Orthodox Church? Eastern Orthodox Church? Which is it?

[zerinus]

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…”.

Okay, looking at it from the point of view of an outsider, how shall we distinguish between what is commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy” and “Oriental Orthodoxy”? Both like to call themselves “Orthodox”; but they are very different, and I don’t believe they are in communion with each other. So there must be a way of differentiating between the two. How do you propose we should do that? What nomenclature should we use to differentiate between them?

If you don’t like the terms “Eastern Orthodox” vs. “Oriental Orthodox,” then you must have some other terminology in mind that would be acceptable to both. What would that be?

zerinus

 

[East_and_West]

Why innovate the term Pope for the bishop of Rome when he was generally referred to in earliest times as Bishop of Rome?

When the Western churches fell out of communion with those churches in the Byzantine Empire (which was the Eastern portion of the ancient Roman Empire) the majority of Orthodox Christians were Easterners.

The term Pope is not an innovation. It simply means father. Is there not also a Pope of Alexandria?

 

[Hesychios]

The term Pope is not an innovation. It simply means father. Is there not also a Pope of Alexandria?

Pope was actualy a term applicable to bishops everywhere (possibly priests as well). There was a specific time when the Popes forbade other Roman Catholic bishops and priests from using the term, but not originally.

This prohibition did not have any force in the east, not that it mattered.

Michael

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Hesychios:

Pope was actualy a term applicable to bishops everywhere (possibly priests as well). There was a specific time when the Popes forbade other Roman Catholic bishops and priests from using the term, but not originally.

This prohibition did not have any force in the east, not that it mattered.

Do you know about when the term received widespread use? I haven’t seen it in the ante-Nicene works I’ve read so far, but it may very well be the English translation. I knew the term was not exclusive to the Bishop of Rome, but I thought the term itself wasn’t used as a title until several centuries into the Church. I could be wrong of course.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Can you quote a Church Father that stated that he belonged to The Eastern Orthodox Church?

Can you quote a Church Father who states he belongs to the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[AutumnSakura]

I’m a little confused as to the OP’s original question. To my understanding, the “Orthodox Church” (Eastern Orthodox, Russian, Greek, etc) should be simply called the Body of Christ (aka The Church), but an additional signifier is needed to differentiate it from other groups that claim to be “the Church” (like those in communion with Rome). As to its leader, wouldn’t that be Christ? Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and the minor clergy are ordained by Christ to administer the sacraments which confer God’s Grace on us, and to handle “earthly” administrative needs. Prior to the Great Schism, there was no need for this additional signifier, since there was literally One Church clearly visible; hence, no mention of the “Orthodox Church” in the Church Fathers. This can be compared to many examples of Doctrine not explicitly laid out in Scripture (Trinity, Dual Natures of Christ…) that were later clarified in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Church and its Faith has never changed, but cultures and its administrative needs have, and given the complex nature of history, different autocephalous regions have developed, and in the US this translates into different jurisdictions.
2ndGen, I think (in my humble opinion) that if you wanted to debate the Schism and “who’s right/who’s wrong”, your question could have been phrased better. I also think that a debate about semantics like names isn’t very fruitful, since it’s easy to gloss over the real issues, and to miss out on a good edifying discussion. I’m sure that as a practicing Roman Catholic you can come up with a better prompt to a discussion than trying to defame the Orthodox Church by bickering about names and such. I love a good debate. Give us some real meat to chew on!

 

[Mickey]

1. Can anyone name one time when a Church Father spoke of the Pope having Infallibility when making a declaration on faith and morals?
2. Can anyone name one time before the schism when a pope declared dogma without a council?

Hi Alexius,

I have been pondering these last two points and I have some reflections.

It was always the council which declared dogma–never a Pope alone. The Pope was never above a council.

Knowing this, I began to wonder what happened in the year 1870.

Suddenly, a new structure was in place. The Pope can now declare dogma without a council. The Pope is now the Church! When the Pope was deemed supreme/infallible it rendered any future councils in the Roman Catholic Church to be null and void. There can be no more councils for the Latin Church. The Pope is the council. So I am thinking that VI and VII are not really councils.

 

[2ndGen]

1. The Orthodox churches are one Church not because of a supreme human leader, but because they maintain the same faith.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Can anyone name one time when a Church Father spoke of the Pope having Infallibility when making a declaration on faith and morals?
6. Can anyone name one time before the schism when a pope declared dogma without a council?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

What’s their name?

The Orthodox Chruch or The Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[2ndGen]

The term Pope is not an innovation. It simply means father. Is there not also a Pope of Alexandria?

I know…plus, what Apostles was called a Patriarch?

 

[2ndGen]

Pope was actualy a term applicable to bishops everywhere (possibly priests as well). There was a specific time when the Popes forbade other Roman Catholic bishops and priests from using the term, but not originally.

This prohibition did not have any force in the east, not that it mattered.

Michael

The Apostles called themselves and referred to themselves as “popes”.

 

[2ndGen]

Can you quote a Church Father who states he belongs to the Roman Catholic Church?

No. No such institution exists. How could they?



Now that I’ve answered your question, can you name a Church Father that states that he belonged to The Orthodox Church? or The Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[2ndGen]

I’m a little confused as to the OP’s original question. To my understanding, the “Orthodox Church” (Eastern Orthodox, Russian, Greek, etc) should be simply called the Body of Christ (aka The Church), but an additional signifier is needed to differentiate it from other groups that claim to be “the Church” (like those in communion with Rome). As to its leader, wouldn’t that be Christ? Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and the minor clergy are ordained by Christ to administer the sacraments which confer God’s Grace on us, and to handle “earthly” administrative needs. Prior to the Great Schism, there was no need for this additional signifier, since there was literally One Church clearly visible; hence, no mention of the “Orthodox Church” in the Church Fathers. This can be compared to many examples of Doctrine not explicitly laid out in Scripture (Trinity, Dual Natures of Christ…) that were later clarified in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Church and its Faith has never changed, but cultures and its administrative needs have, and given the complex nature of history, different autocephalous regions have developed, and in the US this translates into different jurisdictions.
2ndGen, I think (in my humble opinion) that if you wanted to debate the Schism and “who’s right/who’s wrong”, your question could have been phrased better. I also think that a debate about semantics like names isn’t very fruitful, since it’s easy to gloss over the real issues, and to miss out on a good edifying discussion. I’m sure that as a practicing Roman Catholic you can come up with a better prompt to a discussion than trying to defame the Orthodox Church by bickering about names and such. I love a good debate. Give us some real meat to chew on!

Ok, the topic of this thread is “what” is the name of those Christians that were excommunicated from The Church in the 11th century?

The Orthodox Church?

Or The Eastern Orthodox Church?

Which is it?

 

[2ndGen]

Hi Alexius,

I have been pondering these last two points and I have some reflections.

It was always the council which declared dogma–never a Pope alone. The Pope was never above a council.

Knowing this, I began to wonder what happened in the year 1870.

Suddenly, a new structure was in place. The Pope can now declare dogma without a council. The Pope is now the Church! When the Pope was deemed supreme/infallible it rendered any future councils in the Roman Catholic Church to be null and void. There can be no more councils for the Latin Church. The Pope is the council. So I am thinking that VI and VII are not really councils.

What’s their name?

The Orthodox Chruch or The Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[Mickey]

Ok, the topic of this thread is “what” is the name of those Christians that were excommunicated from The Church in the 11th century?

I’ll have to go along with the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church as my answer.

 

[2ndGen]

I’ll have to go along with the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church as my answer.

Didn’t you say that The Catholic Church excommunicated The Orthodox Church?

 

[East_and_West]

Goodness. 2nd. What is the point of this thread? They call themselves Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox, and even use the “C” word to describe themselves. Really, this thread has no bearing on the substance of the Eastern Orthodox religion. If you want to critique it, do so with regard to the errors of its teachings, not on nomenclature.
Erros of Eastern Orthodoxy:
christianorder.com/features.html

 

[Hesychios]

Didn’t you say that The Catholic Church excommunicated The Orthodox Church?

That is how a church would leave, by ceasing to commune. That is a violation of Christian charity if done without good cause. Cardinals Humbert and Frederic initiated the process of withdrawing the Latin church from Orthodox communion by excommunicating the patriarch and those who follow him. The Patriarch responded by excommunicating the Cardinals.

Cardinal Frederic a few years later became a bishop of Rome, and did nothing to heal the breach he had helped to create, neither did his successors until modern times.

In the meantime (during the crusades), the Roman Catholic church tried to take over the eastern churches by naming new Patriarchs for them, apparently ignoring the fact that the synod has always named the patriarch, so these “new” patriarchs had no authority, except with imported Latin priests and bishops and those Greek priests who were corraled into the small Latin police states.

Once the crusaders departed, the Greek priests returned to Holy Orthodoxy and the Greek bishops returning from exile reconsecrated the defiled altars (at least, the altars and temples which had not been torn apart for souvineers).

 

[2ndGen]

Goodness. 2nd. What is the point of this thread? They call themselves Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox, and even use the “C” word to describe themselves. Really, this thread has no bearing on the substance of the Eastern Orthodox religion. If you want to critique it, do so with regard to the errors of its teachings, not on nomenclature.
Erros of Eastern Orthodoxy:
christianorder.com/features.html

I just want to know what’s the “official” name of the supposed singular Church that exists of the remnants of the excommunicated Churches post 11th century.



That way, I can know how to address them (there are too many of them individually with different beliefs for me to address them as a group…wait, did I just go off topic and talk about Protestants? )

 

[2ndGen]

That is how a church would leave, by ceasing to commune. That is a violation of Christian charity if done without good cause. Cardinals Humbert and Frederic initiated the process of withdrawing the Latin church from Orthodox communion by excommunicating the patriarch and those who follow him. The Patriarch responded by excommunicating the Cardinals.

Cardinal Frederic a few years later became a bishop of Rome, and did nothing to heal the breach he had helped to create, neither did his successors until modern times.

In the meantime (during the crusades), the Roman Catholic church tried to take over the eastern churches by naming new Patriarchs for them, apparently ignoring the fact that the synod has always named the patriarch, so these “new” patriarchs had no authority, except with imported Latin priests and bishops and those Greek priests who were corraled into the small Latin police states.

Once the crusaders departed, the Greek priests returned to Holy Orthodoxy and the Greek bishops returning from exile reconsecrated the defiled altars (at least, the altars and temples which had not been torn apart for souvineers).

What’s the name of this non-Catholic group?

By the way, I’ve seen your signature used for The Catholic Church.

I’ve never known anybody to hate any Orthodox Christians (other than Orthodox Christians themselves) to be honest with you.

 

[Hesychios]

What’s the name of this non-Catholic group?

By the way, I’ve seen your signature used for The Catholic Church.

I’ve never known anybody to hate any Orthodox Christians (other than Orthodox Christians themselves) to be honest with you.

You display a considerable disdain for it.

Instead of building bridges between us, you sow distruction.

You drive even the most sympathetic Orthodox away, and don’t for a minute think that this hatchet work of yours impresses the lurking inquirers (whom are many).

Your enthusiasm is enormous, but you need to learn to channel it more effectively. Making common cause with Orthodox would be possible, there is so much hope for reconciliation, but you tear down where others are trying to build. You even attack the traditions and practices Orthodox have in common with Byzantine Catholics, clearly indicating a hostility for things non-Latin and undercutting Byzantine Catholics own apologetic position with non-Catholics. This being Lent for most of them, it is a struggle for them to maintain a proper mental attitude for the season while participating on this site.

This is backfiring on you, you are losing friends here.

Michael, that sinner