What is a fair way to accurately express BOTH the Catholic and Orhtodox churches' continuity with the early church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
In the religious studies department at my university, there was a flier concerning (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity. The description says that the Orthodox Church is the original church founded by Christ and is continuity with the earliest Christians.

The Catholic Church would say the same thing.

Yet, there is a sense that both are correct. Both traditions have apostolic lineage to the first century, inheriting practices and traditions relating to the surrounding culture. Orthodox churches have valid bishops, priests, and sacraments in Catholic eyes.

Both the churches are related to Christian communities who were founded by Apostolic who were in turn commissioned by Jesus. It’s not as if one side left the other side; it was more of a growth of differences that occurred. It wouldn’t be fair to say that the Roman church was originally part of the Orthodox church, for example.

So what is a good way both sides can agree on that express the historical reality?

Instead of something like the attached image

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
catholic1seeks said:
In the religious studies department at my university, there was a flier concerning (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity. The description says that the Orthodox Church is the original church founded by Christ and is continuity with the earliest Christians.

The Catholic Church would say the same thing.

Yet, there is a sense that both are correct. Both traditions have apostolic lineage to the first century, inheriting practices and traditions relating to the surrounding culture. Orthodox churches have valid bishops, priests, and sacraments in Catholic eyes.

Both the churches are related to Christian communities who were founded by Apostolic who were in turn commissioned by Jesus. It’s not as if one side left the other side; it was more of a growth of differences that occurred. It wouldn’t be fair to say that the Roman church was originally part of the Orthodox church, for example.

So what is a good way both sides can agree on that express the historical reality?
Click to expand...
You expressed it pretty fairly in this post. A typical way of expressing it is this: both churches have apostolic succession.

You can clarify that in just the way you did: Both churches have apostolic lineage to the first century. Both churches have inherited practices and traditions relating to the surrounding culture. Both churches have valid bishops, priests, and sacraments.

I would be a bit more careful in saying that the only differences just “grew up” with them slowly. You Can say that, but some Catholics, including me, think that the Orthodox had a kind of “quick change” involving a few heretical preachers who did not represent most Orthodox people. Their views later began to predominate, but I think we can easily trace who the original indicators of heresy were.
 
dmar198 said:
You Can say that, but some Catholics, including me, think that the Orthodox had a kind of “quick change” involving a few heretical preachers who did not represent most Orthodox people. Their views later began to predominate, but I think we can easily trace who the original indicators of heresy were.
Click to expand...
What does this refer to? Papal primacy? Who were the preachers? Thanks
 
That the (Eastern) Orthodox Church is in “continuity with the earliest Christians” is a statement I have absolutely no issues with. They do indeed “have apostolic lineage to the first century, inheriting practices and traditions relating to the surrounding culture.”

Here’s the thing though – all of that is also true for the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East. It’s also true for the Oriental Orthodox communion. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria for example, an Oriental Orthodox church, was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, no less … in 42 AD!

btw, why is this in “Eastern Catholicism”? :confused:
 
catholic1seeks said:
In the religious studies department at my university, there was a flier concerning (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity. The description says that the Orthodox Church is the original church founded by Christ and is continuity with the earliest Christians.

The Catholic Church would say the same thing.

Yet, there is a sense that both are correct. Both traditions have apostolic lineage to the first century, inheriting practices and traditions relating to the surrounding culture. Orthodox churches have valid bishops, priests, and sacraments in Catholic eyes.

Both the churches are related to Christian communities who were founded by Apostolic who were in turn commissioned by Jesus. It’s not as if one side left the other side; it was more of a growth of differences that occurred. It wouldn’t be fair to say that the Roman church was originally part of the Orthodox church, for example.

So what is a good way both sides can agree on that express the historical reality?

Instead of something like the attached image

http://saintignatiuschurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/timeline.gif
Click to expand...
The graph claims that the Roman Catholic Church broke away from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and what remained has become called the Orthodox Church. Personally, I don’t understand why the Roman Catholic Church broke communion with the other patriarchates. In the early church, there were five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Rome broke communion from all of them and the other four sees: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem remained in communion with each other and together with a few other patriarchates, such as that of Moscow, they form the Orthodox Church of today.
 
Tomdstone said:
The graph claims that the Roman Catholic Church broke away from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and what remained has become called the Orthodox Church. Personally, I don’t understand why the Roman Catholic Church broke communion with the other patriarchates. In the early church, there were five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Rome broke communion from all of them and the other four sees: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem remained in communion with each other and together with a few other patriarchates, such as that of Moscow, they form the Orthodox Church of today.
Click to expand...
That’s misleading imho. Alexandria and Antioch arguably broke away from both Rome and Constantinople much earlier - during the Chalcedonian schisms. The Alexandrian and Antiochian factions that remained in communion with Rome / Constantinople had fallen under the political and theological away of Constantinople by the time of the Great Schism. The Schism was a Latin / Byzantine split… That’s it.
 
twf said:
The Schism was a Latin / Byzantine split… That’s it.
Click to expand...
In 1054 the papal legate Cardinal Humbert placed a letter or excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia, excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. The other patriarchs, of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, remained in communion with Constantinople but not with Rome?
 
Tomdstone said:
In 1054 the papal legate Cardinal Humbert placed a letter or excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia, excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. The other patriarchs, of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, remained in communion with Constantinople but not with Rome?
Click to expand...
When Alexandria and Antioch (and later became Oriental Orthodox) left Communion with Rome and Constantinople, the Byzantine emperor and Ecumenical Patriarch influenced who they were replaced with and so they had ties to the Imperial Church, the Byzantine (later Orthodox) Church. It’s akin to the Latin Patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem being United to Rome
 
I don’t see where the Patriarch of Jerusalem ever left communion with Constantinople. If Rome was recognized as having Supreme Jurisdiction over the entire Church, why did not the Patriarch of Jerusalem stay in communion with Rome when Rome broke communion with Constantinople?
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see where the Patriarch of Jerusalem ever left communion with Constantinople. If Rome was recognized as having Supreme Jurisdiction over the entire Church, why did not the Patriarch of Jerusalem stay in communion with Rome when Rome broke communion with Constantinople?
Click to expand...
Which one? The Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, or Melkite Catholic? Clearly the latter two are not in full communion with Constantinople. While elevated to a Patriarchate for its historic location, the Jerusalem Patriarchate was dependent on Antioch until Constantinople assumed control thru Imperial authority
 
Tomdstone said:
Simeon II, Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem (1050-1099). He remained with the Orthodox Church and did not go with Rome when it broke communion with Michael Cerularius in 1054.
Click to expand...
Orthowiki:Simeon II of Jerusalem, also Simon, was Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Church of Jerusalem from 1084 to 1106 and was the incumbent patriarch when the First Crusade from western Europe invaded Jerusalem in 1099.
Simeon had withdrawn to the island of Cyprus before the arrival of the crusaders to Jerusalem and its fall and sack on July 15, 1099. Patr. Simeon died in 1106. His successors lived in exile in Constantinople for the next eighty years

So he didn’t necessarily break communion with Rome, he fled and his replacement was appointed by Constantinople and resided there during the time of the Latin Patriarchates of Jerusalem
 
Micosil said:
btw, why is this in “Eastern Catholicism”? :confused:
Click to expand...
My understanding (which hopefully is accurate, notwithstanding the fact that I haven’t spent a whole lot of time on the ECf in recent years) is that it is considered acceptable to ask his question here if he’s looking for answers from Eastern Catholics. (Just as, for example, he could ask it in the traditionalist section if the idea were to get answers from traditionalists.)
 
SyroMalankara said:
Orthowiki:Simeon II of Jerusalem, also Simon, was Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Church of Jerusalem from 1084 to 1106 and was the incumbent patriarch when the First Crusade from western Europe invaded Jerusalem in 1099.
Simeon had withdrawn to the island of Cyprus before the arrival of the crusaders to Jerusalem and its fall and sack on July 15, 1099. Patr. Simeon died in 1106. His successors lived in exile in Constantinople for the next eighty years

So he didn’t necessarily break communion with Rome, he fled and his replacement was appointed by Constantinople and resided there during the time of the Latin Patriarchates of Jerusalem
Click to expand...
If you would go to the christus rex site, which give the Mertens’ Encyclopedia, you will find that Simeon II was the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem (1050-1099). Please tell us who was the Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1050 to 1084.
christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/escurs/wwc/s.html
In any event, the Patriarch of Jerusalem remained in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople during this time. If it had been recognized that Rome had universal supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, it would be expected that the Patriarch of Jerusalem would go along with Rome’s excommunication of Michael Cerularius.
 
I would really love to add some research to this thread, but I’ve got things that are keeping me busy.

A few things I’d like to note before I have to stop: first, when I referred to the tracing of heretics earlier, I was primarily referring to Photius and (later) Mark of Ephesus. Second, I think I was wrong to call them heretics in the formal sense. I don’t think the Church had defined the issues that they preached heresy about, so they would only have been material heretics at best. Plus, many people in the Church think the Orthodox language about the filioque can be interpreted in a correct way. And also, Photius died in communion with the pope.

Second, it is my understanding that the See of Antioch did Not side with Constantinople during the schism, but rather wrote a gentle rebuke to them, and said we should remain united to the pope. It was one of his later successors who broke communion, and I don’t think their schism lasted that long. The guy who remained in communion with Rome lasted until 1062, and a Latin rite patriarch of Antioch was ordained by 1098. I’m not sure how the guys in between viewed the schism, but it doesn’t seem to have lasted long in my opinion. Antioch went in and out of communion with the pope several times between 1062 and the 1700s, and to this day there is Still a Catholic patriarch of Antioch. (Several, actually.)
 
Calling Photios a heretic would be quite problematic indeed, since he is a Catholic saint, venerated by some of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
*]

I would really love to add some research to this thread, but I’ve got things that are keeping me busy.

A few things I’d like to note before I have to stop: first, when I referred to the tracing of heretics earlier, I was primarily referring to Photius and (later) Mark of Ephesus.

Second, I think I was wrong to call them heretics in the formal sense. I don’t think the Church had defined the issues that they preached heresy about, so they would only have been material heretics at best. Plus, many people in the Church think the Orthodox language about the filioque can be interpreted in a correct way. And also, Photius died in communion with the pope.

Third, it is my understanding that the See of Antioch did Not side with Constantinople during the schism, but rather wrote a gentle rebuke to them, and said we should remain united to the pope. It was one of his later successors who broke communion, and I don’t think their schism lasted that long. The guy who remained in communion with Rome lasted until 1062, and another one was in communion with Rome by 1098. I’m not sure how the guys in between viewed the schism, but there is evidence that at least some of them were in communion with Rome, including John VI, who was appointed to the see of Antioch in 1090.

Fourth, Antioch went in and out of communion with the pope several times between 1062 and the 1700s, and to this day there is Still a Catholic patriarch of Antioch.

Fifth, I think there is a misleading argument afoot here. Has anyone ever heard the argument that Rome must be the one that left communion with the others, because there were five patriarchates and it was Rome versus the rest? It’s a kind of “four-versus-one” argument, but I think it is a bad one. (One reason why is because Antioch remained in communion with Rome, but there’s more to it than that.) I think that argument neglects the importance of western metropolitans. When Rome and the Eastern churches split up, it wasn’t just Rome versus the other four, it was Rome, Lyons, Arles, Toledo, Seville, and several others against a bunch of Eastern cities…and remember that Antioch remained in communion with Rome. Some of these western metropolitans were listed in the Church Fathers right up there with the patriarchates. I would put Carthage up there too, except Carthage’s Catholic population had been basically lost to Muslims a long time before.

Sixth, connected to that, I think the “four-versus-one” argument is misleading because I think it forgets the dependent status of the eastern patriarchs. In a similar way to how the western metropolitans were under Rome’s control, so also I think the eastern patriarchs were under Constantinople’s control. For example, consider the guy in Antioch who had remained in communion with Rome. When he died, Constantinople appointed an anti-Rome patriarch there. Antioch didn’t leave, it was taken out of communion by Constantinople – in my view. So to me it was more like Rome versus Constantinople than Rome versus “the other four.” There were other western cities but I think they were under Rome’s control, and there were other eastern cities and patriarchates but I think they were under Constantinople’s control. If this view is accurate, then the “four-versus-one” argument loses a lot of weight because it can be viewed as “one biggie versus the other biggie.”

Okay, I really need to go now. I hope to get back to this someday.*
 
Peter_J said:
My understanding (which hopefully is accurate, notwithstanding the fact that I haven’t spent a whole lot of time on the ECf in recent years)
Click to expand...
I’ll leave it to the reader to guess why that is. :rolleyes:
 
dmar198 said:
… when I referred to the tracing of heretics earlier, I was primarily referring to Photius and (later) Mark of Ephesus. Second, I think I was wrong to call them heretics in the formal sense. I don’t think the Church had defined the issues that they preached heresy about, so they would only have been material heretics at best. Plus, many people in the Church think the Orthodox language about the filioque can be interpreted in a correct way. And also, Photius died in communion with the pope.
Click to expand...
St. Photius is venerated as a saint in the Byzantine Catholic Church and in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. He is on their calendar of saints, and is venerated on Feb. 6.
east2west.org/spirituality.htm
From Melkite Sophia Press, Vespers :
By a lawless decree, O holy one, you were torn from your faithful flock and suffered grievously for the Faith, O radiant hierarch, most glorious, blessed Photios of great renown, firm foundation of the Church, steadfast pillar of piety. Hence we honor you with all zeal, O initiate and teacher, wise in the doctrine of Orthodoxy and far-famed herald of grace and truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top