A
AlNg
Guest
This seems contradictory if the Orthodox Church is a part of the one Catholic Church.
Please see:
Last edited:
Nuancing the "Original Church" to include Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As someone with the where-with-all to use online lexicons, it seems that the greek for “orthodox” is present in ecclesial writing from the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. Basil and Eusebius. Not particularly late, given that scripture wasn’t “done” until the doorstep of the 2nd century.
Another etymological dictionary gives “Orthodox Church” as first recorded in English as a formal reference to the Orthodox in the late 18th century - which is so late that it poses a direct attack on your implication that the question is somehow relevant to church legitimacy.
Muddying the waters further (for your device, anyway), “Orthodox Catholic Church” is not a wholly uncommon descriptor for the Orthodox Church.
No, it’s been answered almost as many times as you’ve asked it. I’ve seen a few of them. You just dismiss them because they don’t suit the paradigm through which you view the issue.
A translation roughly being “The Church catholic (or complete)” can indeed be traced back to second century. The Orthodox also claim to be this “complete” Church. They assume the term applies to them as well.
Sure. Which is why the Orthodox feel it was necessary for the Ecumenical Patriarch to assume the Petrine Function when they felt the bishop of Rome had expanded and abused the power of the seat to the point that he no longer validly served the Petrine Function.
In reference to the statement immediately above, the Roman bishop simply no longer validly fulfilled the function. Per them, THEY didn’t go into schism. The Roman bishop and his western Church did.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Some of the reasons given for the excommunication in the 1054 letter seem to be invalid. For example, one reason given was that the Orthodox had a married clergy. But even today in the Roman Catholic Church there are a few married priests. I don;t see why the Catholic Church considered that to be a ground for excommunication?
S
steve-b
Guest
Again, I’m not looking for your commentary, my question isn’t being answered. References properly referenced are required…steve-b:
As someone with the where-with-all to use online lexicons, it seems that the greek for “orthodox” is present in ecclesial writing from the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. Basil and Eusebius. Not particularly late, given that scripture wasn’t “done” until the doorstep of the 2nd century.
Another etymological dictionary gives “Orthodox Church” as first recorded in English as a formal reference to the Orthodox in the late 18th century - which is so late that it poses a direct attack on your implication that the question is somehow relevant to church legitimacy.
Muddying the waters further (for your device, anyway), “Orthodox Catholic Church” is not a wholly uncommon descriptor for the Orthodox Church.
No it hasn’t been answered. It’s a simple question with simple requirements…
Where/when is the first time , in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name “Orthodox Church”?
EVERYBODY fails to give references “properly referenced”.
The deal is, references are required and they must be properly referenced.
Where’s Peter among the Orthodox? He’s NOT there. They have no Petrine function. As far as the Ecumenical Patriarch, I’ll just give some history going back to 2002 from Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity He said back in 2002
"“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
AINg:
We are all part of the same human race. That doesn’t mean we’re one, nor unified in the way we’re talking about…
Canon 205, mentioned in that piece. It makes an important conditional statement
Can. 205 Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.
See those conditions?
- We aren’t visibly bonded,
- They aren’t the Catholic Church, so how can they say they believe in it.
- They don’t believe in the supremacy of the pope, (who Jesus established in Peter) therefore, they don’t submit to ecclesiastical governance established by Jesus.
AINg:
steve-b:
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
@steve-b These are interesting points, and I have seen you ask the “Orthodox Church” reference question elsewhere. However, it’s not really the point of this thread. I don’t want to turn it into an Orthodox vs Catholic debate, or a discussion over Petrine primacy.
I’ve been doing this lately to others on here so I’ll frame it the same way to you:
If you were at table with 3 other Christians, one Eastern Orthodox, one Assyrian Church of the East, and one Oriental Orthodox, how would you carefully express the “Original Church” to include their ancient and apostolic foundation as well?
BTW: As to the first colorful chart, I didn’t make it. Of course a Catholic wouldn’t express the history as if the “Roman Catholic Church” (red line) uniquely formed right when the “Eastern Orthodox Church” (blue line) did, after the 1000 year period of “Early Christianity” (grey line).
But it’s definitely a fair depiction considering all sides. Notice how, whereas Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church are shown as splitting off of the Original Church, it simply shows Catholicism and Orthodoxy as branching from the common Original Church, such that “Early Christianity” is now essentially expressed in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I’ve been doing this lately to others on here so I’ll frame it the same way to you:
If you were at table with 3 other Christians, one Eastern Orthodox, one Assyrian Church of the East, and one Oriental Orthodox, how would you carefully express the “Original Church” to include their ancient and apostolic foundation as well?
BTW: As to the first colorful chart, I didn’t make it. Of course a Catholic wouldn’t express the history as if the “Roman Catholic Church” (red line) uniquely formed right when the “Eastern Orthodox Church” (blue line) did, after the 1000 year period of “Early Christianity” (grey line).
But it’s definitely a fair depiction considering all sides. Notice how, whereas Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church are shown as splitting off of the Original Church, it simply shows Catholicism and Orthodoxy as branching from the common Original Church, such that “Early Christianity” is now essentially expressed in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Yet isn’t “nuancing” the “Original Church” getting to at least the original design? After all, we don’t want “nuance” to mean eliminate truth about the “Original Church” … do we?
Here’s what I would say.
There was no older “ancient and apostolic foundation” Than the Church Jesus founded on Peter and those in union with Peter.
NO ONE can argue against that.
What if they do argue against that? All I can say, knowing what I know, I wouldn’t want to be arguing that point against Peter, at my judgement.
Where did you find that chart?
Actually,
We’re not here to give a blind eye, or dismiss heresies or schisms or those in them. We’re here for truth. That graph was made by someone who avoided evidence
The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. The “Orthodox” came about after 1000 years. THAT’s when “Orthodoxy” showed up. Before that there was no “Orthodox Church”. And I would just say, Re: “Orthodoxy”, division from PETER is NOT an “orthodox” move.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Eh, an Orthodox Christian may say the exact same. It’s not so much about “avoiding evidence” as it is interpretation. Unless you think Orthodox Christians are intentionally ignoring evidence…
As for truth, of course. But this thread’s question is not “What is the True Church?” It’s about being intelligent in our knowledge of history. By asking this thread’s question, I’m not disregarding truth. I’m opening an exercise in how we have dialogue with other apostolic traditions that are just as convinced about their own origins in history as we are.
I believe the Catholic Church is the continuous Apostolic Church united in Peter from the first century on. But I DON’T believe it’s fair (for example) to simply identify the Eastern Orthodox as coming into sudden existence in AD 1054, or the 9th century, or what have you.
The Orthodox are real particular churches that have real apostolic foundation. They share the same beginnings that Catholicism does; they are just no longer in full communion.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Think of it like this. Pretend there was never the West/East split. No schism of 1054. You would still say that these Eastern churches were of ancient and apostolic origin, right? Not only because they were in communion with Rome – but because they had real ancient traditions and foundations in the Apostles and their associates. Even if they never left communion with Rome, they’d still have their own independent origins and traditions as members of the one church.
Now take away communion with Rome. As a separate communion of churches, sure, you could more reasonably say that the “Eastern Orthodox Church” came into existence 1000 years later: For they form a communion independent of Rome. But then one might also say that the “Roman Catholic Church” came into existence 1000 years later, because it is now its own communion separate from the Eastern communion.
If that seems fishy, then I agree. It’s because we use one criterion for the origin of Eastern Orthodoxy and another for the origin of Catholicism. In other words, it only seems fishy when we apply the same criterion for Orthodoxy (as you are) to Catholicism. And we as Catholics would never say the Catholic Church came into existence only 1000 years ago.
Which is why I mentioned that exercise in the first paragraph: Lacking communion with Rome, these Eastern Churches (which form the Orthodox communion) are still as ancient and apostolic – in the sense of their origins – as Catholicism.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
A few very obvious issues with that statement;
- You’re on a public forum, not a seminary lecture hall. I’ve provided that Eusebius and Basil of Caesarea used the term “orthodox” in ecclesial writing and that a site for English etymology gives the first instance of “Orthodox Church” as a proper noun referring to the Eastern Church as occurring near the end of the 1700s - well after the Church existed as a separate entity from the Roman west. If you want something more specific than that, your expectations for the setting are rather unrealistic.
- You don’t meet your own standard. “Catholic Church” (big “C”) is found in the second century. Not the first. If you disagree (as you claim to), then your own standards require your citation - which you do not provide.
I prefer MLA format as it was what was popular in my college days. - Since virtually all separate parties since Nicaea claim to be the “Catholic Church” (big “C” intended), your device seems a little arbitrary and superficial - particularly as your particular expression of faith also requires the addition of the word “Roman” to distinguish it from the other expressions of Catholicism. I wonder when that addition became the norm…
No, there have been plenty. Just none you accept for various reasons. This entire exchange is more-or-less a “QED” of that point…
In English, it seems roughly the 1770s.
You’ve been no exception, regardless of what you arbitrarily determine as “proper”.
Sure he is. His current heir is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
You mean to tell me you found a Roman Catholic theologian who disagreed with Orthodoxy?!?
Someone alert the press!
(I hope you detected the sarcasm)
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I thought Andrew was the apostolic foundation of Constantinople?
But I know what you mean – that the role that the Roman bishop had in the first millennium has since been transferred to Constantinople.
Again, respectfully, I don’t want to debate papal primacy. But I’d have to include that, in the first four centuries until (some) Byzantine theologians, Roman primacy was always based in Peter. That is, not merely the role he represents, but the fact that the Roman bishop succeeded Peter historically (apostolic succession) and in his role (as first bishop).
So the significance of this fact would be that the Petrine role cannot merely be passed from see to see as a church becomes null, for it is inherent to Rome as the chair of Peter. Like Cyprian says each bishop is Peter to his own local church, so is Rome the chair of the universal church because that is, historically, Peter’s own chair.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Amen. And as the Roman bishop who traditionally served this function expanded his powers beyond the intended scope of the Petrine Function, he no longer validly served it. The former Patriarchs that happily kept the Roman bishop in-check were silenced or censored by the armies of Islam.
The function still exists. It’s just that per the Orthodox, it’s no longer carried out in Rome. The E.P. is absolutely Peter’s Heir per the Orthodox.
Descriptors added to distinguish various developments in the Church. “Orthodox” came along as did “Roman”. And “Byzantine”. And “Maronite”. And so on.
No rule that says the Petrine Function must be carried out solely in Rome on either side of that divide. For the Orthodox, it Peter’s heir is in Constantinople. It’s Rome that left.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I absolutely see your point. I’m just saying that the Orthodox rightly imply that it doesn’t have to be carried out in Rome. See: The Byzantine Papacy, The Avignon Papacy. I’m sure we agree the Petrine function didn’t cease to exist when the man assuming it was residing outside the Vatican walls.Vonsalza:
I thought Andrew was the apostolic foundation of Constantinople?
But I know what you mean – that the role that the Roman bishop had in the first millennium has since been transferred to Constantinople.
Again, respectfully, I don’t want to debate papal primacy. But I’d have to include that, in the first four centuries until (some) Byzantine theologians, Roman primacy was always based in Peter. That is, not merely the role he represents, but the fact that the Roman bishop succeeded Peter historically (apostolic succession) and in his role (as first bishop).
So the significance of this fact would be that the Petrine role cannot merely be passed from see to see as a church becomes null, for it is inherent to Rome as the chair of Peter. Like Cyprian says each bishop is Peter to his own local church, so is Rome the chair of the universal church because that is, historically, Peter’s own chair.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
The issue is not location, but succession. The most ancient definition of schism (per Ignatius of Antioch) is setting up an alternative altar from the bishop. The Orthodox interpretation you give would be setting up an alternative succession, whereas the Avignon papacy, for example, maintains succession – even if not physically in Rome.
Just remember that the Byzantine theory is, well, Byzantine. It was not the earliest, and it does not express the entire East.
This is exemplified by the Syriac tradition, think Maronites.
But even other Syriac traditions as well. A theologian of the Assyrian Church of the East had this to say:
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
This isn’t much of a redoubt for your Catholicity, as the rules governing succession have changed quite a few times. Once the pope was appointed by his predecessor. Then he was appointed by the Byzantine Emperor. Then he was elected. And then it went back and forth between elections and appointments for a few centuries - whichever was politically expedient at the time.
Then you misunderstand. There cannot be succession from one who is illegitimate. It is not an “alternative succession”. It is the only correct succession as the Roman bishop no longer carried the function. If the EO didn’t appoint the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Petrine Function would disappear from the world - which is unacceptable to them.
Authoritatively? No, of course they don’t represent the members of Oriental Orthodoxy (the few that are left). But in sentiment? Everyone agrees that the Roman bishop assumed more power than Christ granted him.
But I fully agree that they all accept Petrine Primacy. To fail to do so would be direct disobedience to Christ. They just don’t accept how Rome wants to define Petrine Primacy
. They think such issues are best left to council, like we see in Acts and in the early Church.No man, not even Peter’s heir, is equal to or above Ecumenical Council.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Yes. they generally hold that the RCC Fell into heresy/heterodoxy With that
That makes it tear time
And the other reasons the people Legeyt excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople are even more ridiculous…
The suggestion above, that the Orthodox broke communion, simply isn’t based on history. While the initial excommunications were largely ignored by the church at large – even Constantinople and Rome– For centuries, instances like Western Christians sacking Constantinople brought full schism through fruition.
hawk
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Quoting doesn’t seem to work right on an iPhone…
Not from the actual eastern orthodox.
The monks on mount Argos maybe, but using them as a baseline is like using SSPV as a representative of catholic thought…
It is the Philly OK, and the post scares him and developments claiming universal jurisdiction.
There is no dispute as to room and privacy by any serious orthodox – the question is only about what it means.
I do not mean this as an attack on anyone here, but the biggest single problem for the last several hundred years is the focus on each side making up false positions of the other to attack and dispute. It is best expressed in the union of Brest, Who’s first article put it as “because we simply don’t want to understand what the other is saying”
hawk
Huh?
Not from the actual eastern orthodox.
The monks on mount Argos maybe, but using them as a baseline is like using SSPV as a representative of catholic thought…
It is the Philly OK, and the post scares him and developments claiming universal jurisdiction.
There is no dispute as to room and privacy by any serious orthodox – the question is only about what it means.
I do not mean this as an attack on anyone here, but the biggest single problem for the last several hundred years is the focus on each side making up false positions of the other to attack and dispute. It is best expressed in the union of Brest, Who’s first article put it as “because we simply don’t want to understand what the other is saying”
hawk
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
While you can find aI sorted quotes claiming. Such power, that was not well-defined, Nor generally excepted.
There is a clear a room and privacy from day one, but not to the extent of immediate jurisdiction outside of the western patriarchy. On the other account, it is beyond reasonable dispute that Rome was the court of final appeal for disputes all the way back to the beginning.
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
Understand that you Are putting this into a West-centric phrasing. Eastern thinking doesn’t seek to nail things down that hard. As a result, it may not be possible to make an answer that makes sense to both west and east.
That said, it would be the use of “nuance “ to try to remove The eastern church is from “original church”—- this kind of assume was much later western thinking that did not exist in the first couple of centuries. The majority – but definitely not all – early development came from Easter resources.
For that matter, many of the early bishops of Rome—were imported from the east for that purpose!
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
I could probably come up with more useless things to do than try Explain eastern thinking from the Roman catechism, but most of them involve herding cats and trying to make water flow uphill…
hawk
hawk
- Status