Whom founded the Orthodox Church?

[josie_L]

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.
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.

The point I was trying to make (to the person I was responding to) is that the early Church had undergone the same things that the Catholic Church did during the reformation, and that the East was no different than the West.

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.

It was still important enough to be sacked though which means that even though Rome was no longer the center of the empire it was still strategically important (being that it was still the heart of the western part of the empire).

I suggest studying the Dark Ages a bit.

I suggest you read my profile I have a history and sociology degree.

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.

I realize the importance of the printing press (yet most people were still illiterate), however, Lutheran nor Calvinist beliefs would have gained a foothold in Europe without the backing of princes/kings (and/or statesmen) who in their love for greed and power were bound to uphold their point of view. Protestantism was successful because the upper echelons of society were willing to depart from the Truth to embrace riches stolen from the Church.

 

[josie_L]

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.

I am simply trying to relay that just because Constantinople became the imperial capital and thus the “new Rome” that this somehow diminished the role the real Rome played in building the empire and so fail to make an impression on posterity (and/or the Turks/Muslims in this particular case).

p.s. I am sure the Turks were aware of the historical and once focal point of the Roman Empire.

 

[miguel]

…Thirdly, where does the catholicity of the Church fit into this eschatological model of the bishop being “anchored to a particular place”?

And what branch of Christianity has the greater claim to that catholicity? Jesus told his apostles to “Go out to all nations.” In comparison to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy barely made it out of Europe.

Population by Continent as of 1995
_____________________Roman______Eastern
**________Catholic_____Orthodox **
Africa_________122,108,000___29,645,000
Asia____________90,041,000___14,881,000
Europe_________270,677,000__165,795,000
Latin America__402,691,000______481,000
North America___74,243,000____6,480,000
Oceana___________8,265,000______666,000
Total968,025,000__217,948,000
% of world population_16.9__________3.8

of countries/262_____249__________105​

zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

 

[Harpazo]

And what branch of Christianity has the greater claim to that catholicity? Jesus told his apostles to “Go out to all nations.” In comparison to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy barely made it out of Europe.

Population by Continent as of 1995
_____________________Roman______Eastern
**________Catholic_____Orthodox **
Africa_________122,108,000___29,645,000
Asia____________90,041,000___14,881,000
Europe_________270,677,000__165,795,000
Latin America__402,691,000______481,000
North America___74,243,000____6,480,000
Oceana___________8,265,000______666,000
Total968,025,000__217,948,000
% of world population_16.9__________3.8

of countries/262_____249__________105​

zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

So, by that logic, Islam is the true faith because it has the most numbers (more than the RCC)?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

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).

How does Zizioulas take into account Matthew 16:18-22 and Isaiah 22:22 which references the keys of the kingdom given to St. Peter in the former and the keys given to the prime minister in the latter in his ecclesiology? And how does he begin to explain all the other scriptures which pertain to Peter’s (tangible not just honorary) primacy? For example, in John 21: 15-18 we see St. Peter singled out by Jesus himself to tend (which in Greek also meant “to govern”) and feed the sheep as well as strengthen the brethren (his brother bishops)? One must also ask why it was, Satan wished to sift Peter only to have Jesus pray his faith would not fail (and since the Word of God is significant for all times what does this mean)? Also how does he explain St. Peter’s name change in light of the fact that the only other person to be referred to as rock was Abraham (the father of all nations)?

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.

In the letter that Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthian Church, we already see that the Church in Rome had/has a pre-eminent role which allowed it to intervene and/or resolve disputes pertaining to other churches. Ignatius believed the Church was catholic because the bishops were successors to the apostles and therefore in communion with each other. St. Paul never alluded to the fact that these churches were complete or rather separate from each other because they were complete (it seems however that the local churches were united as one Church just like the apostles themselves were united). According to our pope the Church was universal from its very inception:

"At the same time, Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues - the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even ecclessial reality. . . .

Moreover the "Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” It would hardly make sense while reciting the Nicene creed to say that each local church was the “one holy catholic and apostolic” Church, however as part of the universal Church this would make perfect sense.

to be continued. . . .

 

[John_Larocque]

How does Zizioulas take into account Matthew 16:18-22 and Isaiah 22:22 which references the keys of the kingdom given to St. Peter in the former and the keys given to the prime minister in the latter in his ecclesiology? And how does he begin to explain all the other scriptures which pertain to Peter’s (tangible not just honorary) primacy? For example, in John 21: 15-18 we see St. Peter singled out by Jesus himself to tend (which in Greek also meant “to govern”) and feed the sheep as well as strengthen the brethren (his brother bishops)? One must also ask why it was, Satan wished to sift Peter only to have Jesus pray his faith would not fail (and since the Word of God is significant for all times what does this mean)? Also how does he explain St. Peter’s name change in light of the fact that the only other person to be referred to as rock was Abraham (the father of all nations)?

On the issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Zizioulas is silent. He doesn’t discuss these texts, nor does he affirm or refute traditional Catholic interpretations of these passages. He doesn’t affirm or deny a specific role or charism to the bishop of Rome. He does affirm the Orthodox idea that all bishops are ontologically equal. He also looks at the church in two ways - first, the local church is a “complete” catholic church, headed by a bishop. As I said before, this ecclesiology is beginning to permeate official Roman Catholic documents (yes, this is the future Pope Benedict XVI).

frjeffreysteel.blogspot.com/2009/02/defining-communion-eucharistic-levels.html

…one cannot benefit from the ‘blood shed for many’ by withdrawing to the ‘few’. In this sense, the ‘monarchical episcopate’ taught by Ignatius of Antioch irrevocably remains an essential structure of the Church, being as it is a precise exegesis of a crucially important reality: the Eucharist is public; it is the Eucharist of the whole Church, of the one Christ. Therefore no one may rightfully pick out ‘his own’ Eucharist. The reconciliation with God that the Eucharist offers always demands reconciliation with one’s brother as a prior condition (Mt. 5:23f.). The eucharistic nature of the Church pointed first to the local gathering; at the same time we recognized that the episcopal office is an essential component of the Eucharist–as a service to the unity that follows necessarily from the character of the Eucharist as sacrifice and reconciliation. A Church understood eucharistically is a Church constituted episcopally.

Each local “catholic” church (in the Ignatian sense) is in communion with other churches (sharing Eucharist and common faith) as well as being in communion with their apostolic successors. (Each diocese had a list of apostolic succession). So in an eschatological sense, the Catholic Church is the universal church, transcending both space AND time in mystical union with each local ‘catholic’ Church.

The element of communion is the glue that held together the body of Christ (the Church). Commuion/eucharist implies doctrinal unity as well.

The Catholic church is universal at both an eschatological (space/time) level and a local level.

 

[josie_L]

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.

First, I don’t deny that the bishops are successors to the apostles, however, the apostolic see of Rome is unique in that it specifically links it’s successors to St. Peter (and you are wrong to believe otherwise):

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,’ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain’ and the garden inclosed,’ I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.’ Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.’ Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact.

My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist."

Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat … in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.”

Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all(churches) the bonds of sacred communion.”

Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?”

Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”

Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

to be continued. . . . .

 

[John_Larocque]

Since you’ve decided to do a huge patristic dump, I’m going to check out of this discussion. I find it easier dialoguing with EOxy (and it surprises me to say this, since he is difficult).

I’m not going to rebut ANY of your sources, but I will state that you are in error regarding the uniqueness of Rome. Rome always regarded Antioch and Alexandria as Petrine sees. The pope specifically wrote to the patriarch of, I think, Alexandria, as part of its campaign against the title of Ecumenical Patriarch being applied to Byzantium, making reference to the shared Petrine connection between the two sees. (Rome also campaigned against Byzantium’s place as the second see after Rome, ahead of the other Petrine sees, Alexandria and Antioch). St. Christostom referred on two occasions to two of his Antiochian predecessors as successors as Peter.

So in a sense that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria can all claim to be in a unique way, apostolic sees which can trace their lineage back to St. Peter (in Alexandria’s case, indirectly through St. Mark, his “son”). This special connection always mattered to Rome, it mattered less to the other sees. And then after Chalcedon there was only Rome, so the other sees became reduced to a historical memory, dwarfed by their Oriental Orthodox counterparts.

None of this affirms or denies a form of primacy to the bishop of Rome, but these are historical realities.

From here on in I will start putting you on ignore.

 

[josie_L]

On the issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Zizioulas is silent. He doesn’t discuss these texts, nor does he affirm or refute traditional Catholic interpretations of these passages. He doesn’t affirm or deny a specific role or charism to the bishop of Rome. He does affirm the Orthodox idea that all bishops are ontologically equal. He also looks at the church in two ways - first, the local church is a “complete” catholic church, headed by a bishop. As I said before, this ecclesiology is beginning to permeate official Roman Catholic documents (yes, this is the future Pope Benedict XVI).

You mean the Pope of Rome who wrote “Called to Communion” and relays the fact that:

“the Church cannot become a static juxtaposition of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. The epithet “successor of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and makes it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio - the vertical and the horizontal - remain undivided.”

And how is it that you state Zizioulas is silent on the matter of primacy when earlier you mentioned how he believed that all bishops hold equal authority (through the St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian model)?

The Catholic church is universal at both an eschatological (space/time) level and a local level.

The Church cannot be universal at the local level, in fact, the Pope delineates the fact that to be universal one must be in communion with his brother bishops to retain the apostolic and catholic dimensions of the Church.

 

[John_Larocque]

“the Church cannot become a static juxtaposition of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. The epithet “successor of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and makes it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio - the vertical and the horizontal - remain undivided.”

That’s also part and parcel of “eucharistic ecclesiology.” It’s not only local (in communion with other episcopal communities), it’s also eschatological, extending back in time through apolosticity and fidelity to all that has been taught before. Your response suggests that you are replying to a denial of apolosticy. That is sad.

And how is it that you state Zizioulas is silent on the matter of primacy when earlier you mentioned how he believed that all bishops hold equal authority (through the St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian model)?

It’s up to you to find out why this is not a paradox. When you come up with an answer, other elements will make sense.

The Church cannot be universal at the local level, in fact, the Pope delineates the fact that to be universal one must be in communion with his brother bishops to retain the apostolic and catholic dimensions of the Church.

The pope is saying that you cannot be “universally” local if you are not in communion with
your brother bishops and their predecessors. I was under the impression this was a common Orthodox belief. Where the Anglicans erred in their thinking, was in straying from the faith of their fathers - a local council does not have the authority to set up female priests and bishops.

 

[josie_L]

Since you’ve decided to do a huge patristic dump, I’m going to check out of this discussion. I find it easier dialoguing with EOxy (and it surprises me to say this, since he is difficult).

I’m not going to rebut ANY of your sources, but I will state that you are in error regarding the uniqueness of Rome. Rome always regarded Antioch and Alexandria as Petrine sees. The pope specifically wrote to the patriarch of, I think, Alexandria, as part of its campaign against the title of Ecumenical Patriarch being applied to Byzantium, making reference to the shared Petrine connection between the two sees. (Rome also campaigned against Byzantium’s place as the second see after Rome, ahead of the other Petrine sees, Alexandria and Antioch). St. Christostom referred on two occasions to two of his Antiochian predecessors as successors as Peter.

So in a sense that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria can all claim to be in a unique way, apostolic sees which can trace their lineage back to St. Peter (in Alexandria’s case, indirectly through St. Mark, his “son”). This special connection always mattered to Rome, it mattered less to the other sees. And then after Chalcedon there was only Rome, so the other sees became reduced to a historical memory, dwarfed by their Oriental Orthodox counterparts.

None of this affirms or denies a form of primacy to the bishop of Rome, but these are historical realities.

From here on in I will start putting you on ignore.

You stated that the bishop of Rome was not linked to the chair of Peter and that is false (there are tons more by the way that I could have added but I though I made my point with the several I quoted).

p.s. You have my permission to ignore me now.

 

[prodromos]

Moreover the "Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” It would hardly make sense while reciting the Nicene creed to say that each local church was the “one holy catholic and apostolic” Church, however as part of the universal Church this would make perfect sense.

“Universal” is not the meaning of “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” Each church celebrating the eucharist with the faithful surrounding the bishop IS the Catholic Church. Just as each person who receives Holy Communion receives not a part of Christ’s body but the WHOLE of Christ’s body, so too each church under a bishop is the whole Church.

John

 

[prodromos]

And what branch of Christianity has the greater claim to that catholicity? Jesus told his apostles to “Go out to all nations.” In comparison to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy barely made it out of Europe.

We’ve seen the way Catholicism was spread, conquer first, send missionaries later. It seems to have a lot in common with the spread of Islam. It is not our way.

John

 

[John_Larocque]

You stated that the bishop of Rome was not linked to the chair of Peter and that is false (there are tons more by the way that I could have added but I though I made my point with the several I quoted).

If this forum had rules for booting members who were caught lying, I would report you. I never made such a claim. Shame on you.

How can the see of Peter not be linked to the chair of Peter? Enough…

 

[John_Larocque]

For those interested, there’s an extended section (actually a whole chapter) of “Bishop Eucharist Church.” Happy reading!

ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2008/07/met-john-zizioulas-on-eucharist-and.html

1. The adjective katholiké in Greek comes from the Aristotelian sense of kath’olou, which is used by Aristotle sometimes in contradistinction to ίο kata meros107 and sometimes to kath’ ekaston, 108 understood not only as an adverb but also as an adjective of manner so that it can mean the same as the adjective katholikos. 109 Aristotle did not give katholou a geographical sense so as to mean “world-wide” or “universal” nor a quantitative sense which would take it to mean a sum or total of the “particulars” (epi merous or kath’ ekaston). It is notable that whenever he defines it he gives it a qualitative sense denoting what is full, whole, general or common: "That which is true of a whole class and is said to hold good as a whole (which implies that it is a kind of whole), is true of a whole in the sense that it contains many things by being predicated of each, and by ail of them (e.g. man, horse, god) being severally one single thing, because all are living things."110 Aristotle precludes the geographical or quantitative sense of katholou still more clearly when he uses the example: “As ‘man’ belongs to the general (kath’ olou) and ‘Kallias’ to the particular (kath’ ekaston).” 111 Through the comparison of the “general” (katholou) with man in a generic sense and of the particular (kath’ ekaston) with the particular human being, the meaning of the term katholikos becomes clear. The kath’ ekaston is in no way a segment of the katholou, but constitutes its actual concrete form. Each actual man is as much full man as is man in a generic sense {katholou), which he encompasses in himself, constituting the only actual, personal expression it has in space and time.

This sense of the term katholou or katholikos was preserved after Aristotle, as its use by Polybius,112 Dionysius of Halicarnassus113 and Plutarch114 testifies. Philo who had a decisive influence on the world which surrounded the early Church does not deviate from the Aristotelian sense of the term. Thus, for him too, the word katholikos does not have a geographical or quantitative meaning, but denotes what is complete, full and general.115 As a distinguished specialist on the subject observes,116 in all these cases Philo follows Aristotle. Such was the prevailing sense of the term katholikos in secular literature. The Aristotelian sense of katholou survived and was preserved up to the time of early Christianity. How far the ecclesiastical literature of the first three centuries preserved the Aristotelian sense of this term is the question that will concern us next.

Both the local Church and the “Church of God” are expressed historically (in space and time) through the Divine Eucharist. We find ourselves confronted once again with the Pauline ecclesiology.141 The Church is the body of Christ.142 Ignatius is quite clear on the justification for this consciousness which he interprets fully: the Church is the body of Christ because the body of Christ is the historical Christ Himself143 and the historical Christ is the flesh of the Divine Eucharist.144 The local Church, then, is the whole Church for no other reason than because the whole historical Christ is made incarnate within her through the Divine Eucharist. Precisely because of the Divine Eucharist, the local Church can be regarded as the Church of God, the whole Church, and can be addressed as such through the epithets that we have seen; because through the unity of the body of Christ, she "partakes of God."145

The Catholic Church, as the whole Church, is such by virtue of the fact that she has the whole Christ. But the local Church too is likewise catholic, because she has the whole Christ through the Divine Eucharist. The Bishop as being directly connected with the Divine Eucharist represents the local Church in the same way as the whole Christ represents the generic (katholou) or catholic Church. But given that both the whole Christ and the Bishop are connected with the Church in the Divine Eucharist, the kath’ olou or Catholic Church is to be found where the Divine Euchanst and the Bishop are. Thus the Bishop, as it has been most aptly observed, comes to be "the centre of the visible and also the true Church.163 and the local Church comes to be the “Catholic Church” herself.

Thus, in conclusion, the “Catholic Church” is identified according to Ignatius with the whole Christ, and the whole Christ is to be found and is revealed in the most tangible way in the Eucharistic synaxis and communion of all the members of each Church under the leadership of the Bishop. In consequence, the local Church is catholic not because of her relationship with the “universal” Church, but because of the presence within her of the whole Christ in the one Eucharist under the leadership of the Bishop. In this way, each local Church having its own Bishop is catholic per se; that is to say, it is the concrete form in space and time of the whole body of Christ, of the “generic” (kath’ olou) Church.

Thus, neither universal consciousness nor polemic against heresies can explain the origin of the “Catholic Church.” Its presence in history follows the line which Ignatius presents to us in such a remarkably concise and comprehensive way, and which, curiously, has been overlooked by scholarly research: one Church, one Eucharist, one flesh and one cup, one altar, one Bishop with the presbyterium and the deacons.

Actually the whole thing is here!
oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm

 

[miguel]

So, by that logic, Islam is the true faith because it has the most numbers (more than the RCC)?

In Christ,
Andrew

Come on. Is Islam Christian?

 

[John_Larocque]

This is another key quote from Chapter 2. There are three touchstones to communion in Zizioulas ecclesiology - charismatic/sacramental, chronological/historical and finally geographical. The last three paragraphs are an excellent summary of the first three.

First of all, the chronological or historical coincidence of the local Churches with the past, and in particular with the original apostolic Church, was regarded as indispensable. This element of reference back through history was so strong in the Church’s consciousness during the first three centuries that the terms one Church and ancient Church are linked together and interpret each other.340 For Hegesippus, this historical reference back to the original Church, and the identity of each Church with this original Church, was the strongest argument against heresies.341 For Tertullian, each local Church is fully apostolic and catholic precisely because she is none other than "the primitive apostolic Church herself."342 It is not without significance, then, that all the ancient Councils, including indeed the Ecumenical Councils, grounded their decisions in what the Scriptures and the Fathers had in the past expressed as the faith of the Church.

A second point seen as indispensable was the spatial or geographical verification of the identity of the Churches in the same faith and life “in the mind of Jesus Christ.” This meant that in order to be “catholic” each Church had to be identified with the other Churches and live in full communion with them. The necessity for this verification led to the appearance and establishment of the institution of Councils. The ultimate import of which during the first three centuries is revealed in the light of Ignatius’ phrase: "the Bishops who are at the ends of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ."343 But this element of geographical or spatial catholicity was not in itself sufficient for the unity of the “Catholic Church throughout the world.” Its importance was absolutely dependent on the existence of the first criterion, i.e. that of going back chronologically and historically to the primitive Church, and the verification through this of the identity of each Church with the original apostolic Church. Thus, supposing that the majority of the Churches coincided with each other but did not coincide with the original apostolic Church, then the opinion of the “majority” would have no force.344 This meant that the “Catholic Church throughout the world,” united through the Councils, did not form a unity by addition in which “catholic” would coincide with “majority,” but a qualitative and organic unity in which what was “catholic” was identified with what was “true” and “original” as this appeared in the first apostolic Church.

Yet both the geographical or latitudinal dimension of the “Catholic Church” and the chronological or retrospective referral and connection with her original state of being remained unable to verify the identity of the Churches in the “mind of Jesus Christ” without a third component of catholicity, the charismatic or sacramental. It should be noted that both the reference back to the historical memory of the Church and the meeting of the Churches around the world in the same place (epi to auto) took place in the person of the Bishop. Thus, the reference of the Churches to the past was effected by drawing up lists of Bishops from which it was evident that each Church went back without a break to the Apostles while the meeting of the local Churches in the same place was effected through episcopal Councils. This event was not coincidental, but should be connected with the notion, clearly expressed by Irenaeus, that the truth of the Church is unbreakably bound up with the charism of the Priesthood, and is therefore preserved by the Bishops “who with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain charisma of truth, according to the goodwill of the Father.”[qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt]345 But in this way the catholicity of the Church was organically and unbreakably bound up, in the ultimate analysis, with the unity of the Eucharist given that the “charisma” of the Priesthood346 was bestowed only within the Eucharist.

These observations lead us to the conclusion that according to the sources of the first three centuries, the unity of the local Churches in the one “Catholic Church throughout the world” understood as their identity with the one whole Christ, was expressed in history:

a) as a vertical relationship of each Church with the one and whole Christ mystically present in the one Eucharist, to which the Bishop was connected as the visible head, possessing the “charism of truth”;

b) as a historical reference back to the past and the full identity of each Church with the primitive apostolic Church; and

c) as a latitudinal extension of each Church to the inclusion and communion of the Churches everywhere on earth, if and insofar as the first two conditions held good for them.

This tripartite identification of the Churches with each other and with the whole Christ was the ultimate and essential arbiter of the “common union of the Churches” through which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church was preserved and expressed.347

 

[josie_L]

If this forum had rules for booting members who were caught lying, I would report you. I never made such a claim. Shame on you.

How can the see of Peter not be linked to the chair of Peter? Enough…

Please report me then, I have nothing to hide nor for that matter did I do anything wrong, I am simply pointing out that when St. Peter was referenced by the fathers it was in conjunction with the bishop/see of Rome and as such the chair of Peter. Furthermore, if you look back to what I was initially responding to it looked like you were saying this was not the case. I will requote what you said:

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.

If I misunderstood then that is not a lie.

 

[John_Larocque]

Please report me then, I have nothing to hide nor for that matter did I do anything wrong, I am simply pointing out that when St. Peter was referenced by the fathers it was in conjunction with the bishop/see of Rome and as such the chair of Peter. Furthermore, if you look back to what I was responding to it looked like you were saying this was not the case.

I never made that case.

It’s interesting, when people of other confessions are caught “lying for the Lord” (I won’t name them), other board members sometimes gleefully point it out to them. Here, on the basis of a (false) factual claim about a prior posting, you crafted a long post of nothing but patristic posts in response - and when you defended your conduct said it was done to address this (false) factual claim. Your inability at reading comprehension limits your ability to argue whatever it is you believe. Instead of owing up to the error, you claim it’s my fault. These are called straw-man arguments, when you spend a great deal of energy knocking down something which was never said in the first place.

 

[josie_L]

I never made that case.

It’s interesting, when people of other confessions are caught “lying for the Lord” (I won’t name them), other board members sometimes gleefully point it out to them. Here, on the basis of a (false) factual claim about a prior posting, you crafted a long post of nothing but patristic posts in response - and when you defended your conduct said it was done to address this (false) factual claim. Your inability at reading comprehension limits your ability to argue whatever it is you believe. Instead of owing up to the error, you claim it’s my fault. These are called straw-man arguments, when you spend a great deal of energy knocking down something which was never said in the first place.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, John, so spare me your insults. I have not nor ever had to lie to defend my positions, if I did I would have been reported by now which I haven’t (you can be the first if you wish however). Secondly, I would have apologized for misunderstanding but your condescending attitude leaves much to be desired (so maybe you should also consider apologizing to me). Furthermore, I explained why I was misled (and I’m not blaming you just telling you how I perceived this misunderstanding).