Nuancing the "Original Church" to include Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox

[catholic1seeks]

that’s not very specific

 

[Gara3987]

The Catholic Church is the original. For instance, 431 A.D., Nestorius (who was the Patriarch of Constantinople) fell into formal heresy teaching that God dwelt in Jesus; which he was excommunicated due to not wanting to correct himself. He took his congregation with him and started the Church of the East. 451 A.D. the Oriental Orthodox (Antioch and Alexandria fell within this) was founded, this was actually due to a discord initiated by Constantinople wanting to become the second highest See within the Church. The Eastern Schism originally began in 867 A.D., which lasted several years; to which then Cerularius in 1054 A.D., set the final schism.

That being said, the Original is the Catholic Church, the others schismed.

I am aware that, generally this applies to the Greek Orthodox, believe that the Catholic Church schismed from them, however, if that is the case, they the majority of the Church left; in other words, more than three fourths of the Church left ; which doesn’t make sense logically looking at it.

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church is the original. For instance, 431 A.D., Nestorius (who was the Patriarch of Constantinople) fell into formal heresy teaching that God dwelt in Jesus; which he was excommunicated due to not wanting to correct himself. He took his congregation with him and started the Church of the East. 451 A.D. the Oriental Orthodox (Antioch and Alexandria fell within this) was founded, this was actually due to a discord initiated by Constantinople wanting to become the second highest See within the Church. The Eastern Schism originally began in 867 A.D., which lasted several years; to which then Cerularius in 1054 A.D., set the final schism.

That being said, the Original is the Catholic Church, the others schismed.

I am aware that, generally this applies to the Greek Orthodox, believe that the Catholic Church schismed from them, however, if that is the case, they the majority of the Church left; in other words, more than three fourths of the Church left ; which doesn’t make sense logically looking at it.

Point being,

Going back to the 1st century we see the name “CATHOLIC CHURCH” in writing. That is THE Church of Jesus and the apostles in communion with Peter. Not so with the name “ORTHODOX CHURCH” which came much later.

That graph is NOT clear meaning it is inaccurate

 

[catholic1seeks]

The chart’s primary goal wasn’t to show which is the “True Church,” but to have a more historical approach. Much of these schisms were fluid and based on prior traditions, and all have apostolic succession — and therefore in some sense reach back to the beginning.

It’s not as if the Assyrian Church, for example, suddenly came into existence after rejecting Ephesus. It wasn’t in formal schism, but the Christians in that part of the world had been quite independent from the greater Church for a while, seeing as they were cut off from the Roman Empire.

 

[steve-b]

The chart’s primary goal wasn’t to show which is the “True Church,” but to have a more historical approach. Much of these schisms were fluid and based on prior traditions, and all have apostolic succession — and therefore in some sense reach back to the beginning.

It’s not as if the Assyrian Church, for example, suddenly came into existence after rejecting Ephesus. It wasn’t in formal schism, but the Christians in that part of the world had been quite independent from the greater Church for a while, seeing as they were cut off from the Roman Empire.

All I’m saying, Divisions can be shown more clearly, as specific events in history. Not some blur.