Orthodox church timeline w/graphic

[Charlotte408]

http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.gif

Another person and I were discussing how the catholic church is the first and true church, established by Christ. They brought up this graphic, from this website:

saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html

Now, reading it myself, I think, well, from the beginning it says ‘one true catholic and apostolic church.’
but then I dont know what the point of his argument would be? I’m guessing the schizm in 1054 was where he’s implying that catholics, in the sense we are today, derailed from what being ‘catholic’ originally was.

I guess what I dont understand is how he thinks it goes from catholic to orthodox church?? and why THEY think WE went off track?

 

[Charlotte408]

ok im working on it…

and this is where my line of thought is…

its almost, like, by looking at the timeline, that the orthodox church is trying to say that THEY are the true holy catholic church, and that at the point of where the schizm is, they went on by ‘orthodox’ and the church that branched off was the roman catholic church.

so my question is, do they have popes? because if Christ established His church on Peter, the first pope…and then we get pope pope pope, schizm-

wouldnt the church ‘bloodline’ so to say, STAY with the popes who can be traced back to Peter?? Given that was where Christ put his authority?

 

[Volodymyr]

Dear Charlotte

You are making assumption that is making your understanding impossible. Step back - from Orthodox point of view Christ may have offered Peter something, although if this was more than other apostles, it is open to discussion. But historically in early church Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter and Paul was great teacher. But church is founded on twelve apostles, not 1. Your belief about Bishop of Rome - that is the universal autocrat to control all other bishops under his foot, is something Catolics have come to believe somewhere after 1054 AD.

But Roman church departed from Holy Orthodoxy. Holy Othodox not in need of autocratic bishop to oppress other bishops and to try run other metropolia from one place, like Bishop of Rome does for Catolics.

 

[Charlotte408]

ok so forgive me for looking at it thru a catholics eyes, but thats all i know!

hence the question of your understanding of it…

So, what your saying is that, Christ had 12 disciples, not just the 1…and so…there shouldnt be just 1 pope, but maybe rather a panel of 12, like the 12 disciples?

Well then why didnt Christ say ‘Peter, you and the other 11 disciples are rocks, and upon those 12 rocks I build my church’?

no sarcasm at all, just probing…

 

[Nine_Two]

ok im working on it…

and this is where my line of thought is…

its almost, like, by looking at the timeline, that the orthodox church is trying to say that THEY are the true holy catholic church, and that at the point of where the schizm is, they went on by ‘orthodox’ and the church that branched off was the roman catholic church.

so my question is, do they have popes? because if Christ established His church on Peter, the first pope…and then we get pope pope pope, schizm-

wouldnt the church ‘bloodline’ so to say, STAY with the popes who can be traced back to Peter?? Given that was where Christ put his authority?

Correct, the Orthodox Church sees itself as the Church established at Pentecost and sees the Roman Catholic Church as being in schizm.

We have Patriarchs, the Pope is a patriarch.
And we hold that all bishops hold the authority of all the apostles.

 

[Nine_Two]

ok so forgive me for looking at it thru a catholics eyes, but thats all i know!

hence the question of your understanding of it…

So, what your saying is that, Christ had 12 disciples, not just the 1…and so…there shouldnt be just 1 pope, but maybe rather a panel of 12, like the 12 disciples?

Well then why didnt Christ say ‘Peter, you and the other 11 disciples are rocks, and upon those 12 rocks I build my church’?

no sarcasm at all, just probing…

No he’s not saying there need to be 12 “popes” or “patriarchs” he’s saying all Bishops hold the authority of all of the 12, and are therefore equal, with no bishop being supreme over the others.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\its almost, like, by looking at the timeline, that the orthodox church is trying to say that THEY are the true holy catholic church, and that at the point of where the schizm is, they went on by ‘orthodox’ and the church that branched off was the roman catholic church.\

Nothing almost about it. This is EXACTLY what the Orthodox say about themselves.

\so my question is, do they have popes? because if Christ established His church on Peter, the first pope…and then we get pope pope pope, schizm-\

This is the precise basic issue where Orthodoxy and the Roman Church disagree.

 

[Charlotte408]

What about this.

According to the chart, the ‘holy catholic church’ and the ‘apostolic church’ were one in the same, up until 1054 or so when the great schizm happened. then, supposedly the roman catholic church went their own different way, the original church maintained, but was now called ‘orthodox’.

Ok, so, in the beggining we were all together, all in agreement. There was Peter. Then there was…

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105) and so on and so on…until

Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54) <— somewhere around here is the schizm…

so…why all of the sudden did the orthodox stop believing in popes? they had them right along with us until the schizm? and if WE were the ones to continue the tradition, whereas now you say that its not supposed to be 1 man…than how are we the ones that changed, or departed from traditional ways?

 

[Charlotte408]

oh ok, so you have popes, but call them patriarchs? sorry if i spelled that wrong.

so there is a patriarch, and then bishops… and bishops have the same authority as the patriarch?

 

[Nine_Two]

What about this.

According to the chart, the ‘holy catholic church’ and the ‘apostolic church’ were one in the same, up until 1054 or so when the great schizm happened. then, supposedly the roman catholic church went their own different way, the original church maintained, but was now called ‘orthodox’.

Ok, so, in the beggining we were all together, all in agreement. There was Peter. Then there was…

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105) and so on and so on…until

Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54) <— somewhere around here is the schizm…

so…why all of the sudden did the orthodox stop believing in popes? they had them right along with us until the schizm? and if WE were the ones to continue the tradition, whereas now you say that its not supposed to be 1 man…than how are we the ones that changed, or departed from traditional ways?

The Popes were just the heads of one of many local churches. We still hold that the Bishop of Rome would be First Among Equals if he returned to the Church.

It should be noted that the title “pope” has little meaning for us. We use the title in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria (the original see to use the title, even before Rome), however even he is only second in honour.

 

[Nine_Two]

oh ok, so you have popes, but call them patriarchs? sorry if i spelled that wrong.

so there is a patriarch, and then bishops… and bishops have the same authority as the patriarch?

Sort of, a Patriarch is essentially the level above Archbishop. They hold certain rights and privilages which lower level Bishops do not have, however within out understanding all are equal as bishops, they just have different responsibilities, with the Patriarchal responsibilities (guidence of an entire local Church) being considered more prestigous than that of a regular Bishop (who only has a diocese).

 

[choy]

that timeline of course depends on which side’s point of view you are looking from

the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church would like to think that they are the continuation of the Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. the Catholics view the Orthodox as in schism, and the reverse is true from the Orthodox POV

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Catholic eyes aren’t bad eyes I used to have them too

The Church was founded on all 12 of the Apostles. Each of the Apostles went out and started Churches just as Christ commanded them after His Resurrection when he breathed on them.

St. John the Apostle, the care taker of the Theotokos, took her to Ephesus.

St. Peter founded a Church in Antioch and then with St. Paul went to found the Church in Rome.

St. Paul initially went all over Greece founding Churches.

St. Thomas went to India to found the Church.

St. Mark went to found the Church in Alexandria. .

St. …I forget who founded the Church in Ethiopia.

St. Andrew went to found the Church in Byzantium (the city later renamed Constantinople & is now called Istanbul)

I don’t recall where the other Apostles went, but I can find out for you.

The Orthodox Church is made up of all of these Churches. St. Ignatius taught that where ever the Bishop is and the Eucharist is celebrated…there is the Church.

Now, over time, certain cities became known as Patriarchates because those cities had more secular importance - Rome was first among them, next Constantinople (New Rome), then Alexandria, then Antioch and then Jerusalem. The Ecumencial Councils that assigned the Churches in these cities the title Patriarchate said that the reason was due to secular reasons, not spiritual.

These Churches (the above named Patriachates and the other Churches established by the Apostles or missionaries) all had unity with each other as they each had Apostolic Succession, they maintained the Eucharist and other Mysteries of the Church and they had the same Faith.

Time went on and as a result of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon held in 451 the “Oriental Orthodox” (as they call themselves) separated from the rest of the Church. These included, but not limited to, the Churches in India, Ethiopia and Coptics.

Time the Church continued, Ecumenical Councils continued, the Church continued growing. The Church in Rome began changing various things - added the “Filioque” clause to the Creed, in 1053 changed from using Leavened Bread for the Eucharist to using Unleavened Bread and other changes and also began claiming secular authority over it’s jurisdiction and so on.

In 1054, legites from Rome (who actually had no authority at the time as the Pope had died much earlier that year) gave an Excommunication publically to the Church of Constantinople. As a result, the Church came together and pronounced an Excommunication on the Church of Rome based on several issues.

At that time, the Patriarchates went from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The Church remained in tact, just as it had when the “Oriental Churches” left communion.

Today there are now 9 Patriarchates and 7 other Churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church aka the Orthodox Church. This link shows the current Orthodox Church made-up: ec-patr.org/en/links.htm

I hope that this helps you understand the Orthodox perspective.

ok so forgive me for looking at it thru a catholics eyes, but thats all i know!

hence the question of your understanding of it…

So, what your saying is that, Christ had 12 disciples, not just the 1…and so…there shouldnt be just 1 pope, but maybe rather a panel of 12, like the 12 disciples?

Well then why didnt Christ say ‘Peter, you and the other 11 disciples are rocks, and upon those 12 rocks I build my church’?

no sarcasm at all, just probing…

 

[SingleMomMonica]

oh ok, so you have popes, but call them patriarchs? sorry if i spelled that wrong.

so there is a patriarch, and then bishops… and bishops have the same authority as the patriarch?

There is no higher office a priest can be ordained to then that of Bishop.

Metropolitans, Archbishops and Patriarchs are just over larger jurisdictions than the average Bishop.

 

[KyivAndrew]

A couple of things on the Diagram in the OP. The Diagram on Orthodoxy conveniently doesn’t register the existence of Eastern Catholicism anywhere (i.e. Ukrainian Catholics, etc) or the Union of Brest in 1596 as explained here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The culmination of the Orthodox line in the original diagram states 1988 as marking a 1,000 years of Orthodoxy in Russia. This is slightly inaccurate. In 988, there was no Russia, there was no city of Moscow even then, there was simply Kyivan-Rus and the Rus people in 988 when Grand Prince Volodymyr of Kyiv had his State and its people Christianized. Kyiv today is the capital of Ukraine. The people of the time who later went on to become Ukrainians, Belarus, and Russians on their respective territories were called the Rus’ back then, with Kyiv as their Regal Capital. Labeling them as Russians then is historically inaccurate and blurs the real historical differences between Ukrainian history and Russian. Also at the time of the adoption of Christianity in Kyivan Rus’ there was still only ONE Church, though Kyivan Rus’ received it from Constantinople of course. It would better be said that 1988 marked the Millennium of Christianity for Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, if one wants to be clear.

As for 1988 and the celebrations of 1,000 years of Christianity for Ukrainians, I celebrated delightfully as a student, along with thousands of other Ukrainian Catholics, on a pilgrimage to the Vatican to watch the Venerable Pope John Paul II who conducted the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom in perfect Ukrainian at St. Peter’s to mark the millennium of Christianity. The Pope actually fenced off a whole week at the Vatican to celebrate 1,000 years of Christianity in Ukraine - Kyivan Rus. Unfortunately, Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine (or for that matter Ukrainian Orthodox like the persecuted priest Romanyshyn) could not celebrate as they were still imprisoned or illegal in the Soviet Union, and in 1988 there was only the one K.G.B. supported (at the time) Russian Orthodox Church.
So yes, 1988 marks the Millennium of Christianity for all of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. To merely state it as Russia alone - as the diagram does - is inaccurate.

Just my observations for now. God Bless, from a Catholic.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The Popes were just the heads of one of many local churches. We still hold that the Bishop of Rome would be First Among Equals if he returned to the Church.

It should be noted that the title “pope” has little meaning for us. We use the title in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria (the original see to use the title, even before Rome), however even he is only second in honour.

So what happens when two Orthodox Patriarchs vehemently disagree i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch (who appeared on 60 Minutes) and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. They already got in a heated round over Orthodoxy in a Baltic country. What happens, as it may well, should the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople wish that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (all three branches) should be subject directly to him as was originally the case in Ukrainian History before the 17th Century and not subject to the Russian Patriarch in Moscow: i.e. that Ukraine should have its very own canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who wins out in a conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow (which Church still sees itself as the 3rd Rome to a certain extent and is already raising a fuss over some of the EP’s pretensions)? Stating the bishops are all equal is one thing, but in the real world there are real differences and Someone has to be the decider of last resort in Orthodoxy. So who should decide the canonical status of Ukraine’s Orthodox Churches? Constantinople or Moscow? How does Holy Orthodoxy respond?

 

[Nine_Two]

A couple of things on the Diagram in the OP. The Diagram on Orthodoxy conveniently doesn’t register the existence of Eastern Catholicism anywhere (i.e. Ukrainian Catholics, etc) or the Union of Brest in 1596 as explained here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Probably because from the Orthodox perspective there isn’t much of a difference. Considering the term most often used by the Orthodox for Eastern Catholics is banned on this forum it should be quite clear that Orthodox in general are quite dismissive of Eastern Catholics. Whether this is right or wrong, it does mean the point you bring up is to be expected, and not very meaningful.

The culmination of the Orthodox line in the original diagram states 1988 as marking a 1,000 years of Orthodoxy in Russia. This is slightly inaccurate. In 988, there was no Russia, there was no city of Moscow even then, there was simply Kyivan-Rus and the Rus people in 988 when Grand Prince Volodymyr of Kyiv had his State and its people Christianized. Kyiv today is the capital of Ukraine. The people of the time who later went on to become Ukrainians, Belarus, and Russians on their respective territories were called the Rus’ back then, with Kyiv as their Regal Capital. Labeling them as Russians then is historically inaccurate and blurs the real historical differences between Ukrainian history and Russian. Also at the time of the adoption of Christianity in Kyivan Rus’ there was still only ONE Church, though Kyivan Rus’ received it from Constantinople of course. It would better be said that 1988 marked the Millennium of Christianity for Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, if one wants to be clear.

The modern Russian state has the same heritage in the Kievan Rus state as Ukraine does. The capital may have been in Kiev but it was not the only important city, with Novgorod being another very important city which holds just as much heritage in that empire, and was an equal founder, having merged into, instead of being conquered by it. Further the Ukrainian Catholics came to be Catholics much later than Florence, having come over as a matter of political expedience, after being conquered by Catholic Poland-Lithuania.

As for 1988 and the celebrations of 1,000 years of Christianity for Ukrainians, I celebrated delightfully as a student, along with thousands of other Ukrainian Catholics, on a pilgrimage to the Vatican to watch the Venerable Pope John Paul II who conducted the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom in perfect Ukrainian at St. Peter’s to mark the millennium of Christianity. The Pope actually fenced off a whole week at the Vatican to celebrate 1,000 years of Christianity in Ukraine - Kyivan Rus. Unfortunately, Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine (or for that matter Ukrainian Orthodox like the persecuted priest Romanyshyn) could not celebrate as they were still imprisoned or illegal in the Soviet Union, and in 1988 there was only the one K.G.B. supported (at the time) Russian Orthodox Church.
So yes, 1988 marks the Millennium of Christianity for all of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. To merely state it as Russia alone - as the diagram does - is inaccurate.

Just my observations for now. God Bless, from a Catholic.

And that chart didn’t say Russia alone, it didn’t mention anyone else. The fact that within the Eastern Orthodox Church all three nations are united under one Church called the Russian Church seems to vindicate it further.

Either way, none of that has anything to do with this thread.

 

[TheosisM]

Is the Orthodox distinction that, essentially, all bishops are equal but have different “privileges”, such as being the head of a diocese vs. a particular church, any different from the Catholic position? Besides the Bishop of Rome being able to “intervene”, in theory, in the affairs of other churches besides the Roman Catholic church, it seems as if the views on bishops are the same. If not, perhaps it would be helpful if someone can define what “first among equals” really means, and how it functions in practice.

 

[Madaglan]

A couple of things on the Diagram in the OP. The Diagram on Orthodoxy conveniently doesn’t register the existence of Eastern Catholicism anywhere (i.e. Ukrainian Catholics, etc) or the Union of Brest in 1596 as explained here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The culmination of the Orthodox line in the original diagram states 1988 as marking a 1,000 years of Orthodoxy in Russia. This is slightly inaccurate. In 988, there was no Russia, there was no city of Moscow even then, there was simply Kyivan-Rus and the Rus people in 988 when Grand Prince Volodymyr of Kyiv had his State and its people Christianized. Kyiv today is the capital of Ukraine. The people of the time who later went on to become Ukrainians, Belarus, and Russians on their respective territories were called the Rus’ back then, with Kyiv as their Regal Capital. Labeling them as Russians then is historically inaccurate and blurs the real historical differences between Ukrainian history and Russian. Also at the time of the adoption of Christianity in Kyivan Rus’ there was still only ONE Church, though Kyivan Rus’ received it from Constantinople of course. It would better be said that 1988 marked the Millennium of Christianity for Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, if one wants to be clear.

As for 1988 and the celebrations of 1,000 years of Christianity for Ukrainians, I celebrated delightfully as a student, along with thousands of other Ukrainian Catholics, on a pilgrimage to the Vatican to watch the Venerable Pope John Paul II who conducted the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom in perfect Ukrainian at St. Peter’s to mark the millennium of Christianity. The Pope actually fenced off a whole week at the Vatican to celebrate 1,000 years of Christianity in Ukraine - Kyivan Rus. Unfortunately, Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine (or for that matter Ukrainian Orthodox like the persecuted priest Romanyshyn) could not celebrate as they were still imprisoned or illegal in the Soviet Union, and in 1988 there was only the one K.G.B. supported (at the time) Russian Orthodox Church.
So yes, 1988 marks the Millennium of Christianity for all of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. To merely state it as Russia alone - as the diagram does - is inaccurate.

Just my observations for now. God Bless, from a Catholic.

The diagram does not show the Assyrian Church of the East or the Non-Chalcedonians either. I have seen some diagrams similiar to this one in which these grouops are also added.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Further the Ukrainian Catholics came to be Catholics much later than Florence, having come over as a matter of political expedience, after being conquered by Catholic Poland-Lithuania.

Well, thanks for knowing so much about Ukrainian Catholics? Political expedience? I take it you haven’t read any portions of the strong religious debate, on religious not political grounds between pro-Union bishops and anti-Union bishops. Read some of the works of the Harvard scholar Ihor Sevcenko on what was actually debated on ecclessial and theological grounds. They are couched in religious language and argue for Catholicism on religious grounds. I’ve studied the debate. They reflect sincere religious convictions as well. If we are going to merely state people like this convert merely because of political expediency we might as well state that in 988 the people converted from paganism to Christianity on political expediency because Prince Volodymyr wanted to marry into the Byzantine Emperor’s family and as a pagan he could not do that, so he had his whole Kingdom Christianized. The is reductionism. More was at stake.

In any event, I can’t see how my points were off thread when I directed them at the thread’s points. Anyway, that’s it. The Orthodox/Catholic dialogue too quickly disintegrates at times into ad hominen and I’m leaving before then, having made my observations.

Thank you. God Bless us all, Orthodox and Catholic.