the Pope, and he’s as good as all the Fathers combined.

Tell that to the Fathers of Nicea (canon XIX):
Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

The Paulianits were monarchians who believed that God has only a single person, so a Paulianist baptism would not truly invoke the Trinity and would have been utterly invalid - thus the need for a “rebaptism”, although it isn’t a rebaptism at all.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

May I see a source for that? I’m not clear in what sense an Ecumenical Council “adopts” a Canon.

Canon I of the 4th (Chalcedon)

We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.i.html

Canon II of the 6th (Quintisexti)

It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons * of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html

By the Pope, and he’s as good as all the Fathers combined.

Yes, so you claim, and we keep pointing that out. But many of your coreligionists say we are distoring Vatican I, the pope doesn’t have immediate universal jurisdiction, that he only speaks ex cathedra (or is he as good as all the Fathers comined when he doen’t speak ex cahtdra) with the bishops, etc.

I thank you for your honesty.

Btw, if your coreligionist are correct, you are spreading heresy against Vatican I.

The Paulianits were monarchians who believed that God has only a single person, so a Paulianist baptism would not truly invoke the Trinity and would have been utterly invalid - thus the need for a “rebaptism”, although it isn’t a rebaptism at all.

and if St. Stpehen made that argument, I’d buy yours on the contraversy with St. Cyprian.*

 

[marlo]

With the latest historical exposition, it seems that the Eastern Orthodox has changed its position on the sign of the Cross also, the Novelty that the EO did not change any practices is clearly false, especially in the case of the sign of the cross, in which the sign of the cross with two fingers is older than the sign of the cross with 3 fingers, a move rejected by the russian old believers. Please see this link…
orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross

with canonical images as proof,
mymartyrdom.com/examples.htm

Also, the method of signing of the cross, is not an issue with the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Roman Catholics.

On all the issues attached to 1054, we upheld, and uphold, the orginal dogmas and practices: no filioque, leavened Eucharist, etc.

And so it stands.

 

[w_stewart]

The Pope used to follow the Councils! It’s clear who is the original Church. You’re welcome.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Not absolutely! The Pope has the power to put down a decree of a Council.

 

[w_stewart]

Well I hope the moderators don’t get angry but as long as this thread is here instead of NCR’s I’ll go ahead and respond.

For all of the issues mentioned above and others, including the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility we can point to a specific time in history where the Catholic Church began to teach these things. I challenge any Catholic to name one doctrine or dogma the Orthodox Church has begun to teach since the schism that wasn’t taught before.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Papal Infallibility

 

[w_stewart]

It’s not an issue, we always commune with both bread and wine. It wasn’t until the Latins decided for whatever reason that it was a good idea to deny the Sacred Chalice to the laity that it became an issue in the Catholic Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Christ said either of the two could be received. Paul concurred.