Whom founded the Orthodox Church?

[josie_L]

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.

Let’s first begin to understand why I responded as I did:

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…

I was trying to point out the obvious fact that the Catholic Church had to contend with the same issues of heresies and splits that it did in the first millenia, while mentioning at the same time that the Orthodox did in fact experience these issues (they were part of the Church) and were from all accounts responsible for the heresies (that I’m aware of) which flourished during this period. Hence I was simply trying to balance out the lopsided (and ridiculous) view of history our friend Hiskid has.

Secondly, it doesn’t really matter how many Christians the East had compared to the West because it only takes one person to begin preaching heretical views and for those views to reach the laity, in fact, many of the heretical views were supported by patriarchs, some originating from the patriarchs themselves (which was probably why they were so pervasive).

Thirdly, I’m glad that the Byzantine empire was so advanced but you forget that Rome was the center of the World so to speak until it was sacked. Therefore, the Church in the West for more than 200 years had between the edict of Milan and the fall of Rome time to conceive of heresies but it didn’t.

Fourthly, I don’t think that after the fall of Rome or long thereafter the West was overly concerned with some renegade soldiers so I don’t see how this would have prevented the Church in the West from preaching heresy.

Fifthly, the heresies resulting in Europe would not have gained a foothold had the monarchies and princes (as well government officials) of the nations at that time not supported the likes of Luther and Calvin, in other words Protestantism (throughout the 16th century) was imposed upon the people out of sheer greed and power. I have also heard it said that had King Henry VIII not broken off communion with Rome Protestantism in Europe would have died out.

 

[prodromos]

Thirdly, I’m glad that the Byzantine empire was so advanced but you forget that Rome was the center of the World so to speak until it was sacked. Therefore, the Church in the West for more than 200 years had between the edict of Milan and the fall of Rome time to conceive of heresies but it didn’t.

After Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, Rome became little more than a ghost town. Rome was the centre of nothing until Charlemange tried to recreate the Roman Empire in the West. In truth the Roman Empire still continued as it had for centuries, centred in Constantinople, which is why the Ottomans had, for all intents and purposes, conquered Rome.

John

 

[Hiskid1973]

Hence I was simply trying to balance out the lopsided (and ridiculous) view of history our friend Hiskid has.

Thanks for the comment and your encouragment… …Wasn’t trying to promote my view of history…Interesting question I always had…None are without problems…But it was pretty radical for one see to split from the rest and then that see fracture into what we see today as protestantism…It’s a legitimate question that will only be answered on the other side…

 

[Nine_Two]

I was trying to point out the obvious fact that the Catholic Church had to contend with the same issues of heresies and splits that it did in the first millenia, while mentioning at the same time that the Orthodox did in fact experience these issues (they were part of the Church) and were from all accounts responsible for the heresies (that I’m aware of) which flourished during this period. Hence I was simply trying to balance out the lopsided (and ridiculous) view of history our friend Hiskid has.

The Orthodox responsible? No, not at all. Unless you are taking credit for Protestant innovations you should retract that. The majority of the early heresies came out of the East, they were not, however, limited to the East in scope.

Secondly, it doesn’t really matter how many Christians the East had compared to the West because it only takes one person to begin preaching heretical views and for those views to reach the laity, in fact, many of the heretical views were supported by patriarchs, some originating from the patriarchs themselves (which was probably why they were so pervasive).

As I said, when you’re eating mud you aren’t thinking theology. The circumstances were very different. There is a reason that the West has so few theologeans in this period, not just heretics.

Thirdly, I’m glad that the Byzantine empire was so advanced but you forget that Rome was the center of the World so to speak until it was sacked. Therefore, the Church in the West for more than 200 years had between the edict of Milan and the fall of Rome time to conceive of heresies but it didn’t.

Actually Rome was a cess pool for most of its pre-enlightenment history. Rome stopped being the political center of the world well before it was sacked. The Eastern Empire was considered the senior possition, with Western Emperors, and Popes, requiring their approval. Even before the acceptance of Christianity, the capital was moved away from Rome several times. After the death of the Republic, the city of Rome gradually became less and less an important city.

Fourthly, I don’t think that after the fall of Rome or long thereafter the West was overly concerned with some renegade soldiers so I don’t see how this would have prevented the Church in the West from preaching heresy.

I suggest studying the Dark Ages a bit.

Fifthly, the heresies resulting in Europe would not have gained a foothold had the monarchies and princes (as well government officials) of the nations at that time not supported the likes of Luther and Calvin, in other words Protestantism (throughout the 16th century) was imposed upon the people out of sheer greed and power. I have also heard it said that had King Henry VIII not broken off communion with Rome Protestantism in Europe would have died out.

I doubt that. Thanks to Gutenburg it was a lot harder to repress people’s teachings. How do you think Luther’s teachings even got into Catholic states? It wasn’t state sponsorship.

 

[Hesychios]

… Even before the acceptance of Christianity, the capital was moved away from Rome several times. After the death of the Republic, the city of Rome gradually became less and less an important city.

It seems that most people’s understanding of the empire is something of a caricature. After the republic fell the government was essentially the emperor, and wherever he was, there was the capital. The executive overwhelmed the legislative, and the senate became something of a rubber stamp to the emperor’s decisions.

After Constantine gained control of the empire in the west, his capital was Milan. When he united the entire empire he chose not to live in Rome. He actually moved the senate to his new city on the Bosporus.

Rome sank into an economically depressed, disease-ridden backwater. The population collapsed as people migrated out of the city in great numbers.

 

[Nine_Two]

It seems that most people’s understanding of the empire is something of a caricature. After the republic fell the government was essentially the emperor, and wherever he was, there was the capital. The executive overwhelmed the legislative, and the senate became something of a rubber stamp to the emperor’s decisions.

After Constantine gained control of the empire in the west, his capital was Milan. When he united the entire empire he chose not to live in Rome. He actually moved the senate to his new city on the Bosporus.

Rome sank into an economically depressed, disease-ridden backwater. The population collapsed as people migrated out of the city in great numbers.

Quite. It’s called Roman so Rome must be the most important centre. The Turks were trying to conquer the Romans so that must mean they were trying to conquer the city of Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

“Whom founded…” is ungrammatical.

Since it’s the subject of the sentence, the nominative “who” should be used here.

OTOH, “The Orthodox Church was founded by whom?” shows the proper use of the objective form “whom”.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/650/icon3r.jpg

Grammarian usually has little to contribute to a discussion and possesses few effective weapons. To compensate, he will point out minor errors in spelling and grammar. Because of Grammarian’s obvious weakness most Warriors ignore him.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Just teasing.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[prodromos]

Quite. It’s called Roman so Rome must be the most important centre. The Turks were trying to conquer the Romans so that must mean they were trying to conquer the city of Rome.

Of course it doesn’t help understanding any when historians refer to the empire headed at Constantinople as the “Byzantine Empire” instead of the “Roman Empire” which it actually was. The Phanar in Istanbul (Constantinople) is still known in Turkey as the Roman Patriarchate.

John

 

[Hesychios]

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.

You seem to have missed the point completely.

The Protestant Reformation stopped at the edge of Holy Orthodoxy not because of magic, or Providence or some such claim, but because the problematic practices, the church corruption, the preconceived concepts about the nature of human salvation and the very mindset which resulted in the Reformation did not exist in the Orthodox church.

Case in point. The Orthodox did not have the abuse of selling indulgences for two reasons:

• Holy Orthodoxy does not teach that there must always be a temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in confession (a punishment which, if not satisfied in this life must be made up in the next), thus no market for an indulgence to escape this punishment.
• Holy Orthodoxy does not have an institution or central office that can grant a dispensation for a bishop to buy Sees (Simony), or hold two or more simultaneously. Thus there was no need to dream up a scheme to sell a sacrament of the church to pay for these dispensations or repay the loans to buy church offices.

Yes, Holy Orthodoxy has had it’s own problems, this we know. We are sinners. The Christian community will always be bedeviled, because the devil hates the saving work of Christ. Yes, we struggle.

But the roots of the Reformation were firmly planted in the Latin Catholic church. The Protestant reformers were mostly priests of the Latin Catholic church, trained and ordained by Latin Catholic bishops. The Protestant churches are the children of the Latin Catholic church, which is why it is so easy for Latin Catholics and Protestants to argue on these forums all over the internet. Your church and the Protestant churches speak the same language, even if you disagree about the particulars.

Holy Orthodoxy does not move in those circles, it speaks to a different worldview, a different mindset, a different way of achieving salvation. The Orthodox people were not impressed by the arguments of the Protestant reformers not because they had so much sympathy for the Latin Catholic church, but because their arguments did not make any sense in an Orthodox Catholic context.

 

[Hiskid1973]

*]Holy Orthodoxy does not teach that there must always be a temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in confession (a punishment which, if not satisfied in this life must be made up in the next), thus no market for an indulgence to escape this punishment.
*]Holy Orthodoxy does not have an institution or central office that can grant a dispensation for a bishop to buy Sees (Simony), or hold two or more simultaneously. Thus there was no need to dream up a scheme to sell a sacrament of the church to pay for these dispensations or repay the loans to buy church offices.

Yes, Holy Orthodoxy has had it’s own problems, this we know. We are sinners. The Christian community will always be bedeviled, because the devil hates the saving work of Christ. Yes, we struggle.

But the roots of the Reformation were firmly planted in the Latin Catholic church. The Protestant reformers were mostly priests of the Latin Catholic church, trained and ordained by Latin Catholic bishops. The Protestant churches are the children of the Latin Catholic church, which is why it is so easy for Latin Catholics and Protestants to argue on these forums all over the internet. Your church and the Protestant churches speak the same language, even if you disagree about the particulars.

Holy Orthodoxy does not move in those circles, it speaks to a different worldview, a different mindset, a different way of achieving salvation. The Orthodox people were not impressed by the arguments of the Protestant reformers not because they had so much sympathy for the Latin Catholic church, but because their arguments did not make any sense in an Orthodox Catholic context.

That sums it up quite nicely. Thank you Bro…

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Just passing through.

Rome had conqured the known world, Jesus knew this, and how fitting that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Jesus desired that all nations be baptised and taught that He is Lord through His Apostles, so when they passed on, a valid hierarchy would continue under Peter, coincidentally from Rome. Jesus was crucified in His own country and guess what ?

Matthew 13: 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Just as Jesus was rejected, so to was the key holder appointed by Jesus; and continues to this day. I just can’t help but recall Jesus prayer, they all be of one mind as the Father and He. Of course the Trinity !

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[josie_L]

After Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, Rome became little more than a ghost town. Rome was the centre of nothing until Charlemange tried to recreate the Roman Empire in the West. In truth the Roman Empire still continued as it had for centuries, centred in Constantinople, which is why the Ottomans had, for all intents and purposes, conquered Rome.

John

Let’s get real here for a second, the Turks/Muslims were determined to conquer Rome “the eternal city” during the battle of Lepanto, so historically and geographically speaking Rome is Rome and Constantinople is Constantinople. I’m sure therefore the Ottoman Turks were able to tell the difference between the two.

p.s. There were two parts of the empire (East/Constantinople and West/Rome) and only one part of it which had fallen to the “heathens”.

 

[josie_L]

Of course it doesn’t help understanding any when historians refer to the empire headed at Constantinople as the “Byzantine Empire” instead of the “Roman Empire” which it actually was. The Phanar in Istanbul (Constantinople) is still known in Turkey as the Roman Patriarchate.

John

The headquarters so to speak of the empire were now shifted to Constantinople but how does that make it “Rome”? Even within our own Church hierarchy Rome was still Rome and Constantinople still Constantinople (notwithstanding the fact that it was referred to as new Rome) The Church in Constantinople did not have precedence over the Church in Rome (the seat of St. Peter).

 

[Nine_Two]

The headquarters so to speak of the empire were now shifted to Constantinople but how does that make it “Rome”? Even within our own Church hierarchy Rome was still Rome and Constantinople still Constantinople (notwithstanding the fact that it was referred to as new Rome) The Church in Constantinople did not have precedence over the Church in Rome (the seat of St. Peter).

You’re mixing ecclesiastical history with secular history. New Rome did have secular precedence over Rome. The see itself did not, but was second to Rome, however you’re arguing the Turks were “determined” to conquer Rome. If they were so determined, and if they were still so powerful, why only one attempt?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi, Just passing through.

Rome had conqured the known world, Jesus knew this, and how fitting that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Jesus desired that all nations be baptised and taught that He is Lord through His Apostles, so when they passed on, a valid hierarchy would continue under Peter, coincidentally from Rome. Jesus was crucified in His own country and guess what ?

Matthew 13: 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

We do not reject St. Peter, we reject his self-styled successor.

 

[miguel]

…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.

Talk about close calls. What was that about the gates of hell not prevailing?

 

[graceandglory]

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…

Take a class in World History.

 

[josie_L]

Thanks for the comment and your encouragment… …Wasn’t trying to promote my view of history…Interesting question I always had…None are without problems…But it was pretty radical for one see to split from the rest and then that see fracture into what we see today as protestantism…t’s a legitimate question that will only be answered on the other side…

Your post was formed in such a way that you had already surmised that the Catholic Church had “reaped what they had sown” and that the Orthodox had not had experienced the splits for which the West had undergone, and I showed you how faulty those premises were. I was simply pointing out the fallacies you were promoting.

 

[josie_L]

You’re mixing ecclesiastical history with secular history. New Rome did have secular precedence over Rome. The see itself did not, but was second to Rome, however you’re arguing the Turks were “determined” to conquer Rome. If they were so determined, and if they were still so powerful, why only one attempt?

No I’m not confusing the two (read post 50), I am merely pointing out that geographically, historically speaking there was a place called Rome (and the apostles Peter and Paul were aware of its significance) which at one point in time was at the center of the Roman empire before Constantinople became the imperial capital (just because this city was dubbed “new Rome” did not make it Rome). The Turks/Muslims had only conquered the eastern part of the Roman empire and were bound and determined to conquer the West (i.e. Rome), that they failed to succeed is owed to their losses at the Battle of Lepanto.

 

[Nine_Two]

No I’m not confusing the two (read post 50), I am merely pointing out that geographically, historically speaking there was a place called Rome (and the apostles Peter and Paul were aware of its significance) which at one point in time was at the center of the Roman empire before Constantinople became the imperial capital (just because this city was dubbed “new Rome” did not make it Rome). The Turks/Muslims had only conquered the eastern part of the Roman empire and were bound and determined to conquer the West (i.e. Rome), that they failed to succeed is owed to their losses at the Battle of Lepanto.

That they failed is usually owed to the increasing power of the Janisarry class within Turkish society.

But once again, you’re trying to compare a truth at the time of Christ with a truth 1600 years later.