Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesley7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wesley7

Guest
The Orthodox Church is supposed to be “the” Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church is also supposed to be “the” Church.

Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism. . ?
 
I look at it this way.
We have a group of 12 men lead by one of them.
The group split into two groups.
The leader can only be in one of them.
The leader also was the only one meant as the one channel for all gifts of unity
The group where the leader is, is the group with the fullness of the gifts.

God bless
 
Here is insight: Follow the Keys! 😉

The Church (Scripture Catholic)

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).
 
I think it means that Dioscorus was stripped of the Episcopate, not Leo.
 
Wesley7 said:
The Orthodox Church is supposed to be “the” Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church is also supposed to be “the” Church.

Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism. . ?
Click to expand...
I do not deny that Luke65 is right.

I must add that if so, somewhere sometimes the unique position of Papacy was neglected.

On the other hand, if orthos are right, the horrid filioque heresy was well and thriving among people whom they themselves also count as saints (Pope Leo was just mentioned by Luke65, his letter to the bishop of Astorga indicates he believed the Holy Ghost was eternally proceeding from BOTH the Father AND the Son: St Augustine of Hippo believed that too - see De Trinitate, as did St Hilary of Poitiers, and if Quicumque Vult is genuinely his - orthos tend to deny it - St Athanasius of Alexandria too).

Dioscuros condemned by abovementioned sentence has also followers to this day, known as Copts. They and Armenians tend to say that Catholics and Orthodox are Christians too and overdid condemnations without falling into heresy back in Chalcedon. They do however condemn Nestorians - who also exist to this day.

So, looking for the primitive Church is not like looking for a needle in a hay-stack, you can pick Catholics, Orthodox, Copts-and-Armenians, or Nestorians.

And they do have some substance in common against protestantism, like Seven Sacraments, like Priests offering a true Sacrifice in Holy Mass, like priesthood depending on a special class of priests called Bishops, like recommending Celibacy, especially to priests and Bishops, like having Celibate Monks and Nuns who say the psalms of David on certain hours each day, some disciplines all 150 in a day (Copts, I think, and Coptic Rite Catholics), some in a week (Catholics and Orthodox), some in two weeks (Novus Ordo Catholics). Or like admitting some men as Canonised individual examples of what Sainthood is. We know very well that Saints means all Christians. We also know very well that some Christians are not fully Christians as in being real Saints. We then propose certain Christians as already known examples, guaranteed b y Divine Miracles. And that means we do NOT admit the age of miracles ended with the last apostles. We do all accept the Blessed Virgin Mary as greater than all other saints, including the angels whose nature is more noble than the human one.
 
Wesley7 said:
The Orthodox Church is supposed to be “the” Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church is also supposed to be “the” Church.

Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism. . ?
Click to expand...
The Ancient Church (pre Schsim) was both.
It was Catholic in that it was universal AND Orthodox in that it accepted and held to approved teachings.

The Split between East and West was primarily due to political issues, not theological ones, and sprang from the sin of pride - that existed on both sides of the issue.
After the split there naturally developed some additional issues (both theological and structural) that has further complicated efforts at reunification.

Peace
James
 
JaredM said:
There is no one true Church. There are only Christians.
Click to expand...
…and those Christians made up ONE Church, with the same doctrines/teachings. That was the true Church.

How does your statement apply to the topic of this thread?
 
Wesley7 said:
The Orthodox Church is supposed to be “the” Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church is also supposed to be “the” Church.

Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism. . ?
Click to expand...
Before the Great Schism, the Eastern and Western Churches were in communion with one another. It is important to remember that the Church is a communion of Churches. Each local Church fully and mystically presents the Church of Jesus Christ. This is the understanding of St. Paul when he wrote to the Church of God in Corinth.

The Church has Apostolic succession and teaches that which has been believed in the Church always, everywhere and by all.

While centuries before the Schism, the West and East already butted heads over differences, these differences did not result in long term separation. They were in communion with each other. They shared many practices as well (e.g. fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year). I call the Western Christians before the Schism Orthodox for this reason, although I offer the caveat that they were not the mirror images of their Eastern Orthodox brethren.
 
JaredM said:
There is no one true Church. There are only Christians.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this in light of Christ’s comment about Church (two Gospel references). One that he would build a “Church” (Mt 16:17-19) and the other that we need to " Tell it (troubles) to…and to…Listen to the Church" (Mt 18:15-8). In each of these cases the reference to "Church (ekklesia) is followed up by the statment, Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.
Then we have St Pauls declaration tht the Church is “the Pillar and Bulwrk of Truth…”

These are the declarations of God through the Holy Scriptures - So how could there NOT be “one True Church”?

Peace
James
 
Luke65 said:
Here is insight: Follow the Keys! 😉

The Church (Scripture Catholic)

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).
Click to expand...
Pope Leo does not speak for the Council but together with his fellow bishops at the Council. Pope Leo of Rome and the bishops of the council, and the Apostle Peter (mystically present), who all profess the same glorious orthodox faith, strip Dioscorus of the episcopate.
 
JRKH said:
I don’t understand this in light of Christ’s comment about Church (two Gospel references). One that he would build a “Church” (Mt 16:17-19) and the other that we need to " Tell it (troubles) to…and to…Listen to the Church" (Mt 18:15-8). In each of these cases the reference to "Church (ekklesia) is followed up by the statment, Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.
Then we have St Pauls declaration tht the Church is “the Pillar and Bulwrk of Truth…”

These are the declarations of God through the Holy Scriptures - So how could there NOT be “one True Church”?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
There is one true Church, just as there is one Body of Christ, not many.
 
Madaglan said:
Before the Great Schism, the Eastern and Western Churches were in communion with one another. It is important to remember that the Church is a communion of Churches. Each local Church fully and mystically presents the Church of Jesus Christ. This is the understanding of St. Paul when he wrote to the Church of God in Corinth.
Click to expand...
Bang on Madaglan!! This is the key. For all of the differences, the messiness the outright battles in the early Church they maintained communion with each other. Not just in a general, non-authoritative way either, but in a way that spoke of a desire to maintain and teach truth, to resolve deep issues of conflict whaile also respecting differences.
The Church has Apostolic succession and teaches that which has been believed in the Church always, everywhere and by all.
Click to expand...
👍
While centuries before the Schism, the West and East already butted heads over differences, these differences did not result in long term separation. They were in communion with each other. They shared many practices as well (e.g. fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year). I call the Western Christians before the Schism Orthodox for this reason, although I offer the caveat that they were not the mirror images of their Eastern Orthodox brethren.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. The West reflected western cultrues just as the East reflected eastern cultures. In addition, the breakdown of the Roman Empire in the West resulted in a very different socio-political atmosphere from that in the east. Yet - once again, they stove valiantly over many centuries to maintian communion and communication and unity.
I pray God to give the leaders on both groups the wisdom, the desire, and the courage to move ever closer to full communion between East and West.

Peace
James
 
Originally posted by hansgeorg:
Click to expand...
I do not deny that Luke65 is right.
Click to expand...
I must add that if so, somewhere sometimes the unique position of Papacy was neglected.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if orthos are right, the horrid filioque heresy was well and thriving among people whom they themselves also count as saints (Pope Leo was just mentioned by Luke65, his letter to the bishop of Astorga indicates he believed the Holy Ghost was eternally proceeding from BOTH the Father AND the Son: St Augustine of Hippo believed that too - see De Trinitate, as did St Hilary of Poitiers, and if Quicumque Vult is genuinely his - orthos tend to deny it - St Athanasius of Alexandria too).
Click to expand...
The East understands by procession (ekporousis) the origination of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone. The East also teaches the eternal and temporal manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which is through the Son. In the West, there is no clear distinction, and so the danger is to make the Son a co-cause with the Father of the Holy Spirit. St. Maximus the Confessor recognized the danger, but added that the Latins do in fact believe the Father alone is origin of the Holy Spirit. Later, Catholic leaders would teach that the Holy Spirit receives his essence and subsistent being from both the Father and Son, and proceeds from both as from one principle. I personally find it hard to say that this profession is the same as that which St. Maximus saw in the West in his time.

Many Fathers, East and West, speak of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit per (through) the Son, but there are relatively few who speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. In the West, through the Son became translated as a synonym for and the Son, while the East condemned this synonymous connection (as at the 13th century Council of Blachernae) and taught that by speaking through the Son the Fathers were teaching of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit rather than eternal procession.
 
JaredM said:
There is no one true Church. There are only Christians.
Click to expand...
I think Christ established a Church for his people to assemble in. (ekklessia)

I just don’t know if its the Catholic or Orthodox Church. . .? tough call
 
Jared’s statement appears to deny the authority of the Catholic Church as the early Church. The founder of his Church sought reformation of the Church, but I don’t know of anywhere that Martin Luther denied the Catholic Church as the early Church. This makes the argument younger than even, and apart from, the founding of the Lutheran Church,. It lacks a certain logic, in my opinion. Either they believe the Church, in existence since the beginning, was in need of a reformation, or the Church never existed to begin with?

If I’m wrong, I invite Jared to produce the documentation where Martin Luther taught the ‘Catholic’ Church was a ‘universal’ Church without an authority bestowed upon it and it was not the Catholic Church that Martin Luther was a part of and sought reformation of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top