The Church Fathers...

[Namesake]

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I guess I must be doing something right then if I’m perceived as having the mind of a child.

I think it means having the spirit of a child. Childlike and childish are way different.

 

[2ndGen]

Frankly, your argument that “the Roman Catholic Church is orthodox because we’re Catholic with a big “C”” is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard (and I’ve heard a lot). You’re really grasping at straws on this one.

Oh yeah…is there “any” Church Father that refers to The Orthodox Church ever in history?

And if they don’t, (as you say with the Creed), then aren’t you “changing” or “innovating” the “name” of The Catholic Church?

 

[VARC]

So a Church called “The Church of Satan”, if it was “orthodox” to it’s faith,is a true church?

Arguing way off point. No. The agreed standard of truth is Christ

What does it mean when the Christian Church is called The Universal Church of Christ?

And what does it mean when it is called Orthodox?

How does one come to “that” particular number of only 7?

What Biblical or Apostolic support is there for that theory?

Both the Catholic and the Orthodox believe that the first 7 councils were Ecumenical.

And how is “that” the “real” question?

Because your OP asked which church the Fathers belonged to. They belonged to the Chuch that professed the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils (that much we agree on). The Fathers thought that the faith of the Church was of supreme importance not the proper name

 

[VARC]

=VARC;3296189]

The Catholic Church is orthodox because we are The Church Jesus started. Not because of what we are called.

Jesus also founded the EO and the OO churches.

 

[2ndGen]

Jesus also founded the EO and the OO churches.

EO?

OO?

Never seen those acronyms in The Church Father’s writings or in The Holy Bible. Don’t recognize them.

Sorry…dont’ know them.

I’ve only seen Christianity defined “before” the 11th century as “The Catholic Church”.

 

[2ndGen]

Arguing way off point.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No. Haven’t seen any “Orthodox Faith” in your references.
I’ve seen the “orthodox faith”, but not the “Orthodox Faith”.

And I still haven’t seen any “The Orthodox Church” mentioned.

:yawn:

Oh, yes. I forgot. A lack of knowledge in historical sources.

Capitalization does not begin to appear until 1300. So Orthodox Faith, orthodox Faith, Orthodox faith, orthodox faith, before then (and even later for Greek, which is what we are talking about), its the same thing.

There are ways something approaching capitalization can be expressed in Greek (less so in Latin), but that would require some knowledge of Greek, (your instance that pope is in the NT “hundreds of times,” whereas it never appears, unlike patriarch, in which you erred in denying it appeared in the NT, as shown on another thread some time ago).

Again, you have been shown instance after instance where the Church Fathers defended the Orthodox Faith (as we spell it now in English) of the Catholic Church. And in doing so, violated your ultramontanist principles.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, actually, it says how it ‘came to’ be known as The Orthodx Church (which is, again, talking about The Church known as The Orthodox Church today).

When was it called “The Orthodox Church” first?

What year?

We can trace The Catholic Church’s first appearance “namewise” in history “before” the 11th century.

You can trace it namewise in history after the 11th century, in the East.

 

[2ndGen]

You can trace it namewise in history after the 11th century, in the East.

Ok…reference?

I haven’t seen it posted yet.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I tried to send you this PM, but it seems that your box is too full to accept any PM’s.

So I’ll post it here…

===============================================

No matter how much we go at it, I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you.

You’ve never insulted me.

I couldn’t respond to anymore of your posts without you knowing how much I appreciate that.

Peace unto you my Christian “Catholic” Brother.

:hug3:

Thanks.

I try to keep a civil lid on hot Arab blood, which can get aboilin’ when the Church is concerned.

 

[2ndGen]

Capitalization does not begin to appear until 1300. So Orthodox Faith, orthodox Faith, Orthodox faith, orthodox faith, before then (and even later for Greek, which is what we are talking about), its the same thing.

 

[2ndGen]

Thanks.

I try to keep a civil lid on hot Arab blood, which can get aboilin’ when the Church is concerned.

Well, you can’t take all the blame…us Puerto Ricans are known for beig hot blooded too.

Matter fact, Spain (where my greatgrandparents are all from) was settled by Arabs of Saudi Arabia and called it Iberia. We still carry many of our Arab traditions (before The Moors ever saw my beautiful Castillian land) such as our food, some words, etc…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

VARC;3296171:

So a Church called “The Church of Satan”, if it was “orthodox” to it’s faith,is a true church?

Would this be the church of Matthew 16 (verse 23 that is).
Actually .

What does it mean when the Christian Church is called The Universal Church of Christ?

“nothing”?

Unfortunately, no trademark, so we, since the time of Revelation (2) “cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false…the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan”

How does one come to “that” particular number of only 7?

What Biblical or Apostolic support is there for that theory?

And how is “that” the “real” question?

Just how history has worked so far. (what’s the magic number of sacraments?) We have had several Pan-Orthodox Councils, but have not been mired in heresies and schisms that we have needed, an Ecumenical Council.
Ever since February 19, 842, when that Sunday, the first of Great Lent that year, the emperor and empress mother and the Fathers implimented the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and named it ἡ Κυριακὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας “the Sunday of [the Triumph of] Orthodoxy,” which has been observed, as commanded by those Fathers, in the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church ever since (it’s March 16 this year).

That is the real question because besides buzz words (even the Arians claimed the title “Catholic”), the Fathers went on to define what they (and we) believe. In fact, that was the whole debate on the wording of the Creed, for example. The Fathers worked on one that the Arians could not say without renouncing their beliefs. Said term was “one in essence”: the Arians had no qualms about “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church,” they just identified her with themselves.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

well, hello

So it wasn’t even formally established until after the 1300’s?

Capitalization, no?

We Arabs still don’t have it

They defended the “orthodox” faith of The Catholic Church…not The Orthodox Church.

How could they defend a religion that didn’t exist yet?

Begging the question. And the Orthodox Catholic Faith already existed, hence why they used the term “Orthodox Faith.”

They were only defending The Catholic Church against heretics and schisms and those who would defy The Papacy in establised in Rome.

Like the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, you can’t take all the blame…us Puerto Ricans are known for beig hot blooded too.

Matter fact, Spain (where my greatgrandparents are all from) was settled by Arabs of Saudi Arabia and called it Iberia. We still carry many of our Arab traditions (before The Moors ever saw my beautiful Castillian land) such as our food, some words, etc…

Some words? Lots of words. in shaa’ Allaah (if Gods wills) becomes ojala in Spanish.

Actually the Greeks called it Iberia (they named Itay, too). We called (and call it) al-Andalus>Andalusia “land of the Vandals” Btw, most of the Spanish component in Latin America came from there.

Btw, the native liturgy of Spain still survives in Toledo, the Mozarabic (<Ar. musta’rab, “Arabacized”).

 

[2ndGen]

You must be young.

Yes…the Biblical reference…open minded & not so indoctrinated that I can’t see the truth easily.

Now, can you personally literally point quote where one of The Church Fathers mentioned The Orthodox Church?

Literallly?

Dated?

Citeable source?

:coffeeread:

 

[butasforme]

There is some pretty bad communication going on here, and we’re being immature about it, to be frank. We are talking past each other, not on the same level. Operating definitions are key here. Rather than arguing about names not being mentioned, etc. let’s look at what these different beliefs are actually rooted in.

It seems we can agree that at one point there was one, singular church.

Now from an Orthodox perspective, they would argue that the Catholics altered fundamentally core beliefs (i.e. filioque) and left the values that comprised the original tenets of the true church, leaving the Eastern portion as the remaining true church. In contrast, from a Catholic perspective, the Eastern branch deviated from the core beliefs of the original church (i.e. Roman supremacy), and in deviating, left the faithful church, leaving the Roman Catholic faith as the faithful and true remainder.

Surely, when we truly examine the issue from each others’ sides of the argument, we can at least understand why our opponents could attempt to legitimately claim being the true descendants of the faith of the early church, or the Way. The goal here is to understand their arguments, and then point out weaknesses therein while making relevant counterpoints that support the side we profess.

While I am a Roman Catholic, I believe that it is necessary to wrestle with matters of truth. If our faith is true, it will bear forth, and we should not fear that; moreover in the pursuit we may take greater hold of that truth. So let’s pursue truth. I looked up this filioque biz on wikipedia (granted, not academically acceptable, but often useful for overview purposes). Here’s what I found, for those curious:

"As Johannes Grohe[4] has pointed out, a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.”[citation needed]. Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, according to Grohe, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. Augustine of Hippo followed Tertullian and Ambrose[5] in teaching that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son[6], though subordinate to neither. His theology, including his theology of the Trinity, was dominant in the West through the Middle Ages. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire[citation needed].

[edit] As an addition to the Nicene Creed

Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed[7] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[8], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[9] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. The local Visigothic rulers had been Arians until this time. As such, they held the Arian tenet that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. They accepted the Nicene Creed, originally composed in opposition to Arius, with the inclusion of the filioque.

(continued below)

 

[butasforme]

(continued from above)

So the filioque was introduced in the West first of all in Spain, then in Gaul, not in Rome, and not by the Pope’s initiative. Eastern Churches, for example, the Maronites, fully part of the Catholic Church, never used the filioque. Moreover, the phrase was in wide use in the West, following the language of many Latin fathers, outside the Mass, especially in Spain and Gaul.

[edit] The Franks and the filioque

After the Visigoths, the filioque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

Pope Leo III forbade the addition of “filioque” to the Nicene Creed which was added by the Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the original Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of the orthodox faith).[10]

Alternative: The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself.

However, among the Franks the filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed. Frankish predominance put pressure to adopt the filioque on Rome, which resisted for some two hundred years.

[edit] The beginning of conflict

[edit] The Photian controversy

The filioque came to unprecedented prominence in the controversy surrounding Photius of Constantinople. In 858, Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople fell out of favour with the Byzantine Emperor Michael III and was removed from this position. He was replaced by the layman Photius, a distinguished scholar, Imperial secretary and ambassador to Baghdad. Ignatius was exiled to Terebinthos and resigned his position under pressure. Later Photius even had a synod declare Ignatius’ patriarchate invalid. Both Photius and Emperor Michael as well as the partisans of Ignatius appealed to Pope Nicholas, who eventually deposed and excommunicated Photius and recognized Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch in 863.

Photius, with the support of Emperor Michael, rejected the Pope’s judgment. To rally the Eastern churches to his course he issued Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs denouncing the Latin church for differences in customs and, most importantly for the filioque, which he deemed heretical. This latter element, appearing for the first time, is of special importance, as it moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one of dogma. In 867, he assembled a synod excommunicating Nicholas and condemning Latin “aberrations.”

Photius’ importance endured in regard to relations between East and West, as he was the first theologian to raise the filioque clause to an issue of contention and to accuse Rome of heresy in the matter. This line of criticism was later often echoed and made reconciliation between East and West a difficult matter. Photius is recognized as a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church.

[edit] The Franks in Rome

Throughout the 9th and the 10th centuries, Popes had refused to adopt the filioque clause. This position came to an end in 1014, when the German King Henry II visited Rome to be crowned Emperor. At this time, the papacy was very weak and for the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor.

Henry found that the Creed was not being recited during the Mass, as was customary in the Frankish lands. So, at his request, Pope Benedict VIII had a recitation of the Creed placed after the Gospel, and the filioque was used in the Mass at Rome for the first time."