Whom founded the Orthodox Church?

[Hiskid1973]

A group of schismatic bishops.

One thing for sure is one day we will know how it really happened…I look fwd to see unrevised history one day…

 

[peary]

Or the other way around. Whatever.

You mean bishops who were a group of schismatics?

 

[ralphinal]

Yes.

And no, you don’t believe St. Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church, you believe that both he and St. Paul founded the See of Rome. St. Peter also founded the See of Antioch. St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria. St. James founded the See of Jerusalem. St. Andrew founded the See of Constantinople, and if I’m not mistaken the See of Iberia (Georgia).

So we have many apostolic founders. The apostolic founder of my particular Church is St. Andrew (traced through Moscow, Kyiv, and Constantinople). Because Constantinople has been the most important of our Sees, and the one which most new Autocephalus (independent, but in communion) Churches grew out of, almost all the churches claim St. Andrew as their founder. The exceptions being the above noted Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, and possibly some others I can’t think of right now.

But the Communion itself was founded at Pentecost by Christ. The founders of the sees of individual Churches is of less importance to us.

Actually, the founders of individual sees are of importance to you, otherwise Orthodox posters would not be so quick to remind us that Peter founded Antioch as well as Rome.

No matter, both sides hold that the Birth of the Church as we see it was Pentecost. Both sides hold that Jesus founded his Church to be based on an Apostolic System. Both sides can trace their roots back to 33 A.D.

Unlike the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox denominations, one cannot point to a certain person in a certain year and say “This is when they began and this is who started it.”

 

[John_Larocque]

I sat down and digested some John Zizioulas (now +John of Pergamon) and there’s a chapter in Being and Commuion on apololisticity. There are two images of the bishop, both, he claims which are true. The first is the Ignatius of Antioch model, where the bishop is an alter Christus (who should be obeyed as if he were the Lord), and the bishops are the college of Apostles. The second is the Cyprianic model where the bishop is actually a successor of the apostles. Not an individual apostle, but all of them - he is another Peter, thus each bishop possesses the chair of Peter. The later model is considered the “historical” model, of which a variant is the predominant Catholic view. The part that is missing is what he calls “epicletic” or eschatological, and he points back to St. Ignatius.

The elevation of the bishop (by two other bishops) is Pentacost. Not a new Pentacost, but the same Pentacost, much as Catholics believe that baptism or the Eucharist are not recreations but mystically the same event (Pascha/Easter). Integral to the elevation of a bishop is that his authority is linked (by act of his consecration) to a specific geographic territory (or Eucharistic community) - he is anchored to a particular place where he becomes (to use Ignatian language) the head of the presbyters of that territory. The “axios” of the laity is a component of the ceremony as well - their approval of the bishop as the head of their Eucharistic assembly.

Catholics emphasiuze the monarchial/historical role of the bishop, while Protestants leave it out altogether and concentrate on a form of Holy Spirit inspired presbyterianism. Not surprisingly, Orthodox have both historical and eschatological/epicletic, although Zizioulas says that they aren’t always aware of the underlying reasons or history behind the practices.

As for the main topic question, who founded the Orthodox church? Jesus Christ at Pentacost. Prior to the East/West schism, there were two other major schisms involving Ephesus (“Nestorian”) and Chalcedon (Oriental Orthodox), and the successors to those bodies also make similar apostolic claims as those of the Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“Whom” founded the Orthodox Church? The CAF English issues continue! lol

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, the founders of individual sees are of importance to you, otherwise Orthodox posters would not be so quick to remind us that Peter founded Antioch as well as Rome.

I guarantee you anyone who says that is doing so to counter the Roman Catholic claim of Primacy based on Peter as founder of the See. While it is important to Orthodox that we have that apostolic lineage, whom it leads back to specificly is unimportant. After all, it is a See of St. Andrew who has Primacy within our communion, despite the presence of older sees.

 

[josie_L]

I sat down and digested some John Zizioulas (now +John of Pergamon) and there’s a chapter in Being and Commuion on apololisticity. There are two images of the bishop, both, he claims which are true. The first is the Ignatius of Antioch model, where the bishop is an alter Christus (who should be obeyed as if he were the Lord), and the bishops are the college of Apostles. The second is the Cyprianic model where the bishop is actually a successor of the apostles. Not an individual apostle, but all of them - he is another Peter, thus each bishop possesses the chair of Peter. The later model is considered the “historical” model, of which a variant is the predominant Catholic view. The part that is missing is what he calls “epicletic” or eschatological, and he points back to St. Ignatius.

The elevation of the bishop (by two other bishops) is Pentacost. Not a new Pentacost, but the same Pentacost, much as Catholics believe that baptism or the Eucharist are not recreations but mystically the same event (Pascha/Easter).** Integral to the elevation of a bishop is that his authority is linked (by act of his consecration) to a specific geographic territory (or Eucharistic community) - he is anchored to a particular place where he becomes (to use Ignatian language) the head of the presbyters of that territory.** The “axios” of the laity is a component of the ceremony as well - their approval of the bishop as the head of their Eucharistic assembly.

Catholics emphasiuze the monarchial/historical role of the bishop, while Protestants leave it out altogether and concentrate on a form of Holy Spirit inspired presbyterianism. Not surprisingly, Orthodox have both historical and eschatological/epicletic, although Zizioulas says that they aren’t always aware of the underlying reasons or history behind the practices.

As for the main topic question, who founded the Orthodox church? Jesus Christ at Pentacost. Prior to the East/West schism, there were two other major schisms involving Ephesus (“Nestorian”) and Chalcedon (Oriental Orthodox), and the successors to those bodies also make similar apostolic claims as those of the Orthodox and Catholics.

First, where is scripture in all this, that is, how does he integrate the Word into his analysis? Second, I’m not quite getting how the Catholics fall into the latter model (only) when we don’t exactly view each bishop as possessing the chair of Peter (the church fathers and church history prove otherwise)? Thirdly, where does the catholicity of the Church fit into this eschatological model of the bishop being “anchored to a particular place”?

 

[Hesychios]

You mean bishops who were a group of schismatics?

Since you made the assertion, can you name them?

Can you give us a rundown on just how this sort of thing happened?

You seem to know a lot you are not revealing.

 

[josie_L]

It is uncanny. The Protestant Reformation literally came to a halt at the edge of Orthodoxy.

Even in places where the population was mixed, like Romania, the reformation leaped over the Orthodox. In the sixteenth century there was a minority population of Catholic Hungarians within Romania, and it generally went over to the Protestant cause as a body, the kingdom of Hungary (which controlled the area) had to fight to get some of these people back into the fold.

The Orthodox around them were mostly unaffected by this sectarian struggle.

One could reverse this and say how perilously close we came to being subjected by the Muslims and yet we weren’t; despite all odds the Catholic Nations of the West defeated the Muslims/Turks at Lepanto.

 

[josie_L]

I always wondered why the prots split from the CC church and not the Orthodox.

Almost like the CC was reaping what was sowed… I don’t mean that to be nasty…Just something I wondered about…

The very same reasons that the Arians split from the Church (which was not divided then), the Nestorians, the Donatists, the pelaganists, the Iconoclasts, the Manicheans, the gnostics, the montanists, the marcionites . . . etc.

p.s. All heresies in the Church during the first millenia came from the east.

 

[John_Larocque]

First, where is scripture in all this, that is, how does he integrate the Word into his analysis? Second, I’m not quite getting how the Catholics fall into the latter model (only) when we don’t exactly view each bishop as possessing the chair of Peter (the church fathers and church history prove otherwise)? Thirdly, where does the catholicity of the Church fit into this eschatological model of the bishop being “anchored to a particular place”?

Interesting that you bring up the New Testament. Zizioulas ecclesiology has been grafted onto official Catholic documents, I saw an article from an Anglo-Catholic which cited two of them. In short, the local diocese in the complete church - or his equation: Bishop = Eucharist = Church. When Rome sent Cardinal Kasper down to Lambeth Palace, and essentially excommunicated them for embracing women bishops, he was using the language and ecclesiology of his friend, and invoking St. Cyprian. “Orthodoxy” and communion isn’t just something you put to an ecclesial majority vote, it has to be in accord with the church future and past. The Anglicans chose heretodoxy against the ancient practices of the original undivided church of the first millennium (which are still points in common between Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian).

Ziziloulas was concerned with what the church looked like in its early years, so the initial focus was on the New Testament and on early letters such as that of Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome and later St. Cyprian. In the Pauline epistles, the language was always that of the “church at Rome” or the “church at Corinth.” Each city had its own complete church. When Ignatius used the expression “catholic”, he used it to refer to the completeness or wholeness of the local church, which was headed by a bishop, who should be treated as if he were God himself. As the church evolved and got larger, the bishop’s role was obscured somewhat with the rise of the local parish, with priests performing functions no longer under the direct supervision of the bishop.

St. Cyprian’s system referred to the other apostles as being equal in authority to St. Peter. Even if you accept a form of Petrine primacy unique to the Bishop of Rome, it would be an error to claim that bishops are not also, apostolic successors. It would also be an error to comb through the ancient fathers and think “they’re referring to the Pope of Rome” every time you come across a reference to Peter. In the complete and local Catholic church, the bishop’s role is that of Peter, to whom the presbytery answers. Sometimes they are talking about their bishop or one of the other Petrine sees (Antioch, Alexandria).

The reason I bring up “Bishop Eucharist Church,” is that its influence has extended far beyond the Orthodox world and being cited as a path to the possible corporate reunion between Catholic and Orthodox churches.

As for bishops being tied to local territories, that has always been part of the liturgical tradition of the East. They were not just installed as bishops, they were installed as bishops in charge of a territory. That’s simply part of his ministry.

 

[Nine_Two]

One could reverse this and say how perilously close we came to being subjected by the Muslims and yet we weren’t; despite all odds the Catholic Nations of the West defeated the Muslims/Turks at Lepanto.

What does that have to do with anything?

And no, it wasn’t against all odds, the Turkish military system had long before begun its long decline.

 

[Nine_Two]

p.s. All heresies in the Church during the first millenia came from the east.

Probably because the vast majority of the worlds Christians were in the East at the time, and those who were in the West were more concerned with not being killed by some bored knight, or with scrounging for food.

During the first Millenium the East reached new hights in Civilization while the West languished in the Dark Ages. Funny how during the second millenium this was reversed, and gasp, all sorts of new heresies developed in the West, but not in the East.

Funny how people only come up with stupid ideas when they have the chance to think without worrying about whether they are going to be violently killed later in the day.

 

[Hesychios]

Probably because the vast majority of the worlds Christians were in the East at the time, and those who were in the West were more concerned with not being killed by some bored knight, or with scrounging for food.

During the first Millenium the East reached new hights in Civilization while the West languished in the Dark Ages. Funny how during the second millenium this was reversed, and gasp, all sorts of new heresies developed in the West, but not in the East.

Funny how people only come up with stupid ideas when they have the chance to think without worrying about whether they are going to be violently killed later in the day.

Good response.

Except to say that there actually were some heresies that arose in the west in the first millenium. Most erupted in the east because the majority of Christians were there, the economy was sophisticated and thriving, the number of classically trained Christians was great in comparison to the west.

Naturally, that’s where the innovations came from. Holy Orthodoxy had to fight them all, and survives to this day out of sheer tenacity.

 

[Nine_Two]

Good response.

Except to say that there actually were some heresies that arose in the west in the first millenium. Most erupted in the east because the majority of Christians were there, the economy was sophisticated and thriving, the number of classically trained Christians was great in comparison to the west.

Naturally, that’s where the innovations came from. Holy Orthodoxy had to fight them all, and survives to this day out of sheer tenacity.

That is true, I should have said something about some coming from the West early on,

However I think our Catholic friend will agree that the number of breakaway groups has nothing to do with whether or not a group is correct. Seeing as if he does try to argue that, he must agree that the Catholic Church went into error sometime in the late first millenium/early second millenium.

 

[josie_L]

What does that have to do with anything?

That God protected his Church from being demolished by the Turks/Muslims whose goal it was, was to conquer Rome.

And no, it wasn’t against all odds, the Turkish military system had long before begun its long decline.

In 1565 the Muslims fought in Malta but were defeated, soon after that the Muslims defeated the Hungarians and those living in Cyprus, therefore, by the time 1571 came the Turks/Muslims were pretty strong. Furthermore, we were outmanned and had less ships (galleys) than the Turks, so yes, considering the fact that the West was still in the throes of the Reformation (and the Protestants wouldn’t help us), we won despite the odds.

 

[Nine_Two]

That God protected his Church from being demolished by the Turks/Muslims whose goal it was, was to conquer Rome.

As far as the Ottoman’s were concerned, they did conquer Rome.

In 1565 the Muslims fought in Malta but were defeated, soon after that the Muslims defeated the Hungarians and those living in Cyprus, therefore, by the time 1571 came the Turks/Muslims were pretty strong. Furthermore, we were outmanned and had less ships (galleys) than the Turks, so yes, considering the fact that the West was still in the throes of the Reformation (and the Protestants wouldn’t help us), we won despite the odds.

Hungary had already been defeated, and the tactical situation in Malta and in Cyprus is much different.

And if Military prowess is a sign of Gods favour, then God must favour the Protestants, since Catholic Europe was conquered by Fascists just 70 years ago, and saved by Protestants.

 

[josie_L]

As far as the Ottoman’s were concerned, they did conquer Rome.

What the heck does this mean in light of the fact that they did not conquer Rome (as in the actual city and the heart of Christianity according to scripture, tradition and historical analysis)?

Hungary had already been defeated, and the tactical situation in Malta and in Cyprus is much different.

You said they were in decline which is false since the Turks/Muslims were still very much capable of defeating us as was shown in Szigetvar in 1566 (which happened a year after Malta and thus only 4 years before the battle of Lepanto).

And if Military prowess is a sign of Gods favour, then God must favour the Protestants, since Catholic Europe was conquered by Fascists just 70 years ago, and saved by Protestants.

I did not say that military prowess was a sign of God’s favour, however, we won a decisive victory over the Muslims who were hoping to conquer Rome (had we lost the war all of Europe would have fallen and the Vatican would have been beseiged). Secondly, although Europe (it could hardly be called Catholic at this point) fell to Fascists the Vatican survived the Nazi takeover of Rome, and still managed in the process to save over 800 000 Jews. Thirdly, it was not the Protestants that saved us from the Fascists but America which at the time I’m sure had many Catholics enlisted in the army.

p.s. The fact that we managed to defeat the Muslims at Malta even though there were only 700 knights (to protect the Island and the Mediterranean) but more than 40 000 Turks is miraculous.

 

[Nine_Two]

I was going to respond but this has gone too far off topic. If you truly care for answers you should start a new thread.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I was going to respond but this has gone too far off topic. If you truly care for answers you should start a new thread.

Yes, for such simple answer, it took some rabbit trails…