G
grace_singh
Guest
this is just something i’ve been considering for a few days now, and wanted to run it by Catholics and non-Catholics here.
many Protestants argue that the Catholic Church has no right to claimn itself as any kind of original church, or as apostolic, claiming instead that the CC was essentially founded my a mixing of church and state at around the time on Constantine, or later. at least this is what i have heard from a few Protestants.
but what i’ve found is that the position of “Bishop of Rome” does of course have apostolic roots, even so do the Bishopries of other major cities, like Antioch, Jerusalem, and other cities of importance in ancient Christianity.
the importance of the Bishopry of Rome can be seen from early in the Christian tradition, but the evolution of this position from simply “bishop of a city” to something much greater and more authorotative is something which developed over decades and centuries. the apostolic succession is certainly there, but the significance of the position is something which can be argued to have developed and emerged, and not been immediately recognized from A.D. 33.
i’ve also noticed that many Orthodox and Catholic practices are very similar. the veneration of Mary and Saints, liturgical practices, shared prayers or prayer variations, and many other things. certainly there are many distinction, both between Catholics, the Orthodox churches, and from Orthodox church to Orthodox church. but there are many similarities, including the apostolic succession of respective bishops in key cities and communities.
might it be appropriate to call the RCC “Latin Orthodoxy”?
what is clear is that various Orthodox traditions simply did not suddenly break off and become immediatly distinct from the Latin Church tradition in the aftermath of or during various councils (like Calcedon), but that these churches already had their own unique lines of succession, centers of learning, theologians, revered patriarchs, traditions, and theology.
what do you think of this idea? Catholics and Orthodox alike.
many Protestants argue that the Catholic Church has no right to claimn itself as any kind of original church, or as apostolic, claiming instead that the CC was essentially founded my a mixing of church and state at around the time on Constantine, or later. at least this is what i have heard from a few Protestants.
but what i’ve found is that the position of “Bishop of Rome” does of course have apostolic roots, even so do the Bishopries of other major cities, like Antioch, Jerusalem, and other cities of importance in ancient Christianity.
the importance of the Bishopry of Rome can be seen from early in the Christian tradition, but the evolution of this position from simply “bishop of a city” to something much greater and more authorotative is something which developed over decades and centuries. the apostolic succession is certainly there, but the significance of the position is something which can be argued to have developed and emerged, and not been immediately recognized from A.D. 33.
i’ve also noticed that many Orthodox and Catholic practices are very similar. the veneration of Mary and Saints, liturgical practices, shared prayers or prayer variations, and many other things. certainly there are many distinction, both between Catholics, the Orthodox churches, and from Orthodox church to Orthodox church. but there are many similarities, including the apostolic succession of respective bishops in key cities and communities.
might it be appropriate to call the RCC “Latin Orthodoxy”?
what is clear is that various Orthodox traditions simply did not suddenly break off and become immediatly distinct from the Latin Church tradition in the aftermath of or during various councils (like Calcedon), but that these churches already had their own unique lines of succession, centers of learning, theologians, revered patriarchs, traditions, and theology.
what do you think of this idea? Catholics and Orthodox alike.
.
