Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glutted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glutted

Guest
The wikipedia article claims that they dated back to Jesus. I had been taught that the Orthodox Church formed in 1054. Before that, they were part of the Catholic Church, and the early Christians were all Catholic. So are they claiming to be the original Church just because they were once part of the Catholic Church?
 
The wikipedia article claims that they dated back to Jesus. I had been taught that the Orthodox Church formed in 1054. Before that, they were part of the Catholic Church, and the early Christians were all Catholic. So are they claiming to be the original Church just because they were once part of the Catholic Church?
It depends whom you ask. 👍

Orthodoxy claims to be the original Church because it believes it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – and that the RCC was once part of Orthodoxy, not vice versa.

P.S. Discussion of Orthodoxy should really go in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, not in the Eastern Catholicism forum.
 
But they used to follow the Pope! It’s clear who is the original church. Thanks.
 
But they used to follow the Pope! It’s clear who is the original church. Thanks.

They never “followed the pope” in the sense of letting everything be micromanaged from and decided by Rome.
 
They never “followed the pope” in the sense of letting everything be micromanaged from and decided by Rome.
And Catholics don’t believe the Pope micromanages. Some (or even many) Latins might because they confuse his role as their Patriarch with his role as the Pope. But Eastern and Oriental Catholics don’t see the Pope that way.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
The wikipedia article claims that they dated back to Jesus. I had been taught that the Orthodox Church formed in 1054. Before that, they were part of the Catholic Church, and the early Christians were all Catholic. So are they claiming to be the original Church just because they were once part of the Catholic Church?
Not sure if this is according to the rules. I think that, according to the rules here, this goes under NCR.

I’ll answer for the Orthodox. We are the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church.

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

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
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.
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
 
But they used to follow the Pope! It’s clear who is the original church. Thanks.
When he was Orthodox. We still would “follow” him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff … Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

books.google.com/books?hl=en&…esult#PPA86,M1
p. 86

When the pope of Rome 4 centuries latter wrote a letter addressed to the Orthodox Faithful in an attempt to go over the Patriarchs heads, the Patriarchs responded:

In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold…Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): “nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne”…As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f’ew words, “I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them.”…For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way…But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo…Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not…And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
 
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
The IC is particularly bad, as many of the theologians at its first appearance condemned it as an innovation (11th century). Btw, one of its biggest fans, Anselm, was also a defended filioque.
 
The IC is particularly bad, as many of the theologians at its first appearance condemned it as an innovation (11th century). Btw, one of its biggest fans, Anselm, was also a defended filioque.
The Immaculate Conception is right there in Sacred Scripture. You just need not to be blind to see it.
 
And Catholics don’t believe the Pope micromanages. Some (or even many) Latins might because they confuse his role as their Patriarch with his role as the Pope. But Eastern and Oriental Catholics don’t see the Pope that way.

Blessings,
Marduk
The Latin view was going on full strength and in separation for 500 years before the first of the later came into the fold. And it’s not been without bumps in the road.

Confusion of his role as patriarch led to his confusion in the pentarchy.
 
No. It wasn’t on the first day of the Unleavened bread, which was that Saturday, why it was a “Great Sabbath.”
I thought it was a traditional Jewish Seder.

And the Orthodox hold to Mary was sinless to her death, right?
 
Doctrines that are novel in the Eastern ORTHODOX Churches:

-Denial that the Son has ANY role in the Procession
-Denial of the Toll-house doctrine (which according to Father Rose is a matter of doctrinal Faith to be believed by all)
-Denial of the doctrine of Atonement
-Denial of the necessity of the head bishop, or even the existence of the head bishop.
-Utilization of the doctrine of Essence/Energies to make a heterodox distinction WITHIN the Godhead
-Nationalism in ecclesiology.
-Denial that St. Peter is the Rock, or falsely dichotomizing Jesus and Peter’s confession from Peter himself.
-Demeaning the use of holy images in Latin Christendom (i.e., the use of statues or realism in art)
-Denying that Christ is fully present EITHER in the transformed bread OR wine.
-granting permission for divorce and remarriage in circumstances unheard of in the early Fathers
-the idea that artificial contraception is not a sin.

These are just some that I could think of off-hand. I’m sure these points can be denied or rationalized, but that doesn’t affect the fact that they exist in some form or other within Eastern Orthodoxy. It’s really a matter of perspective - Catholics will claim the dogma of the IC and papal infallibility are fully patristic, just as I’m sure Eastern Orthodox can rationalize away some or all of the points I made above.

Not all of these are points that I agree to myself. But I have heard or read them somewhere from non-Orthodox polemicists.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top