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

[dochawk]

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

Almost certainly in some along loss letter or another.

The “Sunday of orthodoxy” Appears on the calendar in the very early church. The fight against Arianism is the triumph of orthodoxy. The prayers even refer to “orthodox Christians everywhere”. The use of the term “Orthodox” For the proper Christian church was certainly well established by the time of Nice

Here’s the question I have

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

Almost word for word what the Orthodox ask about those who call themselves “Catholic”…



hawk

 

[Vico]

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

The Orthodox and Catholic are already doing that splendidly in joint talks.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/index.cfm

 

[Ridgerunner]

So then, in Orthodox eyes, is the Roman Catholic Church merely in schism because it lacks the common faith of the communion of Orthodox churches?

But on what grounds? Obviously, Orthodox reject papal infallibility, for example. But your explanation suggests that Rome is in schism from the Orthodox Church (in their view) because of unorthodox doctrine? Please don’t tell me it’s because of something like the filioque. How sad if THAT was the cause.

I am a long way from being an expert on this. What I know about it has come mainly from Eastern orthodox people on CAF and also from histories written by people not particularly favorable to the Catholic Church.

First, it needs to be recognized that while there are “reasons” and “causes” a very significant reason for the various separations is the acceptance or non-acceptance of some of the Church Councils.

The Oriental Orthodox, for example, don’t accept as many councils (or the determinations thereof) that the EAstern Orthodox do. The Latin Church accepts the most councils. The E.O. don’t accept the last few, but accept earlier ones up to a point.

That fact causes unity problems that are pretty hard to solve. How can there be more than one “fullness of faith” among churches that don’t accept some of the council decrees that other ones do? And furthermore, the E.O. can’t really have Church councils because they believe all churches have to be present at all “legitimate” councils. But since they consider the Latin church “vacant” with no patriarch and no legitimate bishops (in their view) there can’t be any more Councils and, indeed, the E.O. maintain that there haven’t been any since the E.O. schism.

So, with the E.O. and the O.O., they’re “frozen in time”. The “deposit of faith” is closed. With the Latin Church, that’s not true.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Uhh at the end of the day, each of the respective communions thinks they are the Original Church, so I don’t see how the question is just “West-centric.”

All communions must come to terms with the fact that none of them merely popped into existence at a late date. The Orthodox timeline above, for example, is just dumb. But so are some Catholic timelines.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Here’s the question.

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

I believe it was after the council of Chalcedon 451, when we find many Eastern Church’s falling in and out of heresy. After the Monophysite controversies, Pope Leo the Great Tome and later councils began to separate those Eastern Church’s who were teaching Heterodoxy from their Eastern sister Church’s who remained in communion with Peter’s Chair, were dubbed officially Orthodox Church’s.

The term Orthodox began to officially take ground, while the Eastern Church’s were being infected with many heretics and heresies. The Bishop of Rome and early Church councils began to separate and dubb those Eastern Church’s teaching or holding to Heterodoxy teachings, while other Eastern Church’s were dubbed Orthodoxy who held to the Apostolic teachings unchanged in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

All Catholic Church’s who have apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid priesthood are the true One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Jesus Christ builds upon Peter and His Apostles.

We are all joined in One faith, One baptism, One Lord, mystically in the body of Christ via Sacrament. Including those Eastern Church’s who are found to be holding to a Heterodox teaching, have valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession.

We are nuanced by diverse languages, liturgies, cultures which express the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Although, due to our human imperfections, our communion with each other remains to be seen, as we once were before Constantinople introduced it’s first Patriarch. It is here where Church history begins to record secular political powers vie-ing to infect the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is from each one’s cultural expression and practice of the Catholic faith, becomes barriers of understandings from our diverse languages and cultures, which appear to draw mixed views and misunderstandings.

Overcoming such barriers, leaves us to a final understanding and knowledge by divine revelation given by Jesus Christ Himself in Whom Jesus Christ gave directly the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose on the Whole Earth, while all the other apostles or apostolic successors possess these same powers of authority to bind and loose at the local level of the Church.

peace be with you

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

FYI, What comes out of Vatican II ecumenical efforts, is not to proselytize one Catholic member out of his/her rite into another Catholic rite. But liberty and freedom to learn and understand each ones Catholic rite. In other words, Latin Catholics are not to proselytize Byzantine Catholics or vice versa.

 

[dochawk]

[
The Orthodox and Catholic are already doing that splendidly in joint talks.

No, they arenot.

They are trying to reach common ground, and find what we have in, as a basis for unity.

They are very muchnotattempting to explain it in western terms, or for my western framework. Nor are they taking western understanding as a starting point.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

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…

Evidence requires references properly referenced. No references properly referenced, = no evidence, just opinion.

catholic1seeks:

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.

The One True Church is the one Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. arguments can be waged on the internet and other places, to try and refute that statement, but I say good luck to the one trying to convince Jesus on judgement day how He didn’t establish His Church on Peter, and that He really didn’t mean perfect unity was to be maintained.

catholic1seeks:

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.

Sin begins when it is committed, and continues as long as the one continues in that sin…

catholic1seeks:

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.

At that time they weren’t known as the “Orthodox Church” They were known as Catholics.

 

[dochawk]

Wondering as this is not West-centric.

It is the expectation that it can be explicitly stated in such away, and nicely boxed and tied with a ribbon as an explanation, that is western thinking.

The east isn’t really bothered by answering any either or question with “yes “– but it is horrific to the west, which defines the exact moment of the change during the consecration.

To explain it in a way that makes sense to both, the question cannot be put in a way that the definitions or expectations of one or the other are built-in.

hawk

 

[catholic1seeks]

At that time they weren’t known as the “Orthodox Church” They were known as Catholics.

I still don’t understand the obsession with the terminology.

At one time, Catholics weren’t know as Catholics. They were Christians.

And before that, Christians were’t know as Christians, they were followers of The Way.

And before that, followers of the Way were just disciples of Christ.

I believe all of these are equivalent. But an Orthodox could go on to say that Orthodox now assumes all these former titles.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I believe all of these are equivalent. But an Orthodox could go on to say that Orthodox now assumes all these former titles.

Except Vicar of Christ, of whom Jesus builds His Church upon Rock and gives to Peter the Keys to Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose upon the whole earth.
What is interesting about the Church. Only the Bishop of Rome (apostolic successor to the apostle Peter), and the local Bishops are of the divine office ordained by God. A Patriarch comes later and becomes an Eclessial office which can come and go and the Church can have many or none Patriarchates.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again, I’m not looking for your commentary, my question isn’t being answered. References properly referenced are required…

A few very obvious issues with that statement;

1. 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.

Okay, so this is the first time in writing the name “Orthodox Church” first appears, in the 1700’s?

Is that your answer?

Vonsalza:

1. 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.

Ignatius was bishop from ~69 a.d. to ~107 A.d. While he writes his letters on the way to martyrdom, in ~107 a.d. that is NOT the first time he has been teaching what he writes about, in his letters. He’s been bishop for ~38 yrs. Ignatius is putting into writing what he has been teaching for 38 yrs.

Vonsalza:

1. 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…

steve-b:

The parties are united. Not divided parties.

The only part of this point being “Roman” is that this is the Roman empire AND we’re talking about the Church of Rome, the chair of Peter. Nicaea in 2 councils validates the name of the Church that has been known as Catholic from the beginning.

steve-b:

Where’s Peter among the Orthodox? He’s NOT there.

Vonsalza:

Sure he is. His current heir is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.

REALLY?

The Russians don’t know He’s Peter. They make up over 58% of E Orthodoxy.

 

[steve-b]

At that time they weren’t known as the “Orthodox Church” They were known as Catholics.

It’s NOT either/or it’s both

Christian Acts 11:26

kataholos Ekklesia = Catholic Church Acts 9:31

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

When I say “the Catholic Church” I mean the Catholic Church as I understand her: any and all particular churches in communion with the church of Rome with the Pope as her head. When I need to speak about the historical church before any schisms arose I refer to “Apostolic Christianity”. I understand that this term might still ruffle some Protestant and/or Restorationist and Pentecostal feathers, but I frankly don’t care. You can’t please everyone.

 

[steve-b]

All Catholic Church’s who have apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid priesthood are the true One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Jesus Christ builds upon Peter and His Apostles.

We are all joined in One faith, One baptism, One Lord, mystically in the body of Christ via Sacrament. Including those Eastern Church’s who are found to be holding to a Heterodox teaching, have valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession.

We are nuanced by diverse languages, liturgies, cultures which express the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Although, due to our human imperfections, our communion with each other remains to be seen, as we once were before Constantinople introduced it’s first Patriarch. It is here where Church history begins to record secular political powers vie-ing to infect the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is from each one’s cultural expression and practice of the Catholic faith, becomes barriers of understandings from our diverse languages and cultures, which appear to draw mixed views and misunderstandings.

Overcoming such barriers, leaves us to a final understanding and knowledge by divine revelation given by Jesus Christ Himself in Whom Jesus Christ gave directly the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose on the Whole Earth, while all the other apostles or apostolic successors possess these same powers of authority to bind and loose at the local level of the Church.

peace be with you

Canon law gives us this answer

Note :the conditions

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

 

[Vico]

Vico:

[
The Orthodox and Catholic are already doing that splendidly in joint talks.

No, they arenot.

They are trying to reach common ground, and find what we have in, as a basis for unity.

They are very muchnotattempting to explain it in western terms, or for my western framework. Nor are they taking western understanding as a starting point.

hawk

In fact they have explained eastern thinking from a Roman view for it involves theological elements. For example:

6. In order to achieve this common understanding of primacy and synodality, it is necessary to reflect upon history. God reveals himself in history. It is particularly important to undertake together a theological reading of the history of the Church’s liturgy, spirituality, institutions and canons, which always have a theological dimension.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

 

[poche]

The Assyrian Church of the East split with Rome due to the teachings of Nestorius and their own isolated circumstances.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches split with the Catholic Church over the Christological question related to monophysism,
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Catholic Church over the authority of the Pope.

 

[Dovekin]

The term “Orthodox Church” is a distraction. No one uses it as analogous to the Catholic Church. An Orthodox church is a particular church that subscribes to “the Orthodox way.” Orthodoxy can be used as a term for the larger collection of all these churches, but Orthodox Church is a late terminology that no one really endorses.

Orthodox developed out of the letter from the apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Doxe-, it seems right, is used to describe the consensus reached. When arguments erupted over what exactly “seemed right” one party was described as orthodoxe-, as having the straight truth. But the essential meaning is in Acts 15, “it seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

 

[Dovekin]

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

So the Orthodox are Catholic?