2
- Status
2
2ndGen
Guest
M
Madaglan
Guest
Harpazo,
One could make similar statements about many of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
Instead of focusing on the differences, let’s not forget: ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate are now back in communion with each other.
2
2ndGen
Guest
M
Madaglan
Guest
What exactly makes a council ecumenical? Many so-called Ecumenical Councils in the West are only ecumenical because they are called such by the Pope. Also, many of the Councils after Nicaea II did not deal with doctrinal matters so much as abuses in the Church. Personally, I’m glad the Eastern Orthodox have fewer councils. I believe it was St. Gregory of Nyssa who lamented the need to call councils. Councils are called when there is a threat to the Church, often in the form of a heresy. And if you look at the books, the Eastern Orthodox have called Councils, even meaningful ones–but they do not accord these councils the title of Ecumenical.
M
Madaglan
Guest
If the Eastern Orthodox Church completely contradicts Christian history, then the Roman Catholic Church is in deep doo, too.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Jelly beans.
No bowl yet.
Think about it like this…all The Catholic Churches are jelly beans and The Pope is a bowl. We are all under one Pope…all in one bowl.
We are a bowl of jelly beans.
We are a Church of Catholic Churches.
The Eastern Orthodox Church(es) are just jelly beans sitting on a table. At any given time, because there is no bowl to keep them together, they are easily sifted like wheat.
But we have the bowl to protect us from being sifted because we are built upon Peter (The Rock).
Matthew 7…an oustanding prophecy by Jesus about who is the wise builder and who is the foolish builder, on what happens to the house built upon rock (Peter) and on what happens to the house built upon sand (man).
One Church has stood together under one Church Father (in Greek, “pope”)…the one built upon rock. The Catholic Church.
All the other scattered Churches born after the 11th century are like the house built upon man…scattered in pieces.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Start a thread. I’ll meet you there.
This thread is on The Eastern Orthodox Church (is “Church” the right word? or is “faith” a better description of several Churches that share common beliefs, but that are not united under one leader?).
M
Madaglan
Guest
Huh? The Church Fathers were Orthodox Christians. What I was saying is that the history that most people read today is written and translated by Western Christians with Western understandings. I was not referring to the ancient historians such as Eusebius and Socrates but those who translate and interpret them.
2
2ndGen
Guest
H
Harpazo
Guest
I didn’t mention ROCOR though. But could you expand on the Ecumenical Councils? I know there was a period when Constantinople was trying to appeal to the Monophysites by condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the Patriarch Acacius broke from Rome from 484-519. He took the Pope out from the diptychs because he did not condemn the Council of Chalcedon.
When they re-communed, the Roman See stated:
And those who followed Acacius out, when they re-entered Communion signed it and agreed to it. Those who signed it also agreed to the following:
Much more can be said on this by following this link.
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
M
Madaglan
Guest
No room for Christ?
The Orthodox Churches have maintained communion without the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome, on the other hand, couldn’t keep half his jelly beans from jumping out.
Matthew in chapter 7 is not referring to building on Peter but upon Christ and his teachings. The Psalms speak of God as rock of refuge, safety, and it is interesting that Christ utilizes the same imagery for his teachings.
And that Church is the Orthodox Church.
Right, like the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Churches, the Reformed Churches, The Methodist Churches, The Baptist Churches, the Mormon Church, etc.
A
Aramis
Guest
The term Orthodox Church is used casually. The union of them is normally referred to as the Holy Orthodox Church, but it is not an organized body in the sense of having a corporate status.Well, I’m trying to do research to discredit the claims of The Orthodox Church/Eastern Orthodox Church that they’ve never changed since the beginning of Christianity, but I can’t even find out what their name is.
So then, according to you, there is no “Orthodox Church”, just the “Eastern Orthodox Church” then, correct?
The Orthodox Church doesn’t even exist as an institution, there is not formally recognized orgainization called “The Orthodox Church”?
Note that the Coptic Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Churches of the East are three different apostolic communions, who, like the Catholics, consider themselves either the totality of, or part of, the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
The best source of information on the Eastern Orthodox Churches I’ve found online is orthodoxwiki.org with scoba.us/ being close, and OCA.org also being useful.
Amongst the Eastern Orthodox Communion, each national church is a separate corporate entity from the rest, and there is no primatial bishop for the communion as a whole, (tho’ the Ecumenical Patriarch would preside at pan-orthodox councils). In general, there is one Orthodox Church per traditional country, and there are more than 15 such autonomous and/or autocephalous churches. There are also a number which claim to be Orthodox but are not part of that communion… see orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_Churches for a list and orthodoxwiki.org/Autocephalous for an explanation…
Z
zerinus
Guest
Well according to the Orthodox themselves, apparently there is; but according to the non-Orthodox, apparently there isn’t. Each is looking at it from a different perspective. It is hard to say that one is right and the other wrong. Both seem to have a poing in what they assert.Well, I’m trying to do research to discredit the claims of The Orthodox Church/Eastern Orthodox Church that they’ve never changed since the beginning of Christianity, but I can’t even find out what their name is.
So then, according to you, there is no “Orthodox Church”, just the “Eastern Orthodox Church” then, correct?
The Orthodox Church doesn’t even exist as an institution, there is not formally recognized orgainization called “The Orthodox Church”?
zerinus
M
Madaglan
Guest
In mind, the Council of Ephesus of 431, where St. Cyril of Alexandria prematurely condemned Nestorius before the arrival of John of Antioch. Chaos ensued, with each party condemning the other. The Emperor, rather than choosing one decision, chose the decisions of all. The conflict between John of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria continued until the Formula of Reunion (433 I think) but the controversy between the Antiochenes and the Alexandrians continued well into the Council of Chalcedon and the councils preceding it.
I’d have to study my history of Acacius. As I remember, he formulated the Henotikon which was meant to provide an alternative to the Oriental churches to the Chalcedonian definition. I’d have to look more into it though.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Of course, the role of Patriarch is important in the governance of the Eastern Churches. This fact has been brought up especially by Eastern Catholics as well as at Vatican II in the Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches.
2
2ndGen
Guest
No room for Christ?
2
2ndGen
Guest
for an explanation…
Holy Orthodox Church too now?
So basically, this “Orthodox” Church never existed…it’s a casual term, but not an actual “Church”?
Ok.
Thanks.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well, I can’t say that their wrong in “how” they see their Church, but it’s like telling me there’s a ghost in the room.
I might not be able to see it, but at least show me some proof. Have the ghost knock down a chair or something.
I’ve come to understand the following about American Orthodox Christians. They are no where near the caliber of their authentic counterparts (The Russians and The Greeks) when it comes to apologetics.
They live in a different world where the definitions that we use (found in the dictionary) don’t apply.
They can’t get past 2 posts in a row without trying to deflect the focus of the debate into something else.
And…they don’t answer question directly.
Every answer (almost) is “Well your pope said this and your pope said that…”.
A
Alexius
Guest
- The Orthodox churches are one Church not because of a supreme human leader, but because they maintain the same faith.
- Rome excommunicated the Church of Constantinople and furthermore, all other Eastern churches becoming a singular leader in the West. The Orthodox did not leave Rome, Rome left the Orthodox.
- Connected to #1, that the Orthodox maintain the same faith as before the schism, yet Rome does not, should send off red lights. Such issues as small as the Pope taking over the role of declaring all canonizations after the schism, to issues of much larger proportions like his role of declaring dogma outside an Ecumenical Council.
- Before the Schism, councils gathered both locally and ecumenically without the 1) presence of the pope, 2) command of the pope and 3) final approval of the pope. In fact, most of the pre-schism councils were ordered by the Emperor. After an Ecumenical Council spoke, all bishops were responsible for accepting the decision under pain of anathema. This included the Bishop of Rome. Despite his respected chair, the pope was held just as accountable to all other bishops. Many popes were in fact deposed due to their falsities.
- Can anyone name one time when a Church Father spoke of the Pope having Infallibility when making a declaration on faith and morals?
- Can anyone name one time before the schism when a pope declared dogma without a council?
Alexius
- Status