To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[prodromos]

Ahhhhh, Finally!!! :extrahappy:Someone who has done his historical homework

Someone who can finally answer my question that I’ve been asking for 12 yrs on these forums, in many different ways, but have received no answer… Yet. Maybe this is my lucky day

Here’s my question

When in history, do we first see the name “Orthodox Church”, in writing, properly referenced?

It was probably around the same time certain people started treating the word “Catholic” as a noun

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Uh, it was the undivided Church that chose the canon of scripture. It was the Council of Nicaea that set the canon (except for the Apocalypse which wasn’t settled on until later) not “the office of the Pope”.

Please provide any evidence you have of canon being decided at Nicea.

 

[MichaelP3]

The question of the use of the word Orthodox to identify the Church.

Why I asked to clarify. And I can agree with Expatreprocedit by asking why it is important?

When the name was used and how long ago can’t prove anything. Just like present Egytians aren’t all of a sudden the same as Old testament Eqypt just because they are calling themselves Egyptian.

 

[MichaelP3]

It was probably around the same time certain people started treating the word “Catholic” as a noun

 

[steve_b]

You do know Orthodox aren’t in communion with Catholics?

Of course I know.

I’m asking a historical question for a reason

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Why I asked to clarify. And I can agree with Expatreprocedit by asking why it is important?

When the name was used and how long ago can’t prove anything. Just like present Egytians aren’t all of a sudden the same as Old testament Eqypt just because they are calling themselves Egyptian.

People can prove that the Church identified itself as Catholic. There isn’t any evidence to suggest that the Church identified itself as Orthodox. Overall this goes to the whole question of which Church is the true Church founded by Christ.

 

[steve_b]

What question? *Then I as a Christian *can claim the period from Antioch when that was first mentioned?

The Church is Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

One might ask, where does kata holos and particularly kata holos ekklesia come from?

From the Greek translation of the NT

Acts 9:31 (the church throughout all) ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

Christians then were in the **Catholic Church.

**
Ignatius of Antioch, ordained a bishop ~68 a.d. by apostles, was a direct disciple of the apostle John… As an aside, he is bishop before Acts is written. He wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions. He implored the Church of Rome not to save him. You can read that here Epistle to the Romans

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans uses Christian (ch 2) & **Catholic Church **(ch8) to refer who he is, where his allegiance is to, and who his audience is

• Chapter 2. he uses Christian
  
  Now, He suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.
• Chapter 8. he uses Catholic Church
  
  See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
  Then in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, schismatics won’t be going to heaven (ch 3)
• Chapter 3. Avoid schismatics
  
  Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].
  So when ever Ignatius mentions Church in his writings, we know what Church he belongs to and writes for. We see from his writings, he’s a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church. Knowing he is going to be thrown to the lions, he welcomed martyrdom

Historically speaking, this is LONG BEFORE the schism, that was called “Orthodox Church”

As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning he gave, in his writings and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division, from the Catholic Church?

Jesus:
“One flock, one shepherd” John 10:16 , in that case the others In Context
And , John 17:20-23 that they all be one;

Paul :
condemned division / dissention from the Church Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21
in both those passages is used the same Greek word διχοστασίας ]

since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 no one can say the HS inspired all the division from the Catholic Church we see today.
M:

He will need to clarify his question as well as supply the reason of Orthodox (name and whatever) when that is the very reason from history that IS a controversy.

From history, properly referenced, I hope that clarifies the point

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know when the exact words “The Orthodox Church” first appear. To engage in research on the question, I would first have to know why it is important. On the face of it, I don’t see that it is at all important.

you made the point that history led you out of the Catholic Church to E Orthodoxy of some branch that you didn’t mention. #230

So I’m asking you an historical question
E:

I DO know that reference to “the Orthodox faith” goes back at least to St. Irenaeus. Since the Faith is always in the context of the Church, to reference “the Orthodox faith” is effectively a reference to “the Orthodox Church”.

Nope!

Irenaeus told us which Church he belonged to. It’s the Catholic Church

Bk 1 v 3 (Against Heresies) Irenaeus names the Catholic Church which he is defending.

“For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while ***the Catholic Church ***possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”

Good definition…;…eh?
E:

You do realize, I hope, that the ***Orthodox Church ***considers itself “the catholic church” as that term was used in the early and patristic Church. And with good reason. It even often officially refers to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church".

Then please show me (properly referenced) where/when the name “Orthodox Church” appears in patristic writings? That’s all I’m asking and have been asking for 12 years on these forums… with no answer to my question…YET. But I keep asking

 

[steve_b]

It was probably around the same time certain people started treating the word “Catholic” as a noun

OK

I’ll play along

Show me where the noun “Orthodox Church” first appears in time

As an aside, we all know "Orthodox Church does appear in history. All I’m asking is when do we first see it, in writing, properly referenced

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Acts 9:31 (the church throughout all) ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

The verse properly taken in context means that the Church in Judea, Samaria and Galilee grew. Many of my brethren take it out of context and say it means the Church back then was known as the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

Uh, it was the undivided Church that chose the canon of scripture. It was the Council of Nicaea that set the canon (except for the Apocalypse which wasn’t settled on until later) not “the office of the Pope”.

there were unofficial lists of books read in liturgy, but as I understand it, this maybe the first official NT list / canon. This is c170 a.d. Notice the Church mentioned? It’s the Catholic Church

Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html

 

[steve_b]

Acts 9:31 (the church throughout all) ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

The verse properly taken in context means that*** the Church in Judea, Samaria and Galilee grew.*** Many of my brethren take it out of context and say it means the Church back then was known as the Catholic Church.

It says “the church throughout all” Judea…

The links are operable

Remember, I said I took the phrase ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς out of the Greek translation of the NT

That phrase meaning the Church according to the whole (Kata Holos)

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.”

From catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Greek Study Bible

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It says “the church throughout all” Judea…

The links are operable

Remember, I said I took the phrase ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς out of the Greek translation of the NT

That phrase meaning the Church according to the whole (Kata Holos)

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.”

From catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Greek Study Bible

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

You are not interpreting the verse in the context it was written. It simply means the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee grew.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

People can prove that the Church identified itself as Catholic. There isn’t any evidence to suggest that the Church identified itself as Orthodox. Overall this goes to the whole question of which Church is the true Church founded by Christ.

On the contrary, the Church identified itself as “orthodox” in belief and practice many times. And the Synodical Letter of the First Council of Nicaea (325) opens thus: To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea, wish health in the Lord .

If you want to hang your hat on some nebulous distinction between “the orthodox clergy and laity throughout… every nation” and “the orthodox church”, well, go ahead.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Steve B wrote:

you made the point that history led you out of the Catholic Church to E Orthodoxy of some branch that you didn’t mention. #230

What do you mean by “branch * didn’t mention”? The Orthodox Church does not have “branches”.

Me:

I DO know that reference to “the Orthodox faith” goes back at least to St. Irenaeus. Since the Faith is always in the context of the Church, to reference “the Orthodox faith” is effectively a reference to “the Orthodox Church”.

Steve B:
Nope!

Irenaeus told us which Church he belonged to. It’s the Catholic Church

Me:
Uh, the word “Nope” and then a reference to where Irenaeaus refers to “the catholic church” is not in the least a refutation of the point I made. I never denied the Fathers often referred to “the catholic church”. My point is thy often referred to the Church as “orthodox” as well.

The fact is, as Podromos said, the church was referred to in the first millenium as both “catholic” and “orthodox”. These were adjectives, not nouns. There was no idea of one church being “Catholic” and another “Orthodox”. So this silly game is, well, a silly game. The real question, if you wanted to confront it, is which current church, the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox, has the most claim to being the same Church which described itself in the first millenium as both “catholic” and “orthodox”

Steve B:
Then please show me (properly referenced) where/when the name “Orthodox Church” appears in patristic writings? That’s all I’m asking and have been asking for 12 years on these forums… with no answer to my question…YET. But I keep asking

I’m sorry you’ve spent 12 years obsessing over a question of little more than historical interest (at least you haven’t shown it is of more than historical interest).*

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Btw, as you should know if you have read the Fathers and early Church documents, the early Church frequently referred to itself also as “the Church of God” and “the Church of Christ”. These are names of currently existing churches in the US. Using what I take to be your argument, these churches also have a claim to be the successor of the original Church.

 

[steve_b]

You are not interpreting the verse in the context it was written. It simply means the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee grew.

"Acts describes the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee as “at peace, and by the strength of the Holy Ghost it was multiplied”.Acts 9:31

And we say GREAT! How does that change anything I said?

here’s the individual links again, to the individual words in the phrase, with their definition.

• ἐκκλησία = ekklesia,
• definition: (assembly, congregation, church)
• καθ’ = kata,
• definition: (according to, throughout )
• ὅλης = holos,
• definition: (all, the whole, entire )
• τῆς = ho,
• definition: (the)

IOW

the kataholos ekklesia, the Church according to the whole, = the Catholic Church. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

and Acts 9:31 makes a point that the kataholos church in (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee ) is at peace.

as a visual of the 3 areas being spoken of.

 

[steve_b]

On the contrary, the Church identified itself as “orthodox” in belief and practice many times. And the Synodical Letter of the First Council of Nicaea (325) opens thus: To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea, wish health in the Lord .

If you want to hang your hat on some nebulous distinction between “the orthodox clergy and laity throughout… every nation” and “the orthodox church”, well, go ahead.

As I’ve been asking,

I’m looking for a noun as in a proper name “Orthodox Church”.

In your use of terms, allow me to step aside and offer the following explanation from a Melkite Catholic bishop who addresses this.

Bp John writes(all emphasis and editing, mine)

"In the Middle East, although both branches ***claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, ***however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic… Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome. … “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; "

For full unedited context

It’s a short missive. 1 page. A quick read. I hope you read it and don’t just take my shortened version

 

[steve_b]

Steve B wrote:

you made the point that history led you out of the Catholic Church to E Orthodoxy of some branch that you didn’t mention. #230

What do you mean by “branch * didn’t mention”? The Orthodox Church does not have “branches”.
*

My bad, a poor choice of words on my part

You didn’t say which Orthodox Church you joined #230
E:

Me:

I DO know that reference to “the Orthodox faith” goes back at least to St. Irenaeus. Since the Faith is always in the context of the Church, to reference “the Orthodox faith” is effectively a reference to “the Orthodox Church”.

Steve B:
Nope!

Irenaeus told us which Church he belonged to. It’s the Catholic Church

Me:
Uh, the word “Nope” and then a reference to where Irenaeaus refers to “the catholic church” is not in the least a refutation of the point I made. I never denied the Fathers often referred to “the catholic church”. My point is thy often referred to the Church as “orthodox” as well.

Okay, then please give me a reference, where Orthodox Church first appears / (earliest reference) in writing, properly referenced. That’s all I’ve ever asked for.
E:

The fact is, as Podromos said, the church was referred to in the first millenium as both “catholic” and “orthodox”. These were adjectives, not nouns

.
There was no idea of one church being “Catholic” and another “Orthodox”.

with all due respect, Says who?

Keep reading, I will show you in the next entry an early patristic example where Catholic Church is clearly a noun and NOT an adjective
E:

So this silly game is, well, a silly game. The real question, if you wanted to confront it, is which current church, the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox, has the most claim to being the same Church which described itself in the first millenium as both “catholic” and “orthodox”

Allow me to quote from Irenaeus to make MY point from the previous entry.

I’ve already shown you this Bk 1 v 3 Irenaeus names the Catholic Church

Here’s where he removes all doubt about Catholic Church being a proper name(noun) not an adjective

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

“This Church” he is referring to, has already been identified as the Catholic Church. He doesn’t have to keep referring to it over and over again as if there is some confusion about who he is and what Church he is defending. He is a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church

Notice “This Church” he says all must agree with (regardless of pedigree ) on account of its preeminent authority. He not only says it’s the Church of Rome, he names 12 bishops of Rome in succession, from Peter at Rome, down to his day. And he says this teaching he’s giving came from Peter and Paul at Rome.

Read it yourself don’t take my word for it. Irenaeus is being bullet point accurate here.
E:

Steve B:
Then please show me (properly referenced) where/when the name “Orthodox Church” appears in patristic writings? That’s all I’m asking and have been asking for 12 years on these forums… with no answer to my question…YET. But I keep asking

I’m sorry you’ve spent 12 years obsessing over a question of little more than historical interest (at least you haven’t shown it is of more than historical interest).

History is good

That’s why I like Newman’s quote

To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

As I’ve been asking,

I’m looking for a noun as in a proper name “Orthodox Church”.

In your use of terms, allow me to step aside and offer the following explanation from a Melkite Catholic bishop who addresses this.

Bp John writes(all emphasis and editing, mine)

"In the Middle East, although both branches ***claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, ***however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic… Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome. … “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; "

For full unedited context

It’s a short missive. 1 page. A quick read. I hope you read it and don’t just take my shortened version

That was interesting, but I’m not sure what it has to do with the subject at hand. Of course, today “Catholic” and “Orthodox” according to common usage, are names of different churches. That is a far cry from showing that because a Church is commonly referred to as “the Catholic Church” that it is ipso facto identical to the “catholic church” referred to by the Fathers. That is the argument you seem to be making, and it is missing at least one step, which is that the commonly used name of a church necessarily reflects its ontological character. If that were true, we should all immediately join the local “Church of God”, because it is, well, the Church of God.