Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[tdgesq]

There** IS NOTHING** false about it. It was the proper understanding for hundreds of years until the ultramontanes started tinkering.

What exactly was the proper understanding and for how many years was it shared by the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church? I would argue that the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the papacy has developed as much as it has in the Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

I would argue that the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the papacy has developed as much as it has in the Catholic Church.

Yes…I’m sure you would argue vehemently.

 

[Ignatius]

*The source is the very MSNBC report that you gave. In that article MSNBC made the claim that Pope Benedict said the Orthdox are ‘defective’ but they provided no quote of Pope Benedict saying that, but the ‘defective’ wording is MSNBC’s. *

You were claiming that Pope Benedict XVI said the Orthdox were ‘defective’ in your previous posts above; your post here from 1992 do not support that and, in fact, they don’t say anything like that.

Also, January 25, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI in closing the week of prayer for Christian unity referenced the document of Ravenna, “approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” Both sides agree . . .that Rome occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.”

“Protos” is the Greek word that means “first.” And “taxis” is the structure of the universal Church.

So, Already these theological talks have produced an agreement that the See of Rome enjoys primacy. Now the exact nature of that primacy remains a subject of debate.

The international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started discussing this in Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, from October 16-23, 2009. The intention is to understand to what extent the form that the primacy of the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium can act as a model for a rediscovered unity between East and West in the third millennium, since, from the perspective of the Holy See, we cannot expect the Orthodox to accept mellenium

The next session already has a preset place, Vienna, and a date, from September 20-27, 2010.

Note: There are NO statements by the Magisterium about the Orthdox being defective or false. In fact, if you will look in your Sunday Missal, you will see that the Communion Rail is completely open to members the Holy Orthodox Churches, which could not occur if there were anything defective or false.

 

[tdgesq]

You were claiming that Pope Benedict XVI said the Orthdox were ‘defective’ in your previous posts above; your post here from 1992 do not support that and, in fact, they don’t say anything like that.

I did not say the Orthodox were defective. I said that their position on the papacy is defective. So does Joseph Ratzinger as the prefect of the CDF, which I quoted and you conveniently neglected addressing. Here it is again.

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
   . . .
   “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

I’m sorry you refuse to accept it, but it is the truth. The Orthodox view of the papacy today constitutes a “defect,” as it means they are “separated from the See of St. Peter,” they are “wounded,” because they “lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy.”

Also, January 25, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI in closing the week of prayer for Christian unity referenced the document of Ravenna, “approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” Both sides agree . . .that Rome occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.”

Yes, I am very familiar with the ongoing proceedings of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Enough to know that “first among patriarchs” is not understood the same way between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. I also know that the Russian Orthodox Church refused the title completely.

So, Already these theological talks have produced an agreement that the See of Rome enjoys primacy. Now the exact nature of that primacy remains a subject of debate.

If you count out the ROC, which represents the single largest Orthodox body of believers by far. The nature of the primacy has always been the problem. The only reason any Orthodox Church ever seriously contested that Rome didn’t have primacy is because they declared us to be heretical outright, thus losing the claim to Constantinople. None of this resolves the fundamental issue, although I am glad that a minority of Orthodox Churches no longer see us as heretics.

The intention is to understand to what extent the form that the primacy of the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium can act as a model for a rediscovered unity between East and West in the third millennium, since, from the perspective of the Holy See, we cannot expect the Orthodox to accept mellenium

I’m sorry, but that is false. There is no issuance of a statement from the Holy See that we cannot expect the Eastern Orthodox to only accept the understanding of the papacy from the first millennium. It is interesting that you require me to provide you precise references in order to constitute evidence, but you haven’t produced any of your own.

Note: There are NO statements by the Magisterium about the Orthdox being defective or false. In fact, if you will look in your Sunday Missal, you will see that the Communion Rail is completely open to members the Holy Orthodox Churches, which could not occur if there were anything defective or false.

I fully recognize that individual EO parishioners can receive communion in a Catholic Church. I assume that is because they wouldn’t be receiving in a Catholic Church unless they assented to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. However, the Magisterium has spoke about the deficiencies of the Orthodox Churches I’m afraid:

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4

 

[Mickey]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[tdgesq]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

“Unfortunately there are those who would dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuit of disproving the petrine primacy. Some do it out of ignorance. Others have been wounded in some way by the worldly element within the Church and so they carry a subtle and sometimes subconscious axe to grind. I pray for them all–that their wounds will be healed by the grace of God.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1362737&postcount=48

 

[Mickey]

“Unfortunately there are those who would dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuit of disproving the petrine primacy. Some do it out of ignorance. Others have been wounded in some way by the worldly element within the Church and so they carry a subtle and sometimes subconscious axe to grind. I pray for them all–that their wounds will be healed by the grace of God.”

And there are others who go into archives out of desperation, because in their frustration they have nothing left to say on their own. I will amend this statement since you have decided to use this “stalking-like” tactic (you are not the first to do this).

“Unfortunately there are those who would dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuit of disproving the petrine primacy. Some do it out of ignorance. Others have been wounded in some way by the worldly element within the Church and so they carry a subtle and sometimes subconscious axe to grind. Others, by a thorough and scholarly pursuit, have come to know that the early undivided Church did not have a supreme universal infallible bishop. They have come to see that this non-patristic way of thinking was an outcome of ultramontanist pressure and “infallibly declared” to be doctrine in 1870. Some people realize that this doctrine is an innovation. And whether someone is pleading out of ignorance, hurt, or truth—they are wounded because Rome has fallen away from Holy Orthodoxy. I pray for them all–that their wounds will be healed by the grace of God.”

 

[tdgesq]

And there are others who go into archives out of desperation, because in their frustration they have nothing left to say on their own. I will amend this statement since you have decided to use this “stalking-like” tactic (you are not the first to do this).

Stalking-like tactic? Perhaps you forgot, but it is you who responded to my post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6570576&postcount=915.

You may amend your previous statement as many times as you like. It just proves the point I am making. Whatever Bishop Ratzinger’s position as a private theologian may have been on the papacy in 1982, it has obviously developed since he became Prefect of the CDF and the Supreme Pontiff. You apparently don’t enjoy people quoting your old statements when they no longer reflect your current position, so why are you doing it to Pope Benedict?

And I guess people will have to make their own judgment as to who is acting frustrated and desperate here.

 

[Mickey]

Stalking-like tactic?

Yes. I pulled that tactic a number of years ago and was warned by the moderators.

You may amend your previous statement as many times as you like.

Thank you, but I only need one amendment. I have come to know the fullness of truth.

And I guess people will have to make their own judgment as to who is acting frustrated and desperate here.

Indeed!

 

[Mickey]

Whatever Bishop Ratzinger’s position as a private theologian may have been on the papacy in 1982, it has obviously developed since he became Prefect of the CDF and the Supreme Pontiff.

You mean he has changed his mind?

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;6572901:

You were claiming that Pope Benedict XVI said the Orthdox were ‘defective’ in your previous posts above; your post here do not support that and, in fact, they don’t say anything like that.

Also, January 25, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI in closing the week of prayer for Christian unity referenced the document of Ravenna, “approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” Both sides agree . . .that Rome occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.”

“Protos” is the Greek word that means “first.” And “taxis” is the structure of the universal Church.

So, Already these theological talks have produced an agreement that the See of Rome enjoys primacy. Now the exact nature of that primacy remains a subject of debate.

The international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started discussing this in Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, from October 16-23, 2009. The intention is to understand to what extent the form that the primacy of the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium can act as a model for a rediscovered unity between East and West in the third millennium, since, from the perspective of the Holy See, we cannot expect the Orthodox to accept mellenium

The next session already has a preset place, Vienna, and a date, from September 20-27, 2010.

Note: There are NO statements by the Magisterium about the Orthdox being defective or false. In fact, if you will look in your Sunday Missal, you will see that the Communion Rail is completely open to members the Holy Orthodox Churches, which could not occur if there were anything defective or false.

.
“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects,

Ah, I see the problem now, my friend. Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking about the Protestants when refering to 'defect’s. In the document that you cited, the expression “these separated churches” refers to the Protestant Churches, not the Orthodox.
The ‘defects’ in their theology is exactly why the Protestants are not invited to Holy Communion in The Catholic Church while the Orthdoox are.

Also, Pope Benedict XVI’s statements in January 25, 2010 make clear he could not have intended what your claim. Pope Benedict XVI in closing the week of prayer for Christian unity referenced the document of Ravenna, “approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” Both sides agree . . .that Rome occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.”

“Protos” is the Greek word that means “first.” And “taxis” is the structure of the universal Church.

So, Already these theological talks have produced an agreement that the See of Rome enjoys primacy.

 

[tdgesq]

Ah, I see the problem now, my friend. Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking about the Protestants when refering to 'defect’s. In the document that you cited, the expression “these separated churches” refers to the Protestant Churches, not the Orthodox.

Ratzinger expressly includes the Orthodox Churches. Here is all of Paragraph 17 of DOMINUS IESUS:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Protestants do not have apostolic succession. Protestants do not have a valid Eucharist. Ratzinger is speaking of the Apostolic Churches, not Protestant communities.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

Now he is talking about Protestants. He states that they are not even properly called “Churches”, but are “communities.”

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

Ratzinger refers to both Apostolic Churches and to Protestant communities when he claims they suffer from defects.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67
End.

The ‘defects’ in their theology is exactly why the Protestants are not invited to Holy Communion in The Catholic Church while the Orthdoox are.

Protestants are not invited to communion because they are not even part of a true “Church,” as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. They don’t believe in apostolic succession. They don’t believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The Orthodox do believe these things. In fact, the vast majority of the Orthodox Churches would be in full communion with the Catholic Church, except that they don’t acknowledge the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

You can’t seriously contest that there is no problem with the Orthodox understanding of the papacy when in answer to the question: “Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?” The CDF issued a statement - ratified by Pope Benedict himself on June 29, 2007 - that "However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.

So, Already these theological talks have produced an agreement that the See of Rome enjoys primacy.

Then why is there another meeting of the Joint Theological Commission later this year? Precisely because there is not agreement on what the primacy of the Bishop of Rome means. If you were correct, there would be no meeting at all. It is because the “primacy of honor” that the Patriarch of Constantinople has “enjoyed” for the last many centuries is not at all what Pope Benedict claims as the prerogative of the Roman papacy. Please answer this question: why is there another meeting discussing this issue?

 

[tdgesq]

You mean he has changed his mind?

No. He, in your own words, came “to know the fullness of truth.” The difference being that the “fullness of truth” to him didn’t mean leaving the Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

No. He, in your own words, came “to know the fullness of truth.”

Uh…okay…so then…he did not know the fullness of truth as a Cardinal?!?

 

[tdgesq]

Uh…okay…so then…he did not know the fullness of truth as a Cardinal?!?

You mean about the requirement that the EO accept the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the papacy? Sure. I already indicated that what he has written since demonstrates that he has changed his position. So I ask you the question again: You apparently don’t enjoy people quoting your old statements about Petrine primacy when they no longer reflect your current position, so why are you doing it to Pope Benedict?

 

[Contarini]

You mean about the requirement that the EO accept the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the papacy? Sure. I already indicated that what he has written since demonstrates that he has changed his position. So I ask you the question again: You apparently don’t enjoy people quoting your old statements about Petrine primacy when they no longer reflect your current position, so why are you doing it to Pope Benedict?

I’m not sure he has changed his position. One of the things people find hard to understand about both the Primate of your communion and the Primate of mine is that they may speak in one way as private theologians and in another as office-holders.

In Ratzinger’s case, we have three capacities in which he has spoken: as a theologian, as prefect of the CDF, and as Pope. The fact that his statements as head of the CDF, falling between the other two chronologically, are the most “conservative” in substance indicates that we may be dealing less with a change in his thought than with a different conception of his responsibilities depending on his situation (this is not to deny that his thought has changed/developed as well).

As prefect of the CDF, drawing up the document *Dominus Iesus, *it was his responsibility to speak to the official Catholic position. It was not his job to push his private theological opinions. This is very similar to the way Rowan Williams understands his job as Archbishop of Canterbury, which has confused many who find him much more conservative than they had expected.

The office of Pope, as defined in your Communion, is of course different, because of the Pope’s power to act as the “extraordinary magisterium.” However, as I understand it this power does not give the Pope the right simply to impose all his theological opinions on the Church. Ironically, it is of course this doctrine of papal extraordinary magisterial power that most divides your Communion from other Christians. That is a further reason why B16 would not use that papal power to unite Rome with the Orthodox. The very conciliarism that he shares (to a great extent) with the Orthodox would prevent him from using his power in such an arbitrary way. Instead, he’s going to proceed gradually, through consultation and consensus and a search for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

I already indicated that what he has written since demonstrates that he has changed his position.

I’ll bet he would disagree with you.

You apparently don’t enjoy people quoting your old statements

I do not think that Pope Benedict would resort to internet stalking out of frustration.

 

[Mickey]

However, as I understand it this power does not give the Pope the right simply to impose all his theological opinions on the Church. Ironically, it is of course this doctrine of papal extraordinary magisterial power that most divides your Communion from other Christians.

 

[tdgesq]

I’m not sure he has changed his position. One of the things people find hard to understand about both the Primate of your communion and the Primate of mine is that they may speak in one way as private theologians and in another as office-holders.

It is difficult to compare. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the polity of the Anglican Communion is not equivalent to the Pope and the Catholic Church. Because of Petrine primacy and our dogmatic theology, it is very difficult for the prefect of the CDF - much less the Pope of Rome - to give a private opinion at all in the area of speculative theology or ecclesiology. When this does happen, it takes an almost bizarre form. What I mean is that the fact it is a personal theological speculation is stressed to the point that it overshadows the content of the opinion. Anglicism doesn’t face the same kind of conflict because of the more limited claim of authority of your Primate and the paucity of dogma - compared to the Catholic Church at least. Archbishop Williams may not encounter the same moral and logical conflict in making private theological statements as Cardinal Ratzinger would in his position as prefect of the CDF and the Roman Pontiff.

In Ratzinger’s case, we have three capacities in which he has spoken: as a theologian, as prefect of the CDF, and as Pope. The fact that his statements as head of the CDF, falling between the other two chronologically, are the most “conservative” in substance indicates that we may be dealing less with a change in his thought than with a different conception of his responsibilities depending on his situation (this is not to deny that his thought has changed/developed as well).

What is important here is when Joseph Ratzinger spoke. He spoke as a private theologian no later than 1981 if we are to take the publication date of his book as an indicator. If he had given this opinion as a piece of speculative theology/ecclesiology while he was prefect of CDF or as Pope Benedict, then that would be something. Instead as the head of the Vatican institution that is charged with preserving and teaching the dogmatic constitutions of the Church, he claims that the Orthodoxy is deficient precisely because of its view of the papacy, and later as Pope Benedict that Orthodoxy is lacking for exactly the same reason. What I am trying to convey is that for the Pope to hold a contrary private theological opinion from what he is teaching would involve a moral contradiction - a contradiction that wouldn’t necessarily exist in the case of your Church.

As prefect of the CDF, drawing up the document Dominus Iesus, it was his responsibility to speak to the official Catholic position. It was not his job to push his private theological opinions. This is very similar to the way Rowan Williams understands his job as Archbishop of Canterbury, which has confused many who find him much more conservative than they had expected.

While this makes sense in the Anglican construct, and particularly to Episcopalians, it doesn’t quite translate to Catholicism - especially to the Roman Church’s understanding. The claim of the Vatican and the Institution of the CDF is that what it teaches constitutes universal moral truth. It would be intellectually and morally dishonest for the prefect of the CDF (much less the Pope) to, on the one hand, internally believe that there is nothing false about the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the papacy, and on the other hand declare as a teacher of universal moral truths of the Church that in actuality there are defects. There may be instances where Rowan Williams doesn’t encounter this same type of conflict because the claims of the Anglican Church to universal authority do not extend as far or as broadly.

The office of Pope, as defined in your Communion, is of course different, because of the Pope’s power to act as the “extraordinary magisterium.” However, as I understand it this power does not give the Pope the right simply to impose all his theological opinions on the Church. Ironically, it is of course this doctrine of papal extraordinary magisterial power that most divides your Communion from other Christians. That is a further reason why B16 would not use that papal power to unite Rome with the Orthodox. The very conciliarism that he shares (to a great extent) with the Orthodox would prevent him from using his power in such an arbitrary way. Instead, he’s going to proceed gradually, through consultation and consensus and a search for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well, as a practical matter Pope Benedict can’t effectively use papal power to unite these Churches. He could declare it readily enough, but it takes the particular Orthodox Church’s consent to make that happen. What I find interesting is that schism with the Orthodox and the Church of England all occurred long before Vatican I. I find it doubtful then that the “doctrine of extraordinary magisterial power” is primarily responsible for the current state of affairs, although admittedly it is partly responsible for keeping things that way. Yes, conciliarism and the Holy Spirit’s intervention are what is most needed. I also believe that the most fruitful topic will be the role of the Roman Pontiff in the first millennia. I suspect both Orthodox and Catholics will be surprised by what they find.

 

[steve_b]

Even though this is reaching back into an old thread, (it’s still open), the point you make is valid. I hope you see this. If not I might PM you.

You do realise that the original texts were written all in CAPITAL LETTERS.

John

True.

As I understand it, Greeks introduced lower case circa ~ 6th or 7th century AD. Therefore,

• all the quotes from texts with Catholic, OR Orthodox in them, prior to this, would be written upper case CATHOLIC / ORTHODOX, not lower case catholic / orthodox.
• Therefore, with respect to the creed of Nicea, the entire creed would be all upper case. For example It would have been written as follows

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

because I don’t recall anyone doing this before, I think it would be most helpful, for the benefit of this ongoing discussion, thread after thread after thread, could you give the earliest quotes you have with references, that names the Church the “ORTHODOX CHURCH.”

Thanks