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

[steve-b]

Consistency is arguably the strongest feather in the hat of Orthodoxy.

please define consistency … that you are talking about

Vonsalza:

In the age of the Patriarchs, the oldest living prime heir of Adam was afforded a position of honor and judgement that others weren’t. But he was no pope.

With the rise of Melchezidek (maybe Noah’s “Shem”?) and his subsequent Aaronic priesthoods, there was certainly a high priest but we see no evidence that he held absolute power either.

The inconsistent oddity would be Christ saying “Thou Art Peter, and on this Rock I build my Church and you will be the supreme, immediate and infallible leader of it”.

The OT was a shadow of what was to come. There is no oddity here in the NT except maybe with those who disagree with the facts

As it pertains to the biblical evidence - we have little to support your view. For the contraposition, we have Paul’s rebuke of Peter and the councils of Acts (as opposed to Petrine Bulls).

Re: Paul’s rebuke of Peter, that is not without it’s own problems for Paul.

As Jerome states

“O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter for hypocrasy because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from James, why are you, not withstanding your own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.” Jerome continues, "Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ … [snip] for space

ergo, people try and make too much of Paul’s rebuke.

Vonsalza:

the only reason Roman Catholicism is as large as it is would be because it was the common, shared faith of Spain, Portugal and France - easily the greatest powers (aside from England) of the Age of Colonialism.

Everyone mentioned there had to be converted. The Catholic Church is as large as it is because it’s global. Just as Jesus wants it to be.

Vonsalza:

Council is the voice. As it’s always been. The unifying center is “Sacred Tradition” which is analogous to the Catholic “Deposit of Faith”.

Have the Orthodox met for an ecumenical council? Who speaks for ALL?

 

[Vonsalza]

please define consistency … that you are talking about

Sure. That the people of God had no temporal headship that was all three immediate, supreme and infallible over their spiritual issues until the Roman Church argued for it.

As many Catholic theologians would put it - it developed.

The OT was a shadow of what was to come. There is no oddity here in the NT except maybe with those who disagree with the facts.

Ok, so here you implicitly admit that it’s inconsistent with leadership modes found in the thousands of years covered in the OT.

And those who disagree with the “facts” is, essentially, most folks who weren’t directly under the influence of the Roman Church.

Re: Paul’s rebuke of Peter, that is not without it’s own problems for Paul.

Sure. But we’re not talking about the “Pauline Seat” (even as many early Christian writers are more than happy to describe the Roman Church as also being founded by Paul - like Irenaeus).

We’re talking about the “Petrine” one. And in early Church history and Holy Scripture itself, it is shown as openly defied on plenty of occasions when it was viewed as being in error on a given matter.

ergo, people try and make too much of Paul’s rebuke.

Not really. They’re only pointing out that it’s there and creates an issue for claims of infallibility and supremacy.

Everyone mentioned there had to be converted. The Catholic Church is as large as it is because it’s global. Just as Jesus wants it to be.

As Islam is now larger than the Catholic Church, is that also as Jesus wants it to be?

Again, the issues with arguing providence are numerous and obvious.

Who speaks for ALL?

Council. Personified, the college of bishops headed by the Primus. Not just one.

Above that, it’s Christ.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

please define consistency … that you are talking about

Sure. That the people of God had no temporal headship that was all three immediate, supreme and infallible over their spiritual issues until the Roman Church argued for it.

As many Catholic theologians would put it - it developed.

No one disagrees that development occurred.

The OT was a shadow of what was to come. There is no oddity here in the NT except maybe with those who disagree with the facts.

Vonsalza:

Ok, so here you implicitly admit that it’s inconsistent with leadership modes found in the thousands of years covered in the OT.

steve-b:

Jesus coming in the flesh completely changed the leadership dynamics. He established Peter and those in union with Peter.

Vonsalza:

And those who disagree with the “facts” is, essentially, most folks who weren’t directly under the influence of the Roman Church.

steve-b:

And Jesus changed that dynamic. Without Jesus we wouldn’t have the office of Peter, nor Peter’s see in Rome, making it the primary see of the entire world.

Vonsalza:

Sure. But we’re not talking about the “Pauline Seat” (even as many early Christian writers are more than happy to describe the Roman Church as also being founded by Paul - like Irenaeus).

We’re talking about the “Petrine” one.

steve-b:

Yes, Established by Jesus. With all His promises going to that office He created
ergo, people try and make too much of Paul’s rebuke of Peter.

Vonsalza:

Not really. They’re only pointing out that it’s there and creates an issue for claims of infallibility and supremacy.

steve-b:

None of that has anything to do with infallibility as defined by the Church, or supremacy

steve-b:

Everyone mentioned there had to be converted. The Catholic Church is as large as it is because it’s global. Just as Jesus wants it to be.

Vonsalza:

As Islam is now larger than the Catholic Church, is that also as Jesus wants it to be?

steve-b:

Your point? Where does Islam predominate? In the East.

steve-b:

Who speaks for ALL with the Orthodox?

Vonsalza:

Council. Personified, the college of bishops headed by the Primus. Not just one.

Above that, it’s Christ.

steve-b:

Jesus wants “perfect” unity. The Catholic Church has had 22 ecumenical councils. How many have the Orthodox had?

 

[Vonsalza]

No one disagrees that development occurred.

Ok, then that’s inconsistency. You just think it’s justified, which is fine.

steve-b:

Jesus coming in the flesh completely changed the leadership dynamics. He established Peter and those in union with Peter.

Sure. And there are plenty who think that Peter was to have about as much control over the Church as Aaron had over the temple. Or Enoch over the other patriarchs.

steve-b:

And Jesus changed that dynamic. Without Jesus we wouldn’t have the office of Peter, nor Peter’s see in Rome, making it the primary see of the entire world.

Yep. The last two thousand years has been about what, exactly, that really means.

steve-b:

None of that has anything to do with infallibility as defined by the Church, or supremacy

Only that it shows an infallible and supreme leader can apparently be defied. Which challenges infallibility and supremacy as most folks would understand the terms in use.

steve-b:

Your point? Where does Islam predominate? In the East.

Point being was that you alluded to was the providential success of the Church. I was merely pointing out that it cuts more than one way as other groups have been providentially successful too.

steve-b:

The Catholic Church has had 22 ecumenical councils.

Some count four. Others seven. All beyond that lacked ecumenism.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No one disagrees that development occurred.

Ok, then that’s inconsistency. You just think it’s justified, which is fine.

Jesus created the development. NO ONE but Him saw perfectly what was coming. By definition then, Inconsistency happens with those who don’t follow HIS design.

steve-b:

Jesus coming in the flesh completely changed the leadership dynamics. He established Peter and those in union with Peter.

Vonsalza:

Sure. And there are plenty who think that Peter was to have about as much control over the Church as Aaron had over the temple. Or Enoch over the other patriarchs.

Think about this

For space check this out. who gets people into this argument and keeps it going, when that argument was already settled in the upper room? SATAN. Satan keeps this argument going.

steve-b:

And Jesus changed that dynamic. Without Jesus we wouldn’t have the office of Peter, nor Peter’s see in Rome, making it the primary see of the entire world.

Vonsalza:

Yep. The last two thousand years has been about what, exactly, that really means.

Not among Our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Church.

steve-b:

None of that has anything to do with infallibility as defined by the Church, or supremacy

Vonsalza:

Only that it shows an infallible and supreme leader can apparently be defied. Which challenges infallibility and supremacy as most folks would understand the terms in use.

What’s new? Jesus own disciples walked away from Jesus to His face Did that challenge Jesus infallibility or supremacy? Nope

steve-b:

Your point? Where does Islam predominate? In the East.

Vonsalza:

Point being was that you alluded to was the providential success of the Church. I was merely pointing out that it cuts more than one way as other groups have been providentially successful too.

steve-b:

If you recall, you are the one who challenged me.

steve-b:

The Catholic Church has had 22 ecumenical councils. How many have the Orthodox had?

Vonsalza:

Some count four. Others seven. All beyond that lacked ecumenism.

And THEY lack what makes an ecumenical council possible

 

[Vonsalza]

Jesus created the development. NO ONE but Him saw perfectly what was coming. By definition then, Inconsistency happens with those who don’t follow HIS design.

Amen. His design appears to follow the Orthodox ecclesial model more than the Roman one.

Satan keeps this argument going.

Then stop serving him and concede.

Not among Our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Church.

As the greater schisms involve the Church you identify with, that appears to be substantially more a statement of belief than fact, I’m afraid.

What’s new? Jesus…

Was/Is God. I’m fully ready to submit to the immediacy, infallibility and supremacy of Christ. We all are.

steve-b:

If you recall, you are the one who challenged me.

And you defended with providence. I’m just showing you it’s a poor defense as umpteen zillion groups claim it.

And THEY lack what makes an ecumenical council possible

Bishops? No, I’m pretty sure they had bishops, Steve.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus created the development. NO ONE but Him saw perfectly what was coming. By definition then, Inconsistency happens with those who don’t follow HIS design.

Amen. His design appears to follow the Orthodox ecclesial model more than the Roman one.

They broke with Peter after 1000 yrs. Schism is NOT orthodox NOR Orthodox

steve-b:

Satan keeps this argument going.

Vonsalza:

Then stop serving him and concede.

I’m on the side of Peter. You’re not on Peter’s side.
I’m among Our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Church.

Vonsalza:

As the greater schisms involve the Church you identify with, that appears to be substantially more a statement of belief than fact, I’m afraid.

Schism is with the one who left Peter.

Vonsalza:

I’m fully ready to submit to the immediacy, infallibility and supremacy of Christ. We all are.

Then end the schism. Come back to the Catholic Church

steve-b:

And THEY lack what makes an ecumenical council possible

Vonsalza:

Bishops? No, I’m pretty sure they had bishops, Steve.

Then why can’t they have an ecumenical council

 

[Vonsalza]

They broke with Peter after 1000 yrs. Schism is NOT orthodox NOR Orthodox

We’ve been over this. The man playing “Peter” had “developed” his office into invalidation.

Round and round this goes, right?

I’m on the side of Peter. You’re not on Peter’s side.
I’m among Our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Church.

I’m on Peter’s side. You’re not on Peter’s side.
the Orthodox are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Not the Roman Church.

See again? Round and round.

Then end the schism. Come back to the Catholic Church

Remove the “developments” and restore Peter to the more limited role of his papal forbears and that’s roughly what will happen. But it’s you that would have returned.

Then why can’t they have an ecumenical council

They can. Everyone’s just gotta show up or retroactively affirm the proceedings.

The Orthodox typically do this weird thing where just the Churches involved in a squabble will meet about it. Odd, right?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

They broke with Peter after 1000 yrs. Schism is NOT orthodox NOR Orthodox

We’ve been over this. The man playing “Peter” had “developed” his office into invalidation.

Round and round this goes, right?

Jesus established the office. And He sustains it. Therefore it’s gonna last.

steve-b:

I’m on the side of Peter. You’re not on Peter’s side.
I’m among Our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Church.

Vonsalza:

I’m on Peter’s side. You’re not on Peter’s side.
the Orthodox are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Not the Roman Church.

steve-b:

Prove it. Show from the beginning, properly referenced, that we see “Orthodox Church” in writing. It’s NOT there. All you’ve given is your opinion. Let’s see the evidence.

steve-b:

Then end the schism. Come back to the Catholic Church

Vonsalza:

Remove the “developments” and restore Peter to the more limited role of his papal forbears and that’s roughly what will happen. But it’s you that would have returned.

No way is the Catholic Church going against what Jesus established.

steve-b:

Then why can’t they have an ecumenical council

Vonsalza:

They can. Everyone’s just gotta show up or retroactively affirm the proceedings.

And THAT’s the problem. No central leader, no central voice. That’s NOT the design Jesus established

Vonsalza:

The Orthodox typically do this weird thing where just the Churches involved in a squabble will meet about it. Odd, right?

Yes, it’s a typical understanding.

 

[Vonsalza]

Jesus established the office. And He sustains it. Therefore it’s gonna last.

Absolutely. According to them, the Petrine function is alive and well in Constantinople.

steve-b:

No way is the Catholic Church going against what Jesus established.

Of course not. It just “develops” it, right?

steve-b:

And THAT’s the problem. No central leader, no central voice. That’s NOT the design Jesus established

Are you not aware of the existence of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

And it seems consistent with the design of the temple and age of the Patriarchs. When the people of Israel wanted a temporal “king”, God/Jesus was not pleased. It’s in Samuel. Take a gander.

---

By my reckoning, this is the second attempt at a circle, so the discussion is no longer interesting to me. All yours for now, Steve.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Gently offered - the only reason Roman Catholicism is as large as it is would be because it was the common, shared faith of Spain, Portugal and France - easily the greatest powers (aside from England) of the Age of Colonialism.

That’s why I intentionally emphasized “providential perspective of God.” You and I both believe in God’s providence. And you are leaning to the Orthodox Church. But I am saying that is not plausible, because of the nature of the Church – a “city on a hill,” the “pillar and bulwark of truth.” As Augustine said in the fourth century, don’t just ask for the Church. Ask for where the Catholic Church is. It must be easily identifiable on the Rock of Peter.

To me, again, it’s not plausible that a much smaller group of churches would maintain the true nature of the One Church, and then the schismatic church would be much larger and more manifest in Christian history. At least, not considering divine providence and the nature of the Church.

Imagine if Orthodoxy was a mere 10 million strong, and only limited to Russia — just for sake of argument. That wouldn’t make Orthodoxy untrue, but it would make it extremely unlikely. Not plausible. The situation is not as drastic in real life, as Eastern Orthodoxy is indeed large. But compared to Catholicism, and considering the competing claims, the point is the same.

We shouldn’t look at missionary activity as merely accidental, but rather a fruit of God’s eternal providential plan to make his Gospel and Kingdom known on Earth. I suppose God could have intended a small sect, say like the latecoming JWs, instead of a universal Church. But how would that advance his desire that all men be saved?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sure. And no one can deny that God was angered by the notion that they wanted a king (1 Sam 8:7 and 12:12).

Huh? Jesus directly alluded to the institution of the chief steward in Isaiah. So if Jesus himself is making that a model of the Petrine office, then it’s legit, and we can appreciate it. (And, not to mention, Jesus is the True King – foreshadowed in the Old Covenant, no matter what the origin of the kings may involve).

So, again, no one can deny Jesus’ allusion to the office of chief steward, serving under the king and bearing the king’s authority by holding the keys. I’m sorry, but this is not the position of the ecumenical patriarch today. He is not the steward of the church or vicar of the King — which is exactly we should expect of the Petrine office, considering Christ’s own reference.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus established the office. And He sustains it. Therefore it’s gonna last.

Absolutely. According to them, the Petrine function is alive and well in Constantinople.

Really? Besides Constantinople not existing anymore, The EP and his office has no connection to Peter.

steve-b:

No way is the Catholic Church going against what Jesus established.

Vonsalza:

Of course not. It just “develops” it, right?

Peter didn’t develop his own office. Jesus did that by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom.

steve-b:

And THAT’s the problem. No central leader, no central voice among the Orthodox. That’s NOT the design Jesus established

Vonsalza:

Are you not aware of the existence of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

Sure. And the point you’re making? 1100+ yrs and they still can’t get together.

Vonsalza:

And it seems consistent with the design of the temple and age of the Patriarchs. When the people of Israel wanted a temporal “king”, God/Jesus was not pleased. It’s in Samuel. Take a gander.

Already been settled 2000 years ago.

Vonsalza:

By my reckoning, this is the second attempt at a circle, so the discussion is no longer interesting to me. All yours for now, Steve.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s why I intentionally emphasized “providential perspective of God.” You and I both believe in God’s providence.

I do insofar as it’s known only to God. God providence seems to have made Catholicism the largest Christian sect. God’s providence also seems to have made Islam presently larger than Catholicism.

It’s not a meaningful argument.

And you are leaning to the Orthodox Church. But I am saying that is not plausible, because of the nature of the Church – a “city on a hill,” the “pillar and bulwark of truth.”

It’s great you feel this way. Good religious conviction.

Let’s just not confuse that with something like “demonstrable fact”.

As Augustine said in the fourth century, don’t just ask for the Church. Ask for where the Catholic Church is. It must be easily identifiable on the Rock of Peter.

And in the days of Augustine, I’d agree fully. Islam hadn’t arisen yet. When Rome got a little haughty, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were often happy to turn a deaf ear and maybe return a little critique.

But before you rest fully on Augustine, realize that in his last few writings, he questioned whether the “rock” the Church was built on was referring to Peter.

To me, again, it’s not plausible that a much smaller group of churches would maintain the true nature of the One Church,

MUCH smaller? Maybe by the 19th century…

What history book have you been reading? Before Islam, there were most likely more Greek Christians than Latin and there may have been even more far-eastern Christians, centered around Babylon.

and then the schismatic church would be much larger and more manifest in Christian history. At least, not considering divine providence and the nature of the Church.

Until the rise of Spain, the largest standing empire on the planet was Muslim.

Again, the appeal to providence is genuinely meaningless.

Imagine if Orthodoxy was a mere 10 million strong, and only limited to Russia — just for sake of argument. That wouldn’t make Orthodoxy untrue, but it would make it extremely unlikely. Not plausible. The situation is not as drastic in real life, as Eastern Orthodoxy is indeed large. But compared to Catholicism, and considering the competing claims, the point is the same.

And again, since Islam is larger than Catholicism, it’s more true?

Put away the providence argument. It’s genuinely worthless. It’s just a more grandiose sounding ad populum fallacy - in truth.

We shouldn’t look at missionary activity as merely accidental, but rather a fruit of God’s eternal providential plan to make his Gospel and Kingdom known on Earth.

The conversion to Catholicism in the Americas was the result of “missionary activity”?

That’s a good laugh…

 

[Vonsalza]

Huh? Jesus directly alluded to the institution of the chief steward in Isaiah. So if Jesus himself is making that a model of the Petrine office…

So then God in 1 Samuel was just, like, joking about being angry that Israel wanted a king?

 

[Vonsalza]

You said a couple interesting things there;

Really? Besides Constantinople not existing anymore, The EP and his office has no connection to Peter.

I love this objection. First, did it fall off the planet, or something? Because I could have sworn that when the prophet Muhammad wrote of it in the 7th century, he called it Istanbul, but he was most certainly referring to Constantinople. He just used another word in another language.

But it doesn’t exist anymore, you say? There is no longer a Hagia Sophia? No more Constantinian Walls? Where’d it all go?

Interesting aside - you know the Vatican is located outside the old city of Rome, right?

A ninth century pope petitioned Rome to expand its walls to enclose it. So the chair of St. Peter is located outside Rome. Just so ya know. More “papal development”, right?

Also, as the EP is an elected bishop just like a new pope is an elected bishop, I don’t see how his claim is any worse or any better than the Catholic one. They both take a guy that was serving somewhere else and grant him the title when the previous servant no longer carries out the job.

Peter didn’t develop his own office. Jesus did that by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Wait. So did it develop or didn’t it? Were supremacy, infallibility and immediacy present from the beginning, or did they develop? Are you unsure?

 

[catholic1seeks]

The conversion to Catholicism in the Americas was the result of “missionary activity”?

Don’t forget the apparition of Mary in Guadalupe Speaking of divine providence…

What history book have you been reading? Before Islam, there were most likely more Greek Christians than Latin and there may have been even more far-eastern Christians, centered around Babylon.

Before Islam, the Church was united… all were more or less in communion with Rome.

Again, the appeal to providence is genuinely meaningless.

It counts for plausibility. It makes no objective sense that a God who founded a church – a visible church to act as the “pillar and truth” and guide for salvation – that would become obscure and be out-done by a much larger and influential church, especially when those two communions already have so much in common.

As for Islam… Islam makes no claim to be the true Church of Christ. You could have well said that most people on the planet aren’t even Christian. You’re using a different reference point. Different issue.

The conversion to Catholicism in the Americas was the result of “missionary activity”?

That’s a good laugh…

Now you’re just being bitter.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t understand your point with this.

That the entire thread of the Bible makes Christ the true Davidic King — prefigured in the OT and fulfilled in the NT. This was part of God’s providence.

Jesus specifically references the office of chief steward in the Davidic household when he makes Peter the Rock and gives him the keys. How does this have to do with God’s anger? It’s not relevant.

The point is that Jesus is identifying Peter as having the office represented by the chief steward in the Davidic Kingdom – the one who had the authority second to the king, as representing the king’s authority.

 

[Vonsalza]

Before Islam, the Church was united… all were more or less in communion with Rome.

Yeah. That’s been one of my big points. Rome was held in check by other prominent churches within Christianity. Islam ended that.

It counts for plausibility.

No it doesn’t.

If it does, then the success of Islam means God wants you to be Muslim more than he wants you to be Catholic since they’ve been more successful as of late.

As for Islam… Islam makes no claim to be the true Church of Christ.

Yes it does. It counts him as a prophet.

Now you’re just being bitter.

No I’m not. The first generation was often subjected to forced conversions and the later generations followed because they didn’t know better. It’s the same process by which the eastern and southern Medit. sea became Muslim where it was once Christian.

 

[steve-b]

You said a couple interesting things there;

steve-b:

Really? Besides Constantinople not existing anymore, The EP and his office has no connection to Peter.

I love this objection. First, did it fall off the planet, or something? Because I could have sworn that when the prophet Muhammad wrote of it in the 7th century, he called it Istanbul, but he was most certainly referring to Constantinople. He just used another word in another language.

But it doesn’t exist anymore, you say? There is no longer a Hagia Sophia? No more Constantinian Walls? Where’d it all go?

Here’s the answer.

If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic

Vonsalza:

Interesting aside - you know the Vatican is located outside the old city of Rome, right?

A ninth century pope petitioned Rome to expand its walls to enclose it. So the chair of St. Peter is located outside Rome. Just so ya know. More “papal development”, right?

Peter is still there.

Vonsalza:

Also, as the EP is an elected bishop just like a new pope is an elected bishop, I don’t see how his claim is any worse or any better than the Catholic one. They both take a guy that was serving somewhere else and grant him the title when the previous servant no longer carries out the job.

Peter was in place 100’s of years before the EP was invented. Peter’s succession from Rome, 12 bishops by name, was already recorder by Irenaeus down to his day, before the EP was even a thought. Bk 3, Chapter 3, v 2-3

Peter didn’t develop his own office. Jesus did that by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Vonsalza:

Wait. So did it develop or didn’t it? Were supremacy, infallibility and immediacy present from the beginning, or did they develop? Are you unsure?

Was Peter infallible or not. Did he teach the Church a doctrine that was to be followed by all and later it was overturned? Show me specifically where Jesus said Peter was just 1st among equals and really NOT the one to rule the Church