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

[catholic1seeks]

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

You keep hopping to different points you’re trying to make. You originally brought up Islam here in an attempt to say that the Greek church used to be more influential – in contrast to the (Roman) Catholic Church. But what are we talking about? A post-schism situation, or merely the prominence of a specific culture within the universal church? The Greeks were in communion with Rome pre-Islam, and sure, they were influential.

No it doesn’t.

Yes. It. Does. You don’t have to agree it’s the strongest argument, and I don’t either! I initially brought it up when I spoke about the overall framework — when looking at the big picture, all of the evidence, etc. Pretend for a moment you didn’t know a thing about Catholicism, Orthodoxy — No Christian history.

But now pretend you knew that Jesus Christ, God’s own Revelation, decided to establish a visible church as the means of maintaining his teaching and carrying on his mission of salvation. Would you think it MORE probable, or LESS probable, that the authentic church would have a more prominent place in Christian history?

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.

Again, reference point. Start with Jesus founding a church.

 

[Vonsalza]

If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered.

Weird. So is that proof that the Turkish postal system wants you to call it “Istanbul”, or that it actually doesn’t exist anymore?

Probably, the latter, right? :crazy_face:

Peter is still there.

Whatever you say. It’s just not technically Rome. It’s outside it. Really, he’s the “Bishop of Vatican City”.

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.

Sure. That’s still early enough in Church history that the papal power-grab wasn’t very well underway. I have no problem agreeing that the Petrine Function was in Rome during the day of Irenaeus. No Problem at all.

Show me specifically where Jesus said Peter was just 1st among equals and really NOT the one to rule the Church

Show me where Jesus names Peter as infallible, immediate and supreme! If the schism-factory that is the Roman Church were ever able to do that, much grief could have been saved in the history of Christendom.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s still early enough in Church history that the papal power-grab wasn’t very well underway.

The myth of “papal power-grab” is well-written into the mythology of Orthodox origins, but it’s very imprecise. It’s a simple to make an accusation, but harder to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

For with this in mind, every clerical office has been subject to a “power grab.” ALL churches that have a clerical class are subject to the “power grab” — what with their distinct vestments and hierarchical positioning. Do you not think that the patriarchs of old have not developed their own “power grabs”?

The earliest Bishops were products of “power grab,” as they went from single pastors of their respective communities – hardly distinguishable from other Christians, besides their presiding role at the sacraments and teaching function – to administrators post-Constantine.

The Ecumenical Patriarch himself is not exempt from “power grab.” Around the second schism, 1054, Constantinople was keen to exalt their patriarch’s prestige and influence.

And don’t ignore the “power grab” of Byzantine influence – dare I say jurisdiction – over other Eastern communities.

You see, we need a precise reason to say that the “power grab” was enough to legitimize schism. How can we know when the “power grab” of the Roman primacy – of the STEWARD of the Church (again, see Jesus’ own words about the keys) — reaches a degree that nullifies the Petrine succession in Rome?

Who decides? How do we know?

 

[Vonsalza]

The myth of “papal power-grab” is well-written into the mythology of Orthodox origins…

It’s also exceedingly well-written in the “mythology” taught by secular historians.

Catholic historians too. They just call it “development”.

Who decides? How do we know?

Every Catholic-labeled “schismatic” in history has a similar answer;

“The Spirit in Truth” is a good approximation. And the fact that the papacy seems to provide consistent schism-fuel would potentially indicate some legitimacy to the argument.

So much for a source of unity, right?

 

[steve-b]

Weird. So is that proof that the Turkish postal system wants you to call it “Istanbul”, or that it actually doesn’t exist anymore?

Probably, the latter, right? :crazy_face:

point being , if you want your check, Istanbul is the address NOT Constantinople

steve-b:

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.

Vonsalza:

Sure. That’s still early enough in Church history that the papal power-grab wasn’t very well underway. I have no problem agreeing that the Petrine Function was in Rome during the day of Irenaeus. No Problem at all.

you have a problem.

Show me specifically where Jesus said Peter was just 1st among equals and really NOT the one to rule the Church

Vonsalza:

Show me where Jesus names Peter as infallible, immediate and supreme! If the schism-factory that is the Roman Church was ever able to do that, much grief could have been saved in the history if Christendom.

Lk 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

• Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
• Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected by Jesus
• Did Jesus confirm this one would rule over Our Lord’s kingdom? Yes
• Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
• Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? The one Jesus mentions by name. Peter. Argument over.

the apostles are going to be obedient to what Jesus has established in Peter. After all, Jesus just ended their argument over this very point…

as an aside, who got them into this argument in the first place? Satan. Who is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus? Satan Who is vested in keeping this argument going? Satan

Think about who you are serving by endless arguing over this same point over and over again.

 

[Vonsalza]

point being , if you want your check, Istanbul is the address NOT Constantinople

Ah! So then it does exist! The Turks just want you to use the Arabic name for it.

Understandable.

steve-b:

you have a problem.

Show me specifically where Jesus said Peter was just 1st among equals and really NOT the one to rule the Church

I’m more than happy admitting that Peter was intended to lead the Church.

But if you want to say his leadership is immediate, infallible and supreme (and that it passed to his successors) then that’s on you, Steve.

Sorry. I know it’s an impossible task to meet without substantial interpretive (read:grey) license.

• Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? The one Jesus mentions by name. Peter. Argument over.

I totally agree!

And Peter is in Constantinople (or what you may want to call “Istanbul”). Won’t be the first time he wasn’t in the Vatican. Like when he was in Antioch. Or in Avignon (but it was likely lost before the rise of the Avignon papacy and the Western Schism that it launched, to be frank).

the apostles are going to be obedient to what Jesus has established in Peter. After all, Jesus just ended their argument over this very point…

Be sure, Steve, the Orthodox don’t argue the necessity of the Petrine Function. To do so would put them at odds with Christ.

It just didn’t stay in Rome…

as an aside, who got them into this argument in the first place? Satan. Who is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus? Satan Who is vested in keeping this argument going? Satan

Yes. If the men who held the Petrine seat in Rome didn’t incrementally slide toward ego and pride, what a wonderful and unified Church we’d share.

Alas…

Think about who you are serving by endless arguing over this same point over and over again.

You too, Steve. You too.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

point being , if you want your check, Istanbul is the address NOT Constantinople

Ah! So then it does exist! The Turks just want you to use the Arabic name for it.

Understandable.

steve-b:

you have a problem.

Show me specifically where Jesus said Peter was just 1st among equals and really NOT the one to rule the Church

I’m more than happy admitting that Peter was intended to lead the Church.

But if you want to say his leadership is immediate, infallible and supreme (and that it passed to his successors) then that’s on you, Steve.

Sorry. I know it’s an impossible task to meet without substantial interpretive (read:grey) license.

• Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? The one Jesus mentions by name. Peter. Argument over.

I totally agree!

And Peter is in Constantinople (or what you may want to call “Istanbul”). Won’t be the first time he wasn’t in the Vatican. Like when he was in Antioch. Or in Avignon (but it was likely lost before the rise of the Avignon papacy and the Western Schism that it launched, to be frank).

the apostles are going to be obedient to what Jesus has established in Peter. After all, Jesus just ended their argument over this very point…

Be sure, Steve, the Orthodox don’t argue the necessity of the Petrine Function. To do so would put them at odds with Christ.

It just didn’t stay in Rome…

as an aside, who got them into this argument in the first place? Satan. Who is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus? Satan Who is vested in keeping this argument going? Satan

Yes. If the men who held the Petrine seat in Rome didn’t incrementally slide toward ego and pride, what a wonderful and unified Church we’d share.

Alas…

Think about who you are serving by endless arguing over this same point over and over again.

You too, Steve. You too.

You have no answers. Just a lot of your personal opinions backed up by your personal opinions… I’ve done my part in this. 40 posts on my part is probably 38 too many .

 

[Vonsalza]

You have no answers. Just a lot of your personal opinions backed up by your personal opinions…

Welcome to “religion”, Steve.

I’ve done my part in this. 40 posts on my part is probably 38 too many .

Farewell!

 

[catholic1seeks]

Every Catholic-labeled “schismatic” in history has a similar answer;

As far as I can think, every schismatic in Catholic history is one who sets up his altar apart from the established succession of bishops.

The case of Rome is not an example of this. In fact, by your reckoning, Constantinople is the schismatic one since they are the ones setting up a new altar – a new Peter.

You seem to be saying that Rome became defunct by entering into the heresy of papal power grab. Who decides when this is no longer a matter of degree — but of qualitative difference? Who decided, and when, that a certain level of papal primacy justified schism? Does Constantinople get to decide this? Why?

 

[Vonsalza]

As far as I can think, every schismatic in Catholic history is one who sets up his altar apart from the established succession of bishops.

I don’t think that’s even remotely true. Both major branches of Orthodoxy have an established succession going back to the apostles. The western schism where there were up to three popes at once all bore succession. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1098 or 99, they selected a Latin patriarch of Jerusalem despite a Greek bishop already being there and holding the title. The Church of England came directly out of the Catholic Church as well. To them, their bishops didn’t stop being bishops and so they went on appointing successors as they always did.

The case of Rome is not an example of this. In fact, by your reckoning, Constantinople is the schismatic one since they are the ones setting up a new altar – a new Peter.

No they aren’t. They’re continuing the succession after Rome profaned her seat to the point they could no longer recognize it in good conscience.

You seem to be saying that Rome became defunct by entering into the heresy of papal power grab. Who decides when this is no longer a matter of degree — but of qualitative difference?

Already discussed. Bishops being led by the Spirit in truth.

Who decided, and when, that a certain level of papal primacy justified schism?

Progressively the virtual entirely of the eastern Church and its bishops. As we’ve discussed before, the east-west schism was a process. Rome or the broader Latin Church would commit another over-reach, a few more Greek bishops would shake their head in disgust and look toward the second Church in honor - Constantinople - for Petrine leadership.

It’s a function. Not a man. As the Honorius and Borgia papacies evidenced in spades.

 

[steve-b]

Every Catholic-labeled “schismatic” in history has a similar answer;

900+ years after the schism from the Catholic Church, the Orthodox try and call a Pan Orthodox Council, in June 2016, but the Russian, Bilgarian, Antiochan, and Georgian Churches deliberately chose not to attend. The Russian Orthodox alone, make up the majority of Orthodoxy. Add the others as well who chose not to attend, the title Pan for the council, couldn’t be used.

I can’t think of a single instance where the pope called a council (as in ecumenical) and a majority of the Church, via representatives, deliberately chose not to attend.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t think that’s even remotely true. Both major branches of Orthodoxy have an established succession going back to the apostles. The western schism where there were up to three popes at once all bore succession. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1098 or 99, they selected a Latin patriarch of Jerusalem despite a Greek bishop already being there and holding the title. The Church of England came directly out of the Catholic Church as well. To them, their bishops didn’t stop being bishops and so they went on appointing successors as they always did.

And all these schismatic cases are indeed schisms, and wrong. Whether one is a true bishop is a different question: Of course you can be a true bishop but be in schism. The “Western Schism” case is no different.

No they aren’t. They’re continuing the succession after Rome profaned her seat to the point they could no longer recognize it in good conscience.

Who is they? Constantinople? Why did that church get to decide Rome was in heresy? Can you point to where Eastern Christians first acknowledged Papal power abuse as a heresy and justification for schism? (Not that I don’t believe there isn’t evidence of Easterners arguing this — of course there is, eventually. But I hope this illustrates the arbitrariness of deciding when and how the first see in the Church becomes defunct.).

Progressively the virtual entirely of the eastern Church and its bishops. As we’ve discussed before, the east-west schism was a process. Rome or the broader Latin Church would commit another over-reach, a few more Greek bishops would shake their head in disgust and look toward the second Church in honor - Constantinople - for Petrine leadership.

Schism is like a light switch. It’s either on or off. True, the estrangement was gradual, so in that sense, the schism was not precisely one event. But when it comes to saying that Roman abuse justifies schism – justifies Constantinople assuming the Petrine office (as you say) – then it is VERY important we know just when this “on/off” moment is.

When was the last Roman bishop to legitimately hold the primacy? How do we know? Who decides?

 

[Vonsalza]

When was the last Roman bishop to legitimately hold the primacy? How do we know? Who decides?

You’re still not getting it.

If the schism was a process, then there is no one date. There is no one event. To ask for one is to fail to understand the issue.

It’s like asking “When did all the people arrive at the conference?” when there was a steady stream of entrants for the full hour before it began. There is no “one time” everyone showed up. Some arrived an hour before. Others 30 mins before. Others 5 mins after it officially began.

One Church would took away from power-drunk Rome after what it considered a particularly heinous offense. Another would look away after a different offense. So “who was the last valid Roman pope before Constantinople assumed the Petrine Function” would be answered differently depending on which historic Church you asked.

Process. Gradual. Spanning a millennium.

 

[Vonsalza]

So also continues measuring Orthodox ecclesial function by Roman standards as if the goal was to be “Roman Catholicism 2.0”.

Shakes head

In Orthodoxy, the Primus is neither supreme nor infallible nor immediate. I don’t think some people get that…

 

[steve-b]

The information I gave came from this source http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...absence-saves-patriarchate-of-constantinoples

Note: The pope sent delegates to that council. and they were refused attendance. The Orthodox can attend an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You’re still not getting it.

If the schism was a process, then there is no one date. There is no one event. To ask for one is to fail to understand the issue.

Then let’s not conflate the “schism” (estrangement of East and West) with the particular issue of the Pope/petrine office.

The schism was gradual in terms of the East-West estrangement (or what became knows as a “schism”) — culturally, politically, theologically, etc…

But when we’re talking about the specific Petrine office, which, in your view (of the Orthodox view), can switch from various sees and successions (from Peter’s historical successor in Rome to the succession of bishops in Constantinople, for example).

If this Petrine office is based in Christ’s constitution of the Church, then it’s not just a matter of degree (i.e., in AD 60, Peter held the Petrine office in a 100% fashion, but in AD 1050 the bishop of Rome held the Petrine Office in a 60% fashion because of power abuse). You can’t talk about a gradual abandonment of the office itself. The man in Rome either has the office, or he doesn’t.

The Petrine office is either off or on. When did Rome no longer have it? At what specific pope did it switch from Rome to Constantinople — or at least, which was the last Pope to occupy the Petrine Office? How do we know? Who decides?

 

[Vonsalza]

Then let’s not conflate the “schism” (estrangement of East and West) with the particular issue of the Pope/petrine office.

As the perceived abuses and neglect by the Roman bishop drove it, that doesn’t make much sense. It’s like asking not to conflate our flat tire with the nail we just ran over…

But when we’re talking about the specific Petrine office, which, in your view (of the Orthodox view), can switch from various sees and successions (from Peter’s historical successor in Rome to the succession of bishops in Constantinople, for example).

Absolutely. Peter was the first pope when he was in Jerusalem. Ditto Antioch. Ditto Rome. And per the Catholic interpretation of history, Ditto when the continuing office was carried out from any other city, particularly Avignon.

It’s a function that can be carried out anywhere. If the pope were on the moon, he wouldn’t be any less “pope” for it.

If this Petrine office is based in Christ’s constitution of the Church, then it’s not just a matter of degree

Right. I’m not aware of anyone saying “we’ll submit to this guy 50% of the way…” They followed his lead until they felt he invalidated it, then for them the Petrine function fell to the second Church in honor - which was Constantinople. As time went on and the perception of papal abuse grew, more and more Churches did this - a la “process”.

The Petrine office is either off or on. When did Rome no longer have it? At what specific pope did it switch from Rome to Constantinople

The answer stays the same regardless how many times you ask it. It depends on which Church. To illustrate (as I don’t know the exact dates), the bishop in Trebizond turned away from Roman abuse in year x. The bishop in Thessalonica threw his hands up in year x+52. The bishop in Corinth year x+107.
Help any?

Over time, Roman influence shrank and Constantinopolitan influence grew as additional bishops followed suit. For them, the Petrine function is not immediate. It is not supreme. It is not infallible. Increasing claims made by the Roman bishop for these qualities lead to increasing defections from the east (and with the Protestant Reformation shortly after, the west too).

In orthodoxy, your bishop/Patriarch is your apostolic heir. He is your most authoritative temporal leader. The Petrine function is a primacy of honor in Church-wide governance. But as the Council of Nicaea established, he doesn’t have any kind of special immediate rule over anyone outside his own see.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Feel free to use this infographic I made

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

 

[catholic1seeks]

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

I updated the timeline. It was an error to leave out the (Assyrian) Church of the East – I was thinking it’s modern population was representative of it’s entire history. While I do not really know the populations or extent of the Christian communions throughout history, I tried to give an impression, at least proportionately.

 

[steve-b]

I updated the timeline. It was an error to leave out the (Assyrian) Church of the East – I was thinking it’s modern population was representative of it’s entire history. While I do not really know the populations or extent of the Christian communions throughout history, I tried to give an impression, at least proportionately.

graph is Still inaccurate