When was the first time...?

[mardukm]

When was the first time that Rome referred to the Eastern or Oriental Churches as “Churches?”

While participating in several threads in the past several days, my research inadvertantly brought something to my attention. At the Council of Florence, the Easterns and Orientals are never referred to as “Churches,” but are rather referred to by their nationality or group affiliation (i.e., Copts, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites). This is probably due to Rome’s perception at that time in history that the Latin Catholic Church (i.e., the ROMAN Catholic Church) was the only real Church.

In another thread, I came upon an Encyclical by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 where the Eastern Orthodox are specifically referred to as “Eastern Orthodox CHURCH.” I found that rather striking.

Are there any earlier references to the Easterns or Orientals (Orthodox or Catholic) as “Churches” that anyone here knows of?

Thanks.

Blessings

 

[DorianGregorian]

I don’t know of a document where the Church says that they are not Churches. They have Apostolic Succession, ergo, they are a Church.

One Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic):
The Roman Catholic Church

Churches with Apostolic Succession, but missing one or more of the four marks:

• An overwhelming majority of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
• Old Catholic Churches.
• SOME (a small number) High Church Anglicans who were ordained by Old Catholic Bishops.
• SSPX (which is not another Church, but is Canonically Irregular).

Questionable:

• Thuc-line Priests (concerning Abp. Thuc’s mental state which may have precluded valid Intent, in addition there was no Co-Concentrator. In addition they hold sedevacanist views, which again strains a valid intent).
• Some Scandinavian Lutherans.

Clearly not:

• Most Protestants, who’s leaders were Priests or layman.

Disclaimer: This is a grossly simplified list, there’s a lot more detail which you can read yourself.

Laus Deo

 

[OhMalley]

I don’t know of a document where the Church says that they are not Churches. They have Apostolic Succession, ergo, they are a Church.

One Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic):
The Roman Catholic Church…

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH not the “Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[JohnVIII]

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH not the “Roman Catholic Church.”

I find this interesting, you are a Roman Catholic (I think), and yet you make a distinction between “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church”. What pray tell is that distinction?

There was a time when I would have said that the “Catholic Church” is the Orthodox Church. I still belong to the Orthodox Church, but I would not say that the Orthodox Church is exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church (nor would I say that the Roman Catholic Church is the same thing as the Catholic Church). Because of my Low Petrine view, I’ve come to believe that the Catholic Church is made up of every true bishop where ever he may be (whether that be in the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Church, or even the Roman Church) together with the parishioners that are connected with those bishops.

Perhaps what brother [user]mardukm[/user] is looking for is that if Rome refers to a group as a “church”, then Rome must be acknowledging that they are a part of the Catholic Church and are canonical. (Am I right brother [user]mardukm[/user]?)

 

[OhMalley]

I find this interesting, you are a Roman Catholic (I think), and yet you make a distinction between “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church”. What pray tell is that distinction?

There was a time when I would have said that the “Catholic Church” is the Orthodox Church. I still belong to the Orthodox Church, but I would not say that the Orthodox Church is exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church (nor would I say that the Roman Catholic Church is the same thing as the Catholic Church). Because of my Low Petrine view, I’ve come to believe that the Catholic Church is made up of every true bishop where ever he may be (whether that be in the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Church, or even the Roman Church) together with the parishioners that are connected with those bishops.

Perhaps what brother [user]mardukm[/user] is looking for is that if Rome refers to a group as a “church”, then Rome must be acknowledging that they are a part of the Catholic Church and are canonical. (Am I right brother [user]mardukm[/user]?)

The Catholic Church is both the Western (Latin Rite) AND Eastern (12 or so Rites, many recensions within the Rites.)

The notion by some Orthodox that all Catholics that fall under the Vicar of Christ on Earth are “Roman Catholics” is little more than an attempt to “keep a space at the Catholic table” so to speak.

 

[Diak]

I believe the first use by a Pope was Leo XIII in Orientalium Dignitas of 1894:

**The Churches of the East **are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us.