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

[Vonsalza]

This thread is not meant to get into the debate on papal primacy…

…So I would ask you how you would nuance the “Original Church”

Unfortunately, how one would largely nuance the original Church is largely determined by how particular groups felt about that guy over in Rome. It’s the biggest issue in all of Christian history, arguably. So you have to include it if you want to discuss your subject matter.

That said, the thread is yours. Do as you wish.

 

[Vonsalza]

So if it is based in Peter, and ultimately Christ, I would argue it odd that the office would suddenly become defunct.

BTW, the Orthodox agree. Which is why the office is carried out by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, last I remember, you were Orthodox-leaning.

So maybe think of the question in terms of how an Orthodox Christian could better accommodate a more nuanced history, say as opposed to a graph like this. (Below).

For example, I have a very close Orthodox friend. In fact, she is one of the only friends I enjoy talking about the Faith with. But I would NEVER say something to her like “Well, my church is the true church. You need to join.” I understand the nuanced history a little better than I did say 10 years ago.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[catholic1seeks]

Depends on the Orthodox.

I was in a longgg debate in a Facebook group the other night with a very knowledgeable Catholic-to-Orthodox convert who was trying to stress Peter wasn’t the rock of the church, that the keys of the kingdom belong to all Apostles, and that kind of stuff.

Besides, the Orthodox view you’re representing isn’t exactly the same (as the Catholic view), since in their case, the office wouldn’t be ultimately tied to Peter and his successor if it can merely be transferred based on the next political see in the taxis (Constantinople in their view).

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, last I remember, you were Orthodox-leaning.

So maybe think of the question in terms of how an Orthodox Christian could better accommodate a more nuanced history, say as opposed to a graph like this. (Below).

For example, I have a very close Orthodox friend. In fact, she is one of the only friends I enjoy talking about the Faith with. But I would NEVER say something to her like “Well, my church is the true church. You need to join.” I understand the nuanced history a little better than I did say 10 years ago.

That’s a wise sentiment few learn to adopt. Kudos. Seriously.

But I’d be slow to use the graphic as “The Orthodox View”. It’s more like “A Possible Orthodox View”. Consensus is less easy to come by for the Orthodox. This is both a good and bad thing. Makes doctrinal decrees harder to come by, but they also don’t paint themselves into very many corners because of it. Good and bad.

 

[Vonsalza]

Besides, the Orthodox view you’re representing isn’t exactly the same (as the Catholic view), since in their case, the office wouldn’t be ultimately tied to Peter and his successor if it can merely be transferred based on the next political see in the taxis (Constantinople in their view).

The function isn’t tied to any particular man nor city and how someone is chosen to fulfill it has varied across history - even in Catholic history. They’d argue that it was just as tied to Peter as any bishop of Rome prior to its assumption by the bishop of Constantinople.

The office is the Petrine Function, not bishop of Rome - as Peter was in other cities and later popes have presided from cities other than Rome.

 

[AlNg]

Please don’t tell me it’s because of something like the filioque. How sad if THAT was the cause.

It was the Roman Catholics who in their excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox listed the omission of the filioque as one reason for the excommunication.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I know the filioque was an issue, but I honestly don’t know the history or background of the excommunication. I also know the general history of the filioque – why it’s orthodox, but why Eastern Orthodox don’t think it should be in the creed, why the West added it, etc.

But from the Catholic view – at least now (and for a while) – this really shouldn’t be an obstacle to unity.

 

[Vico]

…
How would you say it?

So you listed particular churches of the one Church.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 30, 2000, the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.:

10 … the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches …

11 One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches. …

12 Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[catholic1seeks]

So you listed particular churches of the one Church.

But churches that are in schism, no?

I read the document, which is very brief and so I recommend others do the same.

My takeaway is this: that when we regard the Orthodox, for example, as a “sister church,” we are not saying that they are separate “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” of their own, since there is only One Church of Christ. Rather, they are a particular church (or communion of particular churches) insofar as Rome, too, is a particular church.

However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

So it seems that we have to admit that Orthodox churches are somehow part of the one Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

So you listed particular churches of the one Church.

Particular churches in schism are addressed in the Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[catholic1seeks]

So @Vico, if you were at table with members of three of the communions mentioned above (say, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East), how would express the Catholic view regarding their relationship to the one Church?

Would you say something like this: “All of you, as do I, belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but since you lack full communion with Rome, you are lacking a proper fullness that Christ wanted you to have”?

Or would you say more, or less?

 

[Vico]

So @Vico, if you were at table with members of three of the communions mentioned above (say, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East), how would express the Catholic view regarding their relationship to the one Church?

Would you say something like this: “All of you, as do I, belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but since you lack full communion with Rome, you are lacking a proper fullness that Christ wanted you to have”?

Or would you say more, or less?

CDF, 2007:

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Catechism:
817 … The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin: … 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers …

 

[Dovekin]

First, and most importantly, the Maronite Church. It never ‘split’ from the Roman church, so has a different place in your pictures.

Second, the topic as you present it is based largely on Roman priorities, and a particular group’s idea of Roman priorities. You can’t convince others until you understand or accomodate their priorities. “The guy over there in Rome” is not St Peter, but the Emperor, for some strands of Orthodoxy. This is a radical inversion of the anti-secular worldview of Benedict XVI. These are deeper structures than the filioque, which is just a piece on the boards where Rome plays Go while Moscow plays Chess.

IMO, the way to proceed is to listen. Make sure when you use terms like “bishop” you don’t mean “a church functionary, a supervisor” while they mean “a monk devoted to the spiritual life.” How does that spirituality manifest itself? What do you see in Catholicism when you think of bishops that way?

 

[catholic1seeks]

First, and most importantly, the Maronite Church. It never ‘split’ from the Roman church, so has a different place in your pictures.

I never mentioned the Maronite church, anywhere. Precisely because it never split form the Roman church is the reason why it doesn’t need its own line (in the chart) – it’s part of the Catholic Church.

Second, the topic as you present it is based largely on Roman priorities, and a particular group’s idea of Roman priorities. You can’t convince others until you understand or accomodate their priorities.

Huh? Roman priorities? No, the Catholic Church understands itself as the full extension of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in history. I’m (especially) asking other Catholics how they would nuance the Catholic view to include these Eastern communions, in order to be fair and honest. I thought I made that clear in the OP and other posts.

Of course, non-Catholics are allowed to give their (name removed by moderator)ut, but they will be speaking about the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” from their perspective. So, say, an Orthodox would try to be fair to include the (Roman) Catholic Church in their understanding of “apostolic Christianity.” I.e., an Orthodox must admit that, even from their view, it’s not as simple as saying Rome split or the Catholic Church came into existence in 1054.

and a particular group’s idea of Roman priorities.

I’m not sure what you mean by priority. Priority in what? In asking a question on CAF? But as to “particular group,” no, it is Catholic (and no “particular Roman group’s”) teaching that the Catholic Church has its fullest expression when particular churches are in communion with Rome. This is Catholic teaching, and this is the presupposition of the thread.

 

[Dovekin]

it is Catholic (and no “particular Roman group’s”) teaching that the Catholic Church has its fullest expression when particular churches are in communion with Rome.

The broader point is that every true particular church reflects the universal Church in a way that presupposes the papal ministry. Cardinals Ratzinger and Kasper discussed how this manifests in a famous and public exchange in the ‘90s. The ultimate issue was whether the particular or the universal has priority. Your articulation presupposes the universal has priority, a position taught by some in authorities the Church and not by others.

This is important to the point you are raising. The communions of particular churches known as the Orthodox or the Oriental churches are not comparable to the Catholic Church, but the communion that binds them is possibly an expression of the communion that creates the universal Catholic Church.

The Maronite Church is an example of a group of particular churches with a distinct identity like the Coptic or the Orthodox. Unlike the others, it is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church as a part of the Catholic Church. This gives a basis for looking at the other groupings of churches.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s all important information, but how ever we say it, these are still four main streams of the original apostolic community that now manifests itself today (since of course there were other breakaways and schisms but are no longer in existence today).

And that’s what I want all Christians from these four traditions/communions to realize: That no one has an exclusive claim to original Christianity, at least, not in terms of history alone. (The Catholic would have more to say about how we discern the fullness of the Church, for example.)

You bring important points to the discussion, but what I’m talking about is even more superficial, in the sense that some Catholics disregard these other traditions as merely coming into existence at a particular date – say a schism or council. Some Orthodox do the same (see above black and white tree drawing).

I just want us to all have a more fair, more nuanced view about what the “Original Church” means.

To me, the Catholic should have no problem saying that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (for example) are both original Christianity, and apostolic. The Catholic wold just maintain that the fullness of the Catholic Church necessitates communion with the Roman Church.

 

[AlNg]

So it seems that we have to admit that Orthodox churches are somehow part of the one Catholic Church.

I read in the news that a Catholic bishop had declared that a Catholic who had officially joined the Greek Orthodox church was excommunicated. Why would you be excommunicated if you are only moving from one part of the Catholic Church to another?
Also, in some cases (not all) in order for a Catholic to move to an Orthodox church, she has to renounce certain Catholic teachings. For example see:

 

[steve-b]

For instance, see how these communities originated:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)



And HERE is an example of an unhelpful, biased chart (from the Eastern Orthodox perspective):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

BOTH graphs are biased and wrong.

To make a point

I’ve asked this question since 04 when I joined CAF.

I put this question out to anybody who has the answer. And I mean no restrictions were put on who could answer this question. To this date, no answer meeting the parameters asked for, have been given …YET. But I’m waiting.

Here’s the question.

Where/when is the first time in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

That’s been asked in various ways, but no answer…YET. Even among Orthodox posters. I’m thinking the problem is with the restriction “properly referenced”. Possibly that’s been the problem.

The name Catholic Church, OTOH, can be referenced going back to the first century.

As an aside,

A definition of “orthodox” is correct belief.

Question #2

When any Church or Church’s leave Peter and those in communion with Peter, (the Catholic Church), THAT is NOT an orthodox (correct) move. Scripture and Tradition condemns such division.

Here’s the question I have

How can they who divide (went into schism) from the Catholic Church, call themselves “orthodox” OR “Orthodox”?

 

[steve-b]

catholic1seeks:

So it seems that we have to admit that Orthodox churches are somehow part of the one Catholic Church.

I read in the news that a Catholic bishop had declared that a Catholic who had officially joined the Greek Orthodox church was excommunicated. Why would you be excommunicated if you are only moving from one part of the Catholic Church to another?

Before responding, Do you have the reference?
AINg:

Also, in some cases (not all) in order for a Catholic to move to an Orthodox church, she has to renounce certain Catholic teachings. For example see:

Consider this example from canon law, of a Catholic --------> Orthodox.

Orthodox liturgy vs Catholic Mass

some interesting examples are used in this article.

In short I would just say, since it’s not okay to substitute liturgy, it’s not okay to substitute the faith either. See the canon laws mentioned