Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[Vladi]

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 Orthodox Church is the true Church and Moscow is the third Rome!

 

[East_and_West]

The Orthodox Church is the true Church and Moscow is the third Rome!

LOL @ “Moscow is the third Rome.” Its claims like that that make all the other EO claims look downright silly.

 

[jimmy]

To back up what Isa said regarding the calendars. The Gospels seem to show this fact that there were two calendars. The Gospel of John shows Christ being crucified at the time of the slaughter of the lambs which was on the 14th Nisan. This means that the last supper was not a passover meal. But the synoptics speak of a passover meal. The fact is though that there were two calendars. The dead sea scrolls show that the last supper was on the day before the passover.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa

When it comes to the level/aspect of mystical/sacramental theology, Christ is the only Head.

In an absolute sense, Christ is the head of the Church, not just on the level of mystical/sacramental theology. So I cannot agree with your statement fully. But beyond that, it is not proper to separate the authority of the head bishop (on any level) from the authority of Christ. It is BECAUSE of our Sacramental/Incarnational theology that the head bishopric even exists in the Church. In any case, there is no mistaking what we mean when we say head BISHOP, and to oppose the headship of Christ to that claim is to misunderstand the issue, at best, and is an unpatristic novelty of the Church’s ecclesiology at worst…

I think we are holding our own.

You, on the other hand, might have a serious talk with Dauphin.

Oh, I’ve butted heads with him a few times (it may have been on this very issue). We have our extremists, and so do you (on the other end of the ecclesiological spectrum, that is).

Barlaam, who wrote against the papacy and then took a mitre from the Vatican.

Thanks. His name escaped me.

How about “ignorance” of the supporters of the Vatican on the matter?

Yes. I recall distinctly pointing this out to my Latin brethren in a thread discussing the issue in the Apologetics Section (a few months ago), where it seemed like they were also guilty of falsely dichotomizing all the valid interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Lumen Gentium:
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council…

I’m at a loss what your quote from Lumen Gentium has to do with our discussion on all the valid interpretations of “Rock.”

As for bishops being the popes acolytes:

THAT certainly came out of nowhere.

1. A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” …[in contrast] Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity.
   But then the council has to ammend its words:
2. The College [of bishops], which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops

You think the Council had to “ammend [sic] its words.” Actually, the error lies with your interpretation. You’re erroneously PREsuming that the relationship of a priest to a bishop is the same as the relationship between the bishops and the Pope. After coming to the text with a preconceived notion, you impose it on the text, looking for similarities where there are none. It is your own erroneous preconceived notions that has caused you to look for proof where there is none, for in fact, this text has nothing to do with the relationship of the Pope to individual bishops. Rather, it has to do with the acts of a COLLEGIAL body of bishops in relationship to its head bishop.

But to answer your follow-up question -

And so, how does the relationship of pope to bishops differ from bishop to priests?

The prerogatives, rights, and graces of the episcopal office come directly from God, not from the Pope. In contrast, the prerogatives, rights, and graces of the presbyteral office come from the bishop.

Freedom to that extend only exists outside the EOC. That’s how they find themselves outside.
I bring this up because it is SO frequently claimed here that the teachings of Vatican I and II have existed always from the beginning. When, we ask? Matthew 16, we are told. We, nor our Fathers interpreted it that way.

And yet earlier, you admitted that there ARE Fathers who interpret the Rock of Matthew 16:18 as Peter.

at which point Eliakim is thrown in as the “trump card.” I’m just showing the weakness of the syllogism.

When I first read of the analogy with Eliakim, it was in the context of apologetics against PROTESTANTS who may be swayed by biblical arguments. It is not meant for the Orthodox who may not listen to a purely biblical argument. Besides, I’ve never heard of the Eliakim apologetic as a “trump card,” unless you are admitting you are trumped by it.

Yes they can interpret it as long as it does not violate Church teaching, and if you are attached to the Vatican, this teaching doesn’t violate Vatican I or II. But it doesn’t prove Vatican I or II have been the teaching of the Father on Matthew 16.

No, we don’t need to resort to the Eliakim analogy to demonstrate our point. We can easily appeal to Tradition on the matter of Rome’s primacy, purity in doctrine (infallibility), and pedagogical headship.

Council of Frankfurt, “revoked” the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

It’s quite obvious we were speaking of post-schism beliefs, so this response is a straw man. But to respond to your post, anyway, I guess you are not aware that the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council were mistranslated from the Greek to Latin (it happens )- and it seemed as though the Seventh Council was promoting WORSHIP of images, rather than their veneration. On those grounds, your response is once again a straw man, for Western Synods were correct in rejecting the WORSHIP of images - they did not reject the orthodox teaching on the matter. See what proper study and understanding can do to clear up misconceptions?

That the Coptic Orthodox don’t have annullments.

No. CO recognize it, for instance, in the case of bigamy. An existing marriage makes another marriage INVALID - as if it never occurred. Where are you getting your information from?

I think consanguinity is another instance when a marriage would be declared invalid (certainly, the early Church canons say so), but with regards to bigamy, I am absolutely positive that annulment is practiced.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa

In an absolute sense, Christ is the head of the Church, not just on the level of mystical/sacramental theology. So I cannot agree with your statement fully. But beyond that, it is not proper to separate the authority of the head bishop (on any level) from the authority of Christ.

Just as it is not proper to seperate the authority of the head bishop form the authority of his synod.

It is BECAUSE of our Sacramental/Incarnational theology that the head bishopric even exists in the Church.

No, that is why the bishop as head of the Church exists.

In any case, there is no mistaking what we mean when we say head BISHOP, and to oppose the headship of Christ to that claim is to misunderstand the issue, at best, and is an unpatristic novelty of the Church’s ecclesiology at worst…

Then it’s a novelty that St’s Peter’s successor St. Ignatios, a Church Father, claimed.

Oh, I’ve butted heads with him a few times (it may have been on this very issue). We have our extremists, and so do you (on the other end of the ecclesiological spectrum, that is).

Agreed.

Thanks. His name escaped me.

No problem.

And yet earlier, you admitted that there ARE Fathers who interpret the Rock of Matthew 16:18 as Peter.

Yes. I recall distinctly pointing this out to my Latin brethren in a thread discussing the issue in the Apologetics Section (a few months ago), where it seemed like they were also guilty of falsely dichotomizing all the valid interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

This is the problem: yes the Fathers interpret 16:18, within the context of other fathers interpreting it at other levels. Only when the former is wretched from the latter, do problems occur: accusations that we “don’t love Peter,” “hate Peter,” and other such nonsense by those who are not aware of the other (and majority) interpretations.

Btw, I meant to write I’ve seen the “stat[istic]s” on the interpretatons of Mat. 16 posted here.

I’m at a loss what your quote from Lumen Gentium has to do with our discussion on all the valid interpretations of “Rock.”

I dunno. YOU were the one who brought up "Apostolic Constitutions

Dear brother Isa,
I doubt that. Otherwise, EO would say “not just that.” But they never make that qualification. If they think the Catholic Church teaches an exclusive interpretation of the Rock of Matthew’s Gospel as Peter, well, then, that is just another example of the ignorance of non-Catholics on the actual Catholic teaching on the matter.
He made Peter a perpetual principle of …unity and a visible foundation that …on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Preamble.
Blessings,
Marduk

You cited Vatican I. I just updated with Vatican II.

THAT certainly came out of nowhere.

Yes, it has.

You think the Council had to “ammend [sic] its words.”

The Vatican web site gives the text:“The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.” Ok. “appended to” its words.

Actually, the error lies with your interpretation. You’re erroneously PREsuming that the relationship of a priest to a bishop is the same as the relationship between the bishops and the Pope.

I’m just taking things to their logical conclusion.

After coming to the text with a preconceived notion, you impose it on the text, looking for similarities where there are none.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

It is your own erroneous preconceived notions that has caused you to look for proof where there is none, for in fact, this text has nothing to do with the relationship of the Pope to individual bishops.

pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Rather, it has to do with the acts of a COLLEGIAL body of bishops in relationship to its head bishop.

Yes, that they cannot act.

But to answer your follow-up question -
The prerogatives, rights, and graces of the episcopal office come directly from God, not from the Pope.

That’s distinction from which Vatican I obliterated the difference.

In contrast, the prerogatives, rights, and graces of the presbyteral office come from the bishop.

The bishop cannot ordain without the pope of Rome, cannot act without their “head” in Rome, has no authority outside what Rome gives them.

This, btw, is also what distinguishes the Vatican from the original Church.

When I first read of the analogy with Eliakim, it was in the context of apologetics against PROTESTANTS who may be swayed by biblical arguments. It is not meant for the Orthodox who may not listen to a purely biblical argument. Besides, I’ve never heard of the Eliakim apologetic as a “trump card,” unless you are admitting you are trumped by it.

Hardly, especially given the DEAFENING silence of on the history of this “proof text.” Is that a nervous

Go to NCF or AF, search thread “Eliakim.” I’ve seen it several times, heard it on Relevant Radio, seen it on EWTN.

No, we don’t need to resort to the Eliakim analogy to demonstrate our point. We can easily appeal to Tradition on the matter of Rome’s primacy, purity in doctrine (infallibility), and pedagogical headship.

with the same results.

It’s quite obvious we were speaking of post-schism beliefs, so this response is a straw man. But to respond to your post, anyway, I guess you are not aware that the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council were mistranslated from the Greek to Latin (it happens )​

filioque

and it seemed as though the Seventh Council was promoting WORSHIP of images, rather than their veneration. On those grounds, your response is once again a straw man, for Western Synods were correct in rejecting the WORSHIP of images - they did not reject the orthodox teaching on the matter. See what proper study and understanding can do to clear up misconceptions?

If someone could “translate” properly in the first place, there’d be nothing to clear up.

No. CO recognize it, for instance, in the case of bigamy. An existing marriage makes another marriage INVALID - as if it never occurred. Where are you getting your information from?

The Copts (I almost married one. Protestant, which is one of the reasons I didn’t), and the revised divorce Egyptian divorce statute (the old one was such a monstrasity, that even I supported the new statute: the old one didn’t require the man to notify his wife that she was divorced, bizarre even by muslim standards).

I always love when fraud is brought up as a defense of anullments.

I think consanguinity is another instance when a marriage would be declared invalid (certainly, the early Church canons say so), but with regards to bigamy, I am absolutely positive that annulment is practiced.

Most people know who their sisters are (yes, someone used this in defense of annullments). There is also, for the Orthodox, relationships established by baptism.

Since you are talking about odd situations (you have personally witnesses this, no?), I can’t speculate. I do the Copts abhore divorce (comes with living among muslims).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa

Just as it is not proper to seperate the authority of the head bishop form the authority of his synod.

And we don’t do that. You need to do a bit more reading on Catholic ecclesiology.

No, that is why the bishop as head of the Church exists.

Don’t want you to misunderstand. I included “Incarnational” in my response because I did not want you to confuse it with “Sacramental.” I only included both because many use the terms interchangeably. But I’m not talking about the Sacrament of Orders. I was referring to the general Incarnational theology of the Church which seeks to ideally reflect in Creation the heavenly reality. I’ve explained it before, and I’ll explain it again. Heaven is hierarchical and monarchical. The Church should reflect that reality as much as possible. Thus, do we have an hierarchy, but by virtue of our imperfect nature, we can only achieve a semi-monarchical form of government. That is what is reflected in the Catholic Church. The office of head bishop is not Sacramental by nature, but Incarnational.

Then it’s a novelty that St’s Peter’s successor St. Ignatios, a Church Father, claimed.

Given the above explanation, your syllogism is flawed. But I admit it was my fault for not being clear about “Sacramental/Incarnational” in the first place.

This is the problem: yes the Fathers interpret 16:18, within the context of other fathers interpreting it at other levels. Only when the former is wretched from the latter, do problems occur: accusations that we “don’t love Peter,” “hate Peter,” and other such nonsense by those who are not aware of the other (and majority) interpretations.

I’ve never personally seen it gone that far, though I don’t doubt you may have experienced it from some Catholic polemicists.

Btw, I meant to write I’ve seen the “stat[istic]s” on the interpretatons of Mat. 16 posted here.

Either way, there ARE Fathers who interpret the Rock as Peter (and I’m not saying Peter ALONE).

I dunno. YOU were the one who brought up "Apostolic Constitutions.”

I don’t remember ever typing out such a long term.

You cited Vatican I. I just updated with Vatican II.

We were talking specifically about the interpretation of “Rock.” What part of the V2 quote addresses that? You must have been extrapolating something – again. :tsktsk:

I’m just taking things to their logical conclusion.

The text is not even talking about the relationship of individual bishops to the Pope, and you think you’ve applied valid logic?

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Trust me. I wish I did not need to, but so much of the EO rhetoric against the Catholic Church is worthy of protest.

pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On the other hand, maybe you should stop paying attention to the illogical voices in your head.

Yes, that they cannot act.

Yes, that’s the instruction of the Apostolic Canon 34. Contradict it at your desire, but don’t expect us to do so.

That’s distinction from which Vatican I obliterated the difference.

And no proof?

The bishop cannot ordain without the pope of Rome, cannot act without their “head” in Rome, has no authority outside what Rome gives them.

Sorry, but your claims get more fantastic as time progresses.

1. Your first point is only valid in the Latin Patriarchate, and more generally the Western Patriarchate (though the title no longer exists), so don’t bandy it about as a general principle for the entire Church. In fact, that is true of any bishop within any Patriarchate or Metropolitan See. A bishop cannot be validly ordained without the confirmation of his head bishop. Take it up with the early Church if you have a problem with it.
2. Your second point is only valid, once again, within the Latin/Western Patriarchate, and in the COLLEGIAL context wherein all (or a large number of) the bishops from around the world are involved.
3. Your third point is false. I argued that issue with one of my Latin brethren in the old “Papal prerogatives” thread. And I daresay I got the last word (unless I missed something – that’s always possible ‘cause I’m not infallible ).

This, btw, is also what distinguishes the Vatican from the original Church.

No, only the original Church through EO polemic glasses.

Hardly, especially given the DEAFENING silence of on the history of this “proof text.” Is that a nervous

Go to NCF or AF, search thread “Eliakim.” I’ve seen it several times, heard it on Relevant Radio, seen it on EWTN.

You’ll have to take that up with the Latins. I’ve never used that rhetoric with my fellow apostolic Christians (though I would use it against Protestants – I haven’t yet).

with the same results.

Matter of perspective.

If someone could “translate” properly in the first place, there’d be nothing to clear up.

If God applied that sorry rhetoric to humanity, Jesus would never have come. What happened happened. Our purpose NOW is to try to understand each other for the sake of unity.

Most people know who their sisters are (yes, someone used this in defense of annullments). There is also, for the Orthodox, relationships established by baptism.

Since you are talking about odd situations (you have personally witnesses this, no?), I can’t speculate.

Thank you. I’d appreciate it if you try not to make solid statements like “no they don’t” for the Coptic Church in the future. Btw, I’m sure you know that there has always been a palpable tension between the secular law and the ecclesiastical law in Egypt. The Church’s laws don’t always reflect the civil laws (we accept civil laws only if they don’t violate Church laws). The Church’s law is obtained from the canons of the Fathers, and we know that there were instances when an annulment of a marriage was recognized in the early Church based on certain conditions (and not just for marriage, but also for other Sacraments such as Baptism and Orders). The idea behind annulments (that certain conditions exist by which it can be regarded that certain Sacraments never really occurred in the first place) is thoroughly patristic, and is not a Latin invention, as non-Catholic polemicists are wont to claim.

I do the Copts abhore divorce (comes with living among muslims).

No. Coptic Orthodox believe in the indissolubility of marriage because it is what the Fathers taught, not because of some culturally-conditioned circumstance. That is insulting. Copts are not those particular Eastern Orthodox who have accommodated the holy doctrine on marriage to the secular laws of the land (i.e., what is permissible as grounds for divorce and remarriage).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[stcalixtus]

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 same tired old arguements about who is the original church founded by Jesus Christ, I hear no mention of reconciliation between orthodox churches in communion with each other, much progress has been made and I pray that that day may come in my lifetime It all comes down to faith…I do not care what any of you say I am very comfortable being Catholic and have no intension of converting or agressively recruiting others to my POV and those of you on this thread that heatedly argue that and your religion are the only way to salvation well shame on you, God will be our judge…not man.

 

[anthony022071]

So, what Faith did the Catholic Church have prior to the Schism?

The orthodox faith,which is also the Catholic faith. Same thing.

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church…Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4,5 (A.D. 434).

So you keep the title Catholic Church, and that means you are identical with the original, huh? Identity of name?

Yes. Why not? Who first determined that the Catholic Church had ceased to be the Catholic Church? The schismatic clergy of Constantinople?

But that doesn’t mean the office hasn’t changed.

The office has changed in regard to the manner of universal jurisdiction,but the popes have always had universal jurisdiction.
The pope is simply the earthly shepherd of the whole Church.
See this thread for many examples of universal jurisdiction.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=235272

Nor that the use of label Catholic identifies the True and original Church.

“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).

 

[stcalixtus]

The orthodox faith,which is also the Catholic faith. Same thing.

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church…Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4,5 (A.D. 434).

Yes. Why not? Who first determined that the Catholic Church had ceased to be the Catholic Church? The schismatic clergy of Constantinople?

The office has changed in regard to the manner of universal jurisdiction,but the popes have always had universal jurisdiction.
The pope is simply the earthly shepherd of the whole Church.
See this thread for many examples of universal jurisdiction.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=235272

“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).

If one is not a practicing Catholic are they denied salvation?

 

[anthony022071]

If one is not a practicing Catholic are they denied salvation?

Ultimately,it’s God’s decision who will be saved.

 

[Mickey]

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

 

[stcalixtus]

so the rest of us are toast?:whacky:

 

[East_and_West]

You know I think its against the forum rules to call the Eastern Orthdox Church Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

so the rest of us are toast?

Nah. Holy Orthodoxy does not pretend to know who is saved outside of the Holy Orthodox Church.

 

[PrayforMallory]

It’s one thing to hold a theological stance concerning controversies from centuries ago, but I regret the fact that I once admired Orthodoxy. I’m a little shocked because I’ve come to learn that they are unwittingly embracing the death culture with their pro ABC stance, which is contrary to not only religion but natural law and reason. Same with divorce. I used to think they would resist till the end. Finding out they caved bothers me. The rationalizing talk of “economy” really just seems like an excuse to me.

We cannot relent one inch on these issues!

 

[Mickey]

I regret the fact that I once admired Orthodoxy.

This now the second forum where you set forth your Orthodox bashing opinions.

 

[Mickey]

I regret the fact that I once admired Orthodoxy.

Deja vu!