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

[Vonsalza]

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

Is that your answer?

Nope. My answer is that according to the online etymological dictionary I used, the first time “Orthodoxy” appears in English as a formal descriptor of the eastern Church is 1772.

Ignatius was bishop from ~69 a.d. to ~107 A.d. While he writes his letters on the way to martyrdom…

Ok, so in a back-handed way, you agree that there are no 1st century texts that refer to “big-C” “Catholic Church”. Very good.

Nicaea in 2 councils validates the name of the Church that has been known as Catholic from the beginning.

And again, everyone claims to be that “Catholic” (big-C) Church. Everyone. No exceptions.

And I’m glad you mention Nicaea. Was it canon 6 or 7 that prohibited bishops from meddling outside their territories and granted Alexandrian autonomy? Maybe both? I’m obviously a bit fuzzy…

REALLY?

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

Yes, they do make up the largest member Church of Orthodoxy. But in keeping with your own requisite standards, do you have a link that evidences the absurd idea that the Russian Orthodox Church officially denies that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the Ecumenical Patriarch?

Again, Moscow and Constantinople share squabbles just like Constantinople and Rome used to. But when you don’t think the Primus is infallible (which is the pan-Orthodox position), open disagreement can be readily and rationally expected. As an example, I think the EP has yet to recognize the OCA created by the Russian Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

steve-b:

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?

It appears so.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

they were Catholic

 

[steve-b]

Dovekin:

steve-b:

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?

It appears so. :wink:

They could be Catholic again.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Dovekin:

steve-b:

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?

It appears so. :wink:

They could be Catholic again.

They might be the only ones who are still Catholic. The Roman bishop wasn’t able to amass the power he presently enjoys until the armies of Islam subjugated the other 4 ancient major episcopal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

A Saracen sword cut the Roman counterweights, leaving the papacy unchecked within Christendom itself.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

Dovekin:

steve-b:

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?

It appears so. :wink:

They could be Catholic again.

They might be the only ones who are still Catholic. The Roman bishop wasn’t able to amass the power he presently enjoys until the armies of Islam subjugated the other 4 ancient major episcopal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

A Saracen sword cut the Roman counterweights, leaving the papacy unchecked within Christendom itself.

AFTER the Eastern empire broke from Peter, AND then further divided by ethnic groups, THEN the Saracen sword who was united, swept in and conquered the East. “They” tried to conquer the West also but the West being united pushed them back.

Had the East not broken from Peter, who knows what would have happened.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

Dovekin:

steve-b:

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?

It appears so. :wink:

They could be Catholic again.

They might be the only ones who are still Catholic. The Roman bishop wasn’t able to amass the power he presently enjoys until the armies of Islam subjugated the other 4 ancient major episcopal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

A Saracen sword cut the Roman counterweights, leaving the papacy unchecked within Christendom itself.

AFTER the Eastern empire broke from Peter, AND then further divided by ethnic groups, THEN the Saracen sword who was united, swept in and conquered the East. “They” tried to conquer the West also but the West being united pushed them back.

Had the East not broken from Peter, who knows what would have happened.

That’s a pretty over-simplified and rose-colored presentation of the history, there. For those not mired in religious zeal, the Caliphates stopped at Vienna, Malta and Tours because it had over-extended. While trying to expand the borders against western Christianity, they also had perennial issues with Egyptian, Persian and Arab princes who chaffed under Turkish suzerainty and would start the occasional rebellion.

Moreover, Byzantium fell because it was under assault on all sides. There wasn’t a border that wasn’t also a war-front; Slavs and Bulgars to the north, Turks to the east, Fatimids to the south and their “fellow Christians” to the west.

Verily, one of the daggers in the back of Byzantium was of Latin make…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

Dovekin:

steve-b:

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?

It appears so. :wink:

They could be Catholic again.

They might be the only ones who are still Catholic. The Roman bishop wasn’t able to amass the power he presently enjoys until the armies of Islam subjugated the other 4 ancient major episcopal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

A Saracen sword cut the Roman counterweights, leaving the papacy unchecked within Christendom itself.

AFTER the Eastern empire broke from Peter, AND then further divided by ethnic groups, THEN the Saracen sword who was united, swept in and conquered the East. “They” tried to conquer the West also but the West being united pushed them back.

Had the East not broken from Peter, who knows what would have happened.

That’s a pretty over-simplified and rose-colored presentation of the history, there. For those not mired in religious zeal, the Caliphates stopped at Vienna, Malta and Tours because it had over-extended. While trying to expand the borders against western Christianity, they also had perennial issues with Egyptian, Persian and Arab princes who chaffed under Turkish suzerainty and would start the occasional rebellion.

Moreover, Byzantium fell because it was under assault on all sides. There wasn’t a border that wasn’t also a war-front; Slavs and Bulgars to the north, Turks to the east, Fatimids to the south and their “fellow Christians” to the west.

Verily, one of the daggers in the back of Byzantium was of Latin make…

Allow me to quote you.

“That’s a pretty over-simplified and rose-colored presentation of the history, there”

Are you complaining that once the East broke from Peter, the West wasn’t anxious to come East any longer and join them in defending them in their battles?

Here’s one Western battle of interest Lepanto

 

[Vonsalza]

Allow me to quote you.

“That’s a pretty over-simplified and rose-colored presentation of the history, there”

Are you complaining that once the East broke from Peter, the West wasn’t anxious to come East any longer and join them in defending them in their battles?

Here’s one Western battle of interest Lepanto

Lepanto took place when Byzantium was 100 years in its grave, Steve… C’mon, man.

An excellent proof of my point would be the Latin Sack of Constantinople.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So far, I think this is a great answer.

After all, here were even divisions in the New Testament. We can admit common apostolic origin of churches while at the same time admitting that they do not possess the fullness of Catholic unity.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I know, but I am saying just as the titles for Christians changed over time, so an Orthodox would say that “Orthodox” assumes “Catholic” in its definition — just as “Catholic” assumes Christian, the Way, and then just disciples of Christ.

 

[steve-b]

Here’s one Western battle of interest Lepanto

Vonsalza:

Lepanto took place when Byzantium was 100 years in its grave, Steve… C’mon, man.

An excellent proof of my point would be the Latin Sack of Constantinople.

I am soooo glad you brought up that point. What the EAST seems to ignore, and hopes won’t get shown, is what THEY did in Constantinople, 22 yrs before that event yes BY THE BYZANTINES.

Massacre of Latins in Constantinople, 1182

Read the story yourself

to summarize

So
1.in 1182, Byzantines massacred 50,000 Latins in Constantinople and sold their children off to the Muslims
2. the Crusade of 1204 got derailed over a quid pro quo with Alexius, the deposed ruler of Constantinople. Alexius was offering to pay the crusaders to restore him to power for a fee if they returned hims to power. He didn’t pay and the crusaders took their fee out on Constantinople and in that sacking 2000 Byzantines / Greeks were killed.
3. The events of 1182 confused at least one Muslim chronicler, Ibn Jubayr, who mistakenly believed it was Muslims who rampaged and captured Constantinople in 1182,
4. How is it the Orthodox STILL remind Catholics of 1204 over and over and over again but conveniently forget 1182? Which was HUGELY worse?

AND

one has to have a total lack of a sense of proportion here in what happened in 1182 vs what happened in 1204

AND

When Pope Innocent III, got news of the event, he excommunicated all the crusaders who were involved.

So

Where was the head of the Orthodox in 1182 when the Byzantines massacred 50,000 Latins in Constantinople and sold their children off to the Muslims? Silence.

We can’t overlook that The Crusaders in 1204 knew well what happened in Constantinople 22 years earlier. And Latin anger towards the Byzantines over that, can’t be swept under the rug.

BTW,

Note: the authors of that article, one being # 5, Bp Kalistos Ware, Orthodox historian and author

5. Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church , (NY: Penguin, 1980), 70.

 

[dochawk]

People, please remember charity and your postings here.

The vitriol in some of these is getting near the level that causes threads to be shut down, posted a leader, and user suspended.

hawk

 

[catholic1seeks]

Wow. I didn’t know this…

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, let’s hope those are the extreme views.

While you might say the black and white chart is “mild,” it is a basic depiction of Orthodox self-understanding: Roman Catholic Church came into existence 1000 years late:

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

Of course, there are Catholic timelines like this too.

 

[steve-b]

I know, but I am saying just as the titles for Christians changed over time, so an Orthodox would say that “Orthodox” assumes “Catholic” in its definition — just as “Catholic” assumes Christian, the Way, and then just disciples of Christ.

That’s a good way for titles, and definitions, and terms to mean anything one wants them to mean… true?

 

[steve-b]

Well, let’s hope those are the extreme views.

While you might say the black and white chart is “mild,” it is a basic depiction of Orthodox self-understanding: Roman Catholic Church came into existence 1000 years late:

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

Of course, there are Catholic timelines like this too.

Can Catholics show, “Catholic Church” going back to the beginning?

Yes

Catholic Church & Christian.

 

[steve-b]

Wow. I didn’t know this…

glad to help

 

[Dovekin]

Canon Law allows this, maybe even encourages it. To not do it would, in some circumstances, be a violation of the law.

Which is not to say it was not an exercise of charity. The law promotes charity in most circumstances.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am soooo glad you brought up that point. What the EAST seems to ignore, and hopes won’t get shown, is what THEY did in Constantinople, 22 yrs before that event yes BY THE BYZANTINES.

Your biased interpretation of the history is showing a little bit, Steve.

The Sack of Constantinople was carried out under the banners of mostly Venetian and other crusading forces. On the other hand, the Massacre of the Latins was done by a mob in response to the military rivalries between Venice, Genoa and other Italian maritime powers spilling out into the streets of Constantinople.

You see, Venice would set the Genoa quarter on fire. Genoa would respond in turn. The citizenry was tired of all the intra-Latin violence (and its collateral damage) within the city and wanted them all out. A political coup gave them the opportunity they wanted.

Read the story yourself

to summarize

You’ve some serious issues with your numbers;

Concerning the Massacre of the Latins, the bulk 60,000-or-so Latin residents of the city fled before the mob set upon them. Exact numbers don’t exist, but most the Latins that could afford to leave had left since they obviously saw the trouble coming. As such, claiming 50,000 dead is on the irrational side of “high”. The body count of that terrible event is likely substantially lower.

Moreover, I’ve never read that the Byzantines sold Latin children off to the Turks. Do you have a reference for that (properly referenced )?

Concerning the Sack of Constantinople - it’s another situation where exact numbers don’t survive. But your claim that the city fell with only 2,000 deaths despite having a garrison of 30,000 protecting a population of roughly 300,000 is on the irrational side of “low”.

The Crusaders in 1204 knew well what happened in Constantinople 22 years earlier. And Latin anger towards the Byzantines over that, can’t be swept under the rug.

The notion that the Latin Sack of Constantinople was somehow justified is one that forces our savior to hang on that cross just a liiiiittle longer. Anyone suggesting it should be ashamed.

BTW,

Note: the authors of that article, one being # 5, Bp Kalistos Ware, Orthodox historian and author

5. Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church , (NY: Penguin, 1980), 70

And here you’re either inexcusably sloppy or twisting a bishop’s words in a spirit of complete dishonesty. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware’s contribution is this;

Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182 when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace.