Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism?

[Prodigal_Son1]

JaredM,

You posted a statement that drew several responses, some of which requested responses from you. Please respond.

 

[hansgeorg]

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.

I am not sure you quote St Maximos correctly. Actually it is not a quote, it is a reference. If so, he might have been conciliatory having already an Eastern understanding. I am sure I take St Athanasius (Quicumque Vult)and St Hilary, St Augustine and St Leo (when writing to Turribius of Astorga against the Priscillianists) as having already, before St Maximos, the current Western understanding.

 

[Madaglan]

I am not sure you quote St Maximos correctly. Actually it is not a quote, it is a reference. If so, he might have been conciliatory having already an Eastern understanding. I am sure I take St Athanasius (Quicumque Vult)and St Hilary, St Augustine and St Leo (when writing to Turribius of Astorga against the Priscillianists) as having already, before St Maximos, the current Western understanding.

I wasn’t quoting him…but here is the portion of his letter from which I drew my information:

Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’ The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession – but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus

St. Maximus states the charge of those in Constantinople that the contemporary Pope teaches the Holy Spirit has his ekporeusis from the Son. St. Maximus recognizes that, if the Romans were indeed to teach this, they would be in error (for only the Father is cause of the Holy Spirit). However, he goes on to show that this charge is misplaced, and the Romans do not teach that the Son is cause of the Spirit, but in fact know that the Father is the only cause of the Holy Spirit. .

Compare with the Council of Florence centuries later:

[W]e define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

Here, the Council of Florence states, according to the Greeks, the Son also is cause of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

In short, St. Maximus says the Romans do not teach the Son is cause, while the Council of Florence states the Son indeed is cause, just like the Father.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

NO, the early Church was never called “Orthodox”, she was later defined officially as "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The term Orthodox was introduced later when the Eastern Catholic Church’s were falling into heresy and apostasy. Because these Eastern Catholic Church’s mirrored one another by same liturgy and same culture etc… Those Eastern Catholic Church’s who remained united to the Pope, “took on this new title Orthodox” to identify themselves from their Eastern Catholic church’s who were teaching heresies or “heterodox”.

The Term “Orthodox” since its inception was never implied to show a distinction or separation from communion with the popes. The Term Orthodox was invented to identify them apart from other Eastern Catholics who began teaching heterodoxy.

Peter and his apostolic successors in the Popes remain unbroken to today. The Roman Catholic Church is “Orthodox” without ever implying the title, because the Roman see never fell into heresy as did the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs.

The True “Orthodox” Catholic Church are all those bishops united to Peter’s Chair in the Pope =bishop of Rome whom our dear Lord gave the Keys of heaven when our Lord will bind and loose what ever Peter binds and looses on earth. This is True Orthodoxy in Catholicism since the Church from antiquity.

Today, Orthodoxy is a term also being applied to those Eastern Churchs’ who remain heterodox, something to consider if protestants are seeking an Orthodox church? Know the differences of these Orthodox Church’s.

Those few Orthodox who maintain apostolic succession and valid sacraments and refuse communion with the Popes today, know very well that the early Eastern Catholic Church’s who adopted this title “Orthodox” remained in communion with the Popes, never to identify themselves as “separated from Rome”.

Peace be with you

Wesley7;7678683]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.

. ?

 

[Nine_Two]

By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?

 

[Nicea325]

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

Amen! That is the way I veiw it as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greetings Nine Two in the spirit of the lenten season

Wrong, I am referencing 451 a.d from the council of Chalcedon when the term is coined. Later it becomes identified to those churches in communion with Constantinople seperating again other Eastern Catholic Church’s such as the Nestorians and Jacobites, it is at these difficult times suchs as these that the Patriarch of Constantinople will later usurp “authority” from the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

The Orthodox = right believing seperated themselves from the Heterodox = wrong believing Eastern Catholic church’s by this new adopted title stemming from 451 a.d. Today we have the "Copts in Egypt have added this “Orthodox” title to themselves.

Orthodoxy is well underway before the 17th century.

Peace be with you

P.S sorry JRKH, your historical argument comes along much later after the Patriarch of Constantinople has gained powerful political secular influences by the time we reach the schism’s of “Authority”. Prior to your historical schism’s the “term” Orthodox already identified those outside of communion with Constantinople as “heterodox” from those in communion with Constantinople to be “Orthodox”, this title was never applied to distinguish itself from communion with the Pope from Rome.

Peace be with you also:thumbsup:

By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?

 

[Nine_Two]

Can you direct me to sources from that Council where the term “Eastern Catholic” was used?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The first time Catholic Church is documented is Ignatius of Antioch in his letter left before he was Martyred in Rome and feed to the Lions. Which is dated 110-AD. approx. The dates are know to fall between 98-117 AD. I just used a middle ground. But you can google and read on him.

Catholic means Universal. Ignatius also left the chain of command to instruct the followers after his death if need be. He was student of the Apostle John was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If you include St Peter he was the Third Bishop of Antioch.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

The first time Catholic Church is documented is Ignatius of Antioch in his letter left before he was Martyred in Rome and feed to the Lions. Which is dated 110-AD. approx. The dates are know to fall between 98-117 AD. I just used a middle ground. But you can google and read on him.

Catholic means Universal. Ignatius also left the chain of command to instruct the followers after his death if need be. He was student of the Apostle John was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If you include St Peter he was the Third Bishop of Antioch.

I think he’s referring to the phrase “Eastern Catholic” in response to Gabriel’s last post.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh I’m sorry, my error Nine.

 

[HisLamb]

There is no one true Church. There are only Christians.

Unscriptural statement.

Not only does Jesus establish one Church upon Peter (Mt 16:18), not only is the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), but if we have a disagreement with our brother and he won’t listen(Mt 18:15) we are first to approach him with two or three others (these are Christians), and if he will not hear them tell it to the Church. Why would there be instruction to take it to the Church if there is not Church? Why wouldn’t the instruction just be to take it to the Christians?

Further, there are seven Churches in the Revelation, there was clearly a hierarchal Church in place at the council of Jerusalem.

Yes, there is a mystical Body of Christ which are believers. But there is a visible Church as well, established by Jesus and the gates of hell have never prevailed upon it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Whooo hang on there, I did not say this council reference any Eastern Catholic Church, she does name those Orthodox participants and those heterodox Catholic Church’s from the East. Let us be clear here.

It is from this council the Eastern Catholic Church’s take on this title “Orthodox” and then later relate Orthodoxy to those in communion with Constantinople. The Term Orthodox when it is applied in this ancient council it is referencing all those in communion with the Pope. The Western Catholic Church need not take on this council term, because she was not infected by such heretical teachings as was the Eastern Catholics.

Forgive me I don’t have any site to give but I can give a source that contains the councils recorded documentes and or cites them. Please don’t allow me to revisit or re- read this huge document? so I will just highlight one reference for you.

As Far as Father John’s Professional document again too long to read and too long to post here, I believe his teachings are on line. Let me know if you need more clarification.

See, Father John A. Hardon S.J. Associate Professor of Comparitive Religion Chapt. 15

See, Sempiternus Rex Christus (on the council of Chalcedon) Pope Pius XII encyclycal of 8 Sept. 1951

Encyclical Of 8 September 1951
To the Venerable Brethren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.[1]

Christ, the Eternal King, before he promised the headship of the Church to Peter, the son of John, called together his disciples, and asking them what they and other men believed about himself, praised the faith which would conquer all the storms and attacks of the evil powers, and which Peter, enlightened by the Eternal Father, had declared in these words: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God’ (Matt. xvi, 16). It is this faith which is ‘the strength of God for the salvation of every believer’ (Rom. i, 16), and which brings forth the apostle’s crown, the martyr’s palm and the virgin’s lily. This faith has been defended and lucidly clarified especially by three oecumenical councils, those of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

1. Let us come now to the central point of the whole question, i.e. to the solemn definition of the Catholic faith, by which the pernicious error of Eutyches was rejected and condemned. In the fourth session of the sacred synod the representatives of the emperor asked that a new formula of the faith should be composed. But the papal legate, Paschasinus, expressed the feeling of all when he replied that it was not necessary; the ground, he said was sufficiently covered by the creeds already in use, and the canonical documents approved by the Church; among these the letter of St. Leo to Flavin was the most important. ‘Thirdly (i.e., after the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople and their explanations by St. Cyril at the council of Ephesus) the writings composed by the holy and apostolic Leo, pope of the universal Church, against the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, have already shown what the true faith is. This holy synod likewise holds and follows this same faith’ (Mansi, vii, 10 [Act. IV]).
2. It is useful to note here that this very important letter of St. Leo to Flavian concerning the Incarnation of the Word was read in the third session of the council, and hardly had the voice of the reader ceased, when there went up a unanimous cry: 'This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, and so believe all orthodox Christians. Let him be anathema who does not believe this. Peter has spoken through Leo’ (Schwartz, II, Vol. I, pars altera, p. 81 [277] [Act. III]; Mansi vi, 871. [Act. II])
3. After this all unanimously agreed that the document of the bishop of Rome fully and perfectly concorded with the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople. Nevertheless, in the fifth session at the requests of the representatives of the Emperor Marcian and the senate, a new definition of the faith was worked out by a select committee of the bishops congregated from diverse lands in the basilica of St. Euphemia. k was made up of a prologue, of the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople (which was promulgated for the first time) and of a condemnation of the doctrine of Eutyches. This rule of faith was approved by the unanimous consent of the council.
4. This sublime doctrine, which is drawn from the gospels and differs in no way from that of the council of Ephesus refutes Eutyches as well as Nestorius. **The dogmatic definition of the council of Chalcedon concords with it absolutely and perfectly, for this definition **likewise defines two distinct natures and one person in Christ in the following clear and precise words:

Nine_Two;7685645]Can you direct me to sources from that Council where the term “Eastern Catholic” was used?

 

[JRKH]

P.S sorry JRKH, your historical argument comes along much later after the Patriarch of Constantinople has gained powerful political secular influences by the time we reach the schism’s of “Authority”. Prior to your historical schism’s the “term” Orthodox already identified those outside of communion with Constantinople as “heterodox” from those in communion with Constantinople to be “Orthodox”, this title was never applied to distinguish itself from communion with the Pope from Rome.

Peace be with you also:thumbsup:

Gabe - -
Great post on how the term “Orthodox” came in to use. I did not know that. It’s great to keep learning.

I was aware that part of the problem at the time of the Schism came about due to the “crossover” of spiritual and civil (political) authority that the bishops and patriarches excersized.

As to my referencing the terms for the OP, I wasn’t refering so much to the “titles” as to their meanings. “Catholic” meaning universal and “orthodox” meaning right teaching. So in this sense the pre-schism church was both Catholic and Orthodox.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks JRKH, you are a breath of fresh air, I was beginning to think I lost everybody here?

Amen the preschism Church is Orthodox and Catholic. Remember the council of Nicea where we get the official title for all Catholics, “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Notice that Orthodox did not make the cut in the Nicene Creed although it was in circulation.

Thanks again JRKH

You truly set me at ease, thank you sincerely Gabriel:thumbsup:

Gabe - -
Great post on how the term “Orthodox” came in to use. I did not know that. It’s great to keep learning.

I was aware that part of the problem at the time of the Schism came about due to the “crossover” of spiritual and civil (political) authority that the bishops and patriarches excersized.

As to my referencing the terms for the OP, I wasn’t refering so much to the “titles” as to their meanings. “Catholic” meaning universal and “orthodox” meaning right teaching. So in this sense the pre-schism church was both Catholic and Orthodox.

Peace
James

 

[Nine_Two]

Whooo hang on there, I did not say this council reference any Eastern Catholic Church, she does name those Orthodox participants and those heterodox Catholic Church’s from the East. Let us be clear here.

You said

I am referencing 451 a.d from the council of Chalcedon when the term is coined.

in response to my question:

By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?

which was in response to you saying:

The term Orthodox was introduced later when the Eastern Catholic Church’s were falling into heresy and apostasy.

Clearly you’re saying “Eastern Catholic” predates the term “Orthodox”, and as far as I’m aware, “Eastern Catholic” is a 17th century term, now you’ve made a couple of long posts that don’t answer the question I asked, so how about making one that does, or are you purposely using the term anachronisticly?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok, Nine Two, I have seen your work here, and am not falling for it again as you reposted JRHK, nice technique thou;

Let’s keep it simple and remain on topic shall we?

OP = Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the great schism?

Where do you find “Eastern Catholic Church” from the OP?

I have only been referencing the term and definition of “Orthodox” here.

My last post clarified any misunderstandings, “Whooo hang on there, I did not say this council reference any Eastern Catholic Church, she does name those Orthodox participants and those heterodox Catholic Church’s from the East. Let us be clear here.”

I can neither confirm nor deny when the term “Eastern Catholics” was coined, my guess is that is was much earlier than the 17th century.

If you are implying another “off” topic, by hinting at the term “Eastern ( Rite ) Catholics” in full communion with Popes? Then you are off topic here, and my commentary to the OP does not apply to your assumptions.

At this point I can only ask for your forgiviness from my lack of clarity while I was relating to the OP topic.

Although, you do introduce an interesting topic in regards to the “Eastern Rite Catholics”. Orthodox, and Heterodox Catholics in the East or Eastern Catholics who also claim to the title Orthodox.

Peace be with you

You said in response to my question: which was in response to you saying:

Clearly you’re saying “Eastern Catholic” predates the term “Orthodox”, and as far as I’m aware, “Eastern Catholic” is a 17th century term, now you’ve made a couple of long posts that don’t answer the question I asked, so how about making one that does, or are you purposely using the term anachronisticly?

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok, Nine Two, I have seen your work here, and am not falling for it again as you reposted JRHK, nice technique thou;

Excuse me? What do you mean I “reposted” JRHK? And what technique are you talking about? Asking people to back up what they say?

The fact that you can’t answer legitimate questions about your posts speaks volumes about you, and your arguments.

My question was on your use of the term “Eastern Catholic” I asked nothing more. I didn’t say anything about your use of the term “Orthodox” or “Heterodox” or anything.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Gabriel, the post Nine_Two is referring to is this one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7684593&postcount=27

where, in response to his question “By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?”, you responded “Wrong, I am referencing 451 a.d from the council of Chalcedon when the term is coined.”. What is the “term” that you are referring to here if it is not “Eastern Catholic”? Was it “Orthodox”? If so, your post wasn’t clear.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let’s clear this up;

My OP # 24 dealt with this, when I commented to the OP;

NO, **the early Church was never called “Orthodox”, **

**The term Orthodox **

The Term "Orthodox"

**The True “Orthodox” Catholic Church **

Today, Orthodoxy is a term also being applied to those Eastern Churchs’ who remain heterodox,

**Those few Orthodox **…

Nine Two response post #25

By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?

My response to clarify that I was not addressing the term Eastern Catholic, but the term Orthodox as per the OP.

“Whooo hang on there, I did not say this council reference any Eastern Catholic Church, she does name those Orthodox participants and those heterodox Catholic Church’s from the East. Let us be clear here.”

Nine Two response;
Clearly you’re saying “Eastern Catholic” predates the term “Orthodox”,

I never clearly nor implied that the term "Eastern Catholic predates the term “Orthodox” see my post #24.

Gabriel of 12 response;
I can neither confirm nor deny when the term “Eastern Catholics” was coined, my guess is that is was much earlier than the 17th century.

If you are implying another “off” topic, by hinting at the term “Eastern ( Rite ) Catholics” in full communion with Popes? Then you are off topic here, and my commentary to the OP does not apply to your assumptions.

At this point I can only ask for your forgiviness from my lack of clarity while I was relating to the OP topic.

In conclusion, when I commented Eastern Catholics from post #24, I was referencing the all Catholics residing in the Eastern Empire during the early Church as oppossed to those from the Western Catholics. I made distinctions between those Heterodox Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Eastern Catholics, pertaining to their geography, not their Rites or any other identity.

When you asked about the date of Eastern Catholic term, I responded to your post, from the post above, that I was not referencing the term Eastern Catholic, but the term Orthodox.

My question to you Nine Two is? Can you make it clear to which Eastern Catholic term used that dates to the 17th century? Is it the Eastern Rite Catholics, or is it the geographical Eastern Catholics term that you are dating to the 17th century?

Peace be with you

My question was on your use of the term “Eastern Catholic” I asked nothing more. I didn’t say anything about your use of the term “Orthodox” or “Heterodox” or anything.