orthodox or catholic?

[Peter_J]

(Of course, if anyone wants to nitpick, my use of the modern term ACoE above is anachronistic.)

 

[Renarax]

Hi it’s the OP again,
I see this has become huge and too long for me to read everything. But I’d just like to share WHY I felt so about the orthodox church. I listened to a beautiful chant of Psalms 135 on YouTube (you should check it out) and loved it.
I now realize that it was wrong to think of going orthodox just because they chant better. But whenever I listen to that particular video, I am taken. Just wanted you all to know

 

[Randy_Carson]

Neither. The Church of the East was, broadly speaking, Nestorian, having rejected the Council of Ephesus.

Would you say that those who embraced the Nestorian heresies were “true Christians”? If not, you and RyanBlack continue to prove my point since you both made the same claim, I believe, concerning the “Church of the East”.

The one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ cannot fall into heresy. Ever. It is infallible.

Therefore, while the Nestorian “Church of the East” may have been larger than the Catholic Church during this era, it cannot have been the “one, true Church”, could it?

 

[RyanBlack]

Would you say that those who embraced the Nestorian heresies were “true Christians”? If not, you and RyanBlack continue to prove my point since you both made the same claim, I believe, concerning the “Church of the East”.

The one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ cannot fall into heresy. Ever. It is infallible.

Therefore, while the Nestorian “Church of the East” may have been larger than the Catholic Church during this era, it cannot have been the “one, true Church”, could it?

And who in this thread has made the argument that the Church of the East is the one true Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And who in this thread has made the argument that the Church of the East is the one true Church?

Gentlemen-

Orthodoxy claims that it is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that Rome has branched off from it. Catholics, of course, see it the other way around.

Now, it is my contention that the Catholic Church is today and has always been the largest Christian church. Here I acknowledge that the Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Anglicans (among others) are true Christians by virtue of their trinitarian baptisms. However, what I reject (until proven wrong) is that any one of these separatist movements could possibly be the true Church founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock. I’m not really interested in the size of the Nestorian, Arian or other heterodox groups. If they were in heresy, then they were disqualified purely on that basis alone.

One fact* that contributes to the preponderance of the evidence that Catholicism (and NOT Orthodoxy) is the mainline of Christianity from which all others have split off, is the simple observation that no other body of believers has come close to achieving anything like what Catholicism has done in terms of fulfilling the great commission.

You can try to minimize this fact with snide “bowing before numbers” comments, but that does nothing to diminish the reality that Catholicism, and not Orthodoxy, is the dominant Christian Church. I think this is evidence that the Holy Spirit really is with her and will remain with her forever just as promised.

*I say “one fact” because there are many reasons to believe that Catholicism is the true Church, and size is not the strongest of these reasons. However, it is a reason, and one that proponents of Orthodoxy simply cannot deny. They can deny that numbers mean anything, but they cannot deny that their churches are largely ethnically and geographically constrained, and these constraints have prohibited them from making disciples of all nations.

 

[RyanBlack]

Now, it is my contention that the Catholic Church is today and has always been the largest Christian church.

What is your basis for this contention? It simply cannot be demonstrated as fact. It is a well known fact that the Church of the East, which is recognized by the Catholic Church as a true particular church with valid sacraments, was at one time larger (by far) in geographic extent, and may have been larger in terms of population. Also, I would not be surprised if there was a time when the Eastern Orthodox was larger in population.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is your basis for this contention? It simply cannot be demonstrated as fact. It is a well known fact that the Church of the East, which is recognized by the Catholic Church as a true particular church with valid sacraments, was at one time larger (by far) in geographic extent, and may have been larger in terms of population. Also, I would not be surprised if there was a time when the Eastern Orthodox was larger in population.

In post #85, Cavaradossi stated that in the time period in question, the Church of the East was largely Nestorian. If true, then that “Church” was teaching heresy which the true, infallible Church of Christ cannot do. Thus, the Church of the East (which, as you know from our previous discussions this year, was in heresy for MUCH of its existence), cannot be the one, true Church.

And by the way, if this “Church of the East” was in full communion with Rome, then it WAS Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox), so your point is irrelevant. I have never been concerned with geography but with full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

But let’s see how this played out in history, okay?

One group, based in Rome and led by the Pope, begins humbly. But over time, they become “the largest of all the trees” with over a billion members of all nations, races, tongues and tribes.

Another group, led by the Patriarchs of the East, severs communion with the Pope, and despite allegedly having a big head start in terms of membership (according to you and Cav), it struggles to break out of its ethnic and geographic centricity and lags behind the Roman group in terms of world evangelization.

Which of these two groups would appear to have been favored by God and blessed with good fortune, etc.?

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not really interested in the size of the Nestorian, Arian or other heterodox groups. If they were in heresy, then they were disqualified purely on that basis alone.

The Catholic Church doesn’t view the Assyrian Church of the East, which you are labeling Nestorian, any differently than it does the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has entered entered a common christological understanding with the Assyrian Church of the East and doesn’t consider the Assyrian Church of the East to be Nestorian.

 

[RyanBlack]

In post #85, Cavaradossi stated that in the time period in question, the Church of the East was largely Nestorian. If true, then that “Church” was teach heresy which the true, infallible Church of Christ cannot do. Thus, the Church of the East (which as you know from our previous discussions this year was in heresy for MUCH of its existence), cannot be the one, true Church.

I’ve never said that the Church of the East is the one true Church. However, unlike Cavaradossi, I’m very reluctant to label the Church of the East as having ever been Nestorian.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Church doesn’t view the Assyrian Church of the East, which you are labeling Nestorian, any differently than it does the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has entered entered a common christological understanding with the Assyrian Church of the East and doesn’t consider the Assyrian Church of the East to be Nestorian.

Was the Assyrian Church EVER Nestorian?

What is the history of the Assyrian Church’s communion with Rome?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve never said that the Church of the East is the one true Church. However, unlike Cavaradossi, I’m very reluctant to label the Church of the East as having ever been Nestorian.

Fair enough. I can appreciate that your views may differ from his.

 

[RyanBlack]

And by the way, if this “Church of the East” was in full communion with Rome, then it WAS Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox), so your point is irrelevant. I have never been concerned with geography but with full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It was not in communion with the Bishop of Rome when it exceeded the Catholic Church in size. It left communion with the Bishop of Rome in the late 420s.

 

[RyanBlack]

Was the Assyrian Church EVER Nestorian?

What is the history of the Assyrian Church’s communion with Rome?

I’m rather disinclined to think so. While I believe that the Nestorianism condemned at Ephesusis is heretical, I’m doubtful as to whether it was a heresy that really ever had much of a following at all. I think Nestorius himself was very sloppy with his christology, and I believe that the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools largely misunderstood each other, and made precious little effort to do otherwise. Then there’s also the issue of the desire of St. Cyril of Alexandria to gain power for Alexandrian see at the expense of Constantinople.

The Assyrian Church of the East left communion with the Catholic Church in the late 420s, a few years prior to the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m rather disinclined to think so.

The Assyrian Church of the East left communion with the Catholic Church in the late 420s, a few years prior to the Council of Ephesus.

So, it comes down to this: the Assyrian Church severed communion with Rome, but other than that, its doctrine was completely orthodox, and it was bigger than the Church of the West at that time…at least for awhile. Thus, Randy is proved wrong?

Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church, which was noticeably smaller geographically and possibly demographically (as you conceded), has exploded in growth and is the dominant Christian Church throughout the world today.



How, exactly, does the existence of the Assyrian Church today refute my argument?

The Catholic Church has been built and blessed abundantly by God such that the birds of every nation rest in its branches. This evidence suggests the possibility that it (and not Orthodoxy) is the one, true Church founded by Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It was not in communion with the Bishop of Rome when it exceeded the Catholic Church in size. It left communion with the Bishop of Rome in the late 420s.

Okay.

Now, would full communion with the successor of Peter be a characteristic of a true, Christian Church?

Or can any group calling itself “Christian” - regardless of its Apostolic Succession or doctrinal positions - stake a claim to that honor? Is Mormonism a candidate, for example?

So, I think that there may have been times when heretical groups separated from the Catholic Church, and that the heretics may have outnumbered the orthodox Catholics. But simply by virtue of the fact that they were not teaching the fullness of the faith which includes the primacy of the successor of Peter, they were disqualified from being considered the one, true Church because that Church cannot teach error.

And over the course of history, we see how it has played out. Those who broke away have failed to keep pace with the divinely ordained spread of the Catholic faith.

 

[RyanBlack]

So, it comes down to this: the Assyrian Church severed communion with Rome, but other than that, its doctrine was completely orthodox, and it was bigger than the Church of the West at that time…at least for awhile. Thus, Randy is proved wrong?

Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church, which was noticeably smaller geographically and possibly demographically (as you conceded), has exploded in growth and is the dominant Christian Church throughout the world today.



How, exactly, does the existence of the Assyrian Church today refute my argument?

The Catholic Church has been built and blessed abundantly by God such that the birds of every nation rest in its branches. This evidence suggests the possibility that it (and not Orthodoxy) is the one, true Church founded by Jesus.

Is the size of the Catholic Church be a sign of God’s favor over against other churches? Maybe. On the other hand, the size of the Catholic Church could be due to other factors. Many would point to the morally dubious imperialism of France, Portugal, and Spain when explaining why the Catholic Church is so large, while pointing out that nations where Orthodoxy was prominent were not in a position to colonize to the same extent, if at all.

If the Catholic Church is the one true Church, it was even when the Church of the East (at one time, the most actively evangelistic of all the churches) was larger, and it will continue to be even if, at some point in the future, some other Church should become larger.

 

[RyanBlack]

Okay.

Now, would full communion with the successor of Peter be a characteristic of a true, Christian Church?

Or can any group calling itself “Christian” - regardless of its Apostolic Succession or doctrinal positions - stake a claim to that honor? Is Mormonism a candidate, for example?

So, I think that there may have been times when heretical groups separated from the Catholic Church, and that the heretics may have outnumbered the orthodox Catholics. But simply by virtue of the fact that they were not teaching the fullness of the faith which includes the primacy of the successor of Peter, they were disqualified from being considered the one, true Church because that Church cannot teach error.

And over the course of history, we see how it has played out. Those who broke away have failed to keep pace with the divinely ordained spread of the Catholic faith.

Careful. The Catholic Church herself does not teach that full communion with the Bishop of Rome is an essential characteristic of being a true church. Otherwise, she would not consider several particular churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome to be true churches. There are several true churches not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, including the Assyrian Church of the East However, I would not say that any group calling itself Christian is a true church.

What should be kept in mind is that your claims are, at the end of the day, faith claims. Now I’m not saying that your belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church is wrong (after all, I’m Catholic), and I’m not saying that they aren’t theological and historical arguments to be made, because there are. However, as one of my church history professors pointed out, “Everyone has their texts. Even the Arians have their texts.” The Orthodox have their own theological and historical arguments. But when it really comes right down to it, their claims are faith claims as well. Your appeal to the numbers of the Catholic Church simply won’t convince them. They can respond (as some have) that the fact that they are smaller could be a sign that they are the true Church because their smaller numbers are because of the fact that the gospel scandalizes most people (think stumbling block to the Gentiles and foolishness to the Greeks), or because of Satan’s relentless assault against the true Church. Furthermore, there are scriptures that suggest that in the last days, there will be few who will remain faithful to the truth.

If our focus is on trying to prove that we are right and they are wrong, the current state of schism will only continue. We should seek to bring the other apostolic churches back into full communion with the Bishop of Rome by giving faithful witness to Christ’s love for the Church by our love for each other and by approaching them with a spirit of generosity and humility.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Orthodoxy claims that it is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that Rome has branched off from it. Catholics, of course, see it the other way around.

Now, it is my contention that the Catholic Church is today and has always been the largest Christian church. Here I acknowledge that the Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Anglicans (among others) are true Christians by virtue of their trinitarian baptisms. However, what I reject (until proven wrong) is that any one of these separatist movements could possibly be the true Church founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock. I’m not really interested in the size of the Nestorian, Arian or other heterodox groups. If they were in heresy, then they were disqualified purely on that basis alone.

Randy, I am afraid that I must confess that your argument has become increasingly incoherent and woefully contrived. When a possible counterexample was provided to a principle which you were yourself espousing (that is, that the total number of adherents or geographical prevalence—we never did quite figure out which criterion you like better, as you seem to waver between the two in your arguments—can provide meaningful evidence for or against the claim made by a body of Christians to be the Catholic Church established by Christ), you simply dismissed it on the grounds that it was possibly Nestorian in its Christology without giving any compelling reason for why this new and hereto unmentioned criterion, which specifically disqualifies the counterevidence provided, should be added only now as an afterthought.

To most rational observers, it likely would appear at this point that you are attempting to bolster your weakening argument with special pleading. It especially seems so because in your new explanation, you include as a criterion trinitarian baptism, which you confess makes Lutherans, Anglicans, et al. true Christians (which conveniently includes the groups whose claims to truth you primarily focus on trying to refute while in your mind excluding specifically the Nestorians and Arians). But your new criteria have unwittingly include the Church of the East (unless you are going to engage in more special pleading), as not only does the Vatican recognize the validity and trinitarian nature of baptisms performed by the Church of the East, it even recognizes their priesthood and Eucharist as being valid sacraments.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the discussion if you would maybe clarify your views. Do you believe that the number of adherents or the geographical spread of a Christian organization can provide meaningful evidence for whether or not that organization’s claim to being the Church established by Christ is true?

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps it would be helpful to the discussion if you would maybe clarify your views.

To me it seems like this discussion has been going on and on in a way that suggests it won’t stop or change much any time soon. (I realize my comment could be met with a response of “If you don’t like it, why haven’t you changed the channel?” … which is a fair question. )

 

[Seraphim73]

Yeah I would say Randy’s position definitely takes a very narrow view of history. The Roman Catholic Church is larger now. At the time of the Great Schism the Orthodox Church was larger and apparently the Assyrian Church was larger when it broke away. What happens if a thousand years from now the Baptists have a larger population than Catholics? That’s all without even mentioning the Muslims. I don’t think you have thought through all the implications of your position.