OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 05:58:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is The Orthodox Church Roman?  (Read 22533 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #135 on: February 10, 2010, 03:06:50 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #136 on: February 10, 2010, 03:19:10 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #137 on: February 10, 2010, 03:20:39 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.

What about the Ethiopian Church?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #138 on: February 10, 2010, 03:47:45 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.

The physical institution is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church is both physical and spiritual. I don't see how you could have thought I was saying otherwise.

I make historical claims to which you always answer with dogmatic/theological claims.
Dialogue of the deaf.
Quote
you are treating the Orthodox Church like it's the same as the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. We aren't the same as them.
I never quite thought that out, because it never troubled me.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you aren't realizing that the Orthodox Church is not a religion. It's a faith. All those others are religions. Yes you can look at the Orthodox Church from a historical perspective, and we should. However we shouldn't do it in the way the world does. The world sees us as just another religion, yet we recognize that we are much more than that. Our historical perspective of our Church is seen through the eyes of the Church, not through the eyes of the world.
The world says that the Orthodox Church & the Byzantine Empire were (almost) one in the same in many aspects. Yet we recognize that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. The Empire was an icon of the heavenly kingdom, but it isn't the heavenly kingdom. The Church IS part of the heavenly kingdom, not just as an icon but in reality.
The Church is in the world, but is not of it.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 03:50:25 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #139 on: February 10, 2010, 03:50:36 PM »

The physical institution is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church is both physical and spiritual. I don't see how you could have thought I was saying otherwise.

When the Hierarchy are Roman and the Emperor calls the Councils, how do you honestly separate the Church from Rumm?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #140 on: February 10, 2010, 03:57:52 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

I am Orthodox. Therefore, this means I am of the Church. Because I am of the Church, is the Church also of me? No. The Church is of God.
The Romans were of the Church. The Church was not of the Romans.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 04:08:18 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #141 on: February 10, 2010, 04:13:35 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

It seems to me that 'the Church' as a visible institution is a man-made institution. Perhaps spiritual inspired but not everyone 'in' that visible institution is truly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I am thinking of the Parable of the Sower...

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. (Mat 13:24-30)

The visible institution is a mixture of Saints and Sinners, Good Seed and Cockle.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #142 on: February 10, 2010, 04:19:59 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

It seems to me that 'the Church' as a visible institution is a man-made institution. Perhaps spiritual inspired but not everyone 'in' that visible institution is truly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I am thinking of the Parable of the Sower...

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. (Mat 13:24-30)

The visible institution is a mixture of Saints and Sinners, Good Seed and Cockle.


Again I don't disagree, but all Saints and Sinners in the Church are members of the Body of Christ and partake of his Body and Blood.
There is the Kingdom in Heaven and the Kingdom on Earth. The Kingdom on Earth is the Church. However the Church is the Church, not a government institution.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #143 on: February 10, 2010, 04:22:12 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.
No, he was arguing that the Church isn't the arm of any state.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #144 on: February 10, 2010, 04:23:15 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.

What about the Ethiopian Church?

What about her?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #145 on: February 10, 2010, 04:23:44 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.
No, he was arguing that the Church isn't the arm of any state.

Thank you! I'm having a little trouble expressing what I'm trying to say in a short coherent way.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #146 on: February 10, 2010, 04:41:28 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

It seems to me that 'the Church' as a visible institution is a man-made institution. Perhaps spiritual inspired but not everyone 'in' that visible institution is truly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I am thinking of the Parable of the Sower...

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. (Mat 13:24-30)

The visible institution is a mixture of Saints and Sinners, Good Seed and Cockle.


Again I don't disagree, but all Saints and Sinners in the Church are members of the Body of Christ and partake of his Body and Blood.
There is the Kingdom in Heaven and the Kingdom on Earth. The Kingdom on Earth is the Church. However the Church is the Church, not a government institution.

If they are 'truly' members of the Body of Christ, then you are saying that they are... Sons...

And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: (Rom 8:17a)

But we know that the Cockle was sown by the enemy and not Sons, nor heirs, nor joint heirs with Christ.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #147 on: February 10, 2010, 04:42:38 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.

What about the Ethiopian Church?

What about her?

Do you have a link that might illuminate her history? Was the Ethiopian Church ever part of Rome?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #148 on: February 10, 2010, 04:45:50 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.

What about the Ethiopian Church?

What about her?

Do you have a link that might illuminate her history? Was the Ethiopian Church ever part of Rome?
No, she was never part of Rome.  But the Orthodox Church became the state church in 328.  That's besides the conversion of the Ethopian Eunucn in the book of Acts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #149 on: February 10, 2010, 04:52:26 PM »

No, she was never part of Rome.  But the Orthodox Church became the state church in 328.  That's besides the conversion of the Ethopian Eunucn in the book of Acts.

Are they or were they non-Chalcedon/Monophysite?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2010, 04:54:58 PM »

No, she was never part of Rome.  But the Orthodox Church became the state church in 328.  That's besides the conversion of the Ethopian Eunucn in the book of Acts.

Are they or were they non-Chalcedon/Monophysite?
The state (or former state) Church is non-Chalcedonian/Miaphysite.

There is an EO bishop, who is part of the Holy Synod of Alexandria.

But since Ethiopia converted over a century before Chalcedon, how are these facts on point?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2010, 05:02:29 PM »

It says a lot when we are called by the indigenous churches of Syria and Egypt "Melchites", doesn't it?
Historically, Orthodoxy is the heir of the imperial church. We also happen to believe that that's the right faith, as well, but you can't deny the times when we were closely associated with an empire.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 05:03:06 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #152 on: February 10, 2010, 05:03:39 PM »

No, she was never part of Rome.  But the Orthodox Church became the state church in 328.  That's besides the conversion of the Ethopian Eunucn in the book of Acts.

Are they or were they non-Chalcedon/Monophysite?
The state (or former state) Church is non-Chalcedonian/Miaphysite.

There is an EO bishop, who is part of the Holy Synod of Alexandria.

But since Ethiopia converted over a century before Chalcedon, how are these facts on point?

Well, I knew from history lectures that miaphysites, by and large, were anti-imperial and I was wondering if they included the Ethiopian Church too. I know they were able to keep Muslims at bay for some time. What is the state of Ethiopia now? Why does Alexandria have a Bishop there? Aren't they in communion?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #153 on: February 10, 2010, 06:34:42 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.
What about all the Roman Orthodox saints,like all the Spanish and Italian saints, whom Saint Paul preached to, and Theodosius The Spaniard, who made Catholicism/orthodoxy The state religion of both west and east?
The eastern Christians, were Eastern Romans, so nearly all of the Greek Christians were Roman orthodox........
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #154 on: February 10, 2010, 06:58:29 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.
What about all the Roman Orthodox saints,like all the Spanish and Italian saints, whom Saint Paul preached to, and Theodosius The Spaniard, who made Catholicism/orthodoxy The state religion of both west and east?
The eastern Christians, were Eastern Romans, so nearly all of the Greek Christians were Roman orthodox........

I don't get it... I never said those people weren't Roman and I never said they weren't Orthodox. I'm saying that just because a member of the Church is Roman, that doesn't make the Church Roman. Just because I'm an American doesn't mean the Orthodox Church is American.

The name of our churches doesn't define the nationality of the Churches, it shows the jurisdiction & boundaries of that Church. The real titles of each Church should be: Orthodox Church IN Russia, Orthodox Church IN Greece, Orthodox Church IN Antioch... NOT "Russian Orthodox Church" "Greek Orthodox Church"
But alas, it seems we are stuck with this faulty nomenclature.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 07:01:11 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #155 on: February 10, 2010, 07:49:37 PM »

Faulty nomenclature by YOUR standards, don't you think?
And your jurisdiction's perhaps.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 07:55:02 PM by augustin717 » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #156 on: February 10, 2010, 08:13:17 PM »

Do you believe in ethnocentrism or nationalism?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #157 on: February 10, 2010, 09:07:17 PM »

It says a lot when we are called by the indigenous churches of Syria and Egypt "Melchites", doesn't it?

Indigneous?  Both Alexandria and Antioch were Greek founded cities.

It doesn't tell us much when they are calling themselves "Orthodox" and "Catholic."


Quote
Historically, Orthodoxy is the heir of the imperial church. We also happen to believe that that's the right faith, as well, but you can't deny the times when we were closely associated with an empire.
Yeah, when the emperors were iconoclasts and monothelites.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #158 on: February 10, 2010, 09:32:40 PM »

It says a lot when we are called by the indigenous churches of Syria and Egypt "Melchites", doesn't it?

Indigneous?  Both Alexandria and Antioch were Greek founded cities.

It doesn't tell us much when they are calling themselves "Orthodox" and "Catholic."


Quote
Historically, Orthodoxy is the heir of the imperial church. We also happen to believe that that's the right faith, as well, but you can't deny the times when we were closely associated with an empire.
Yeah, when the emperors were iconoclasts and monothelites.

Do not pretend you don't know what I mean: most of the non-helenized population of both Alexandria and Antioch enthusiastically went into schism from what they saw as the emperor's church.
Which one of the churches of Alexandria used mostly Coptic, which one mostly Greek?
The same about Antioch, except that we talk about Syriac vs Greek there?
Now let's see who's more indigenous, the helenized metropolis or the Coptic/Syriac speaking countryside?
Yeah, I also know that some Syriac speaking christians stayed with our church, to this day, but that's rather the exception, not the rule.
Monothelism&iconoclasm were just inconsequential episodes as to how the church saw herself in relation with the empire. Had they won the day, we might as well ended in a minority situation, somehow like one of the non-chalcedonian churches, relegated to some nook of the empire. It just didn't happen that way.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 09:38:40 PM by augustin717 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #159 on: February 10, 2010, 09:33:46 PM »

Do you believe in ethnocentrism or nationalism?
What I don't believe in is lecturing  the past.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 09:40:46 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #160 on: February 10, 2010, 09:34:54 PM »

No, she was never part of Rome.  But the Orthodox Church became the state church in 328.  That's besides the conversion of the Ethopian Eunucn in the book of Acts.

Are they or were they non-Chalcedon/Monophysite?
The state (or former state) Church is non-Chalcedonian/Miaphysite.

There is an EO bishop, who is part of the Holy Synod of Alexandria.

But since Ethiopia converted over a century before Chalcedon, how are these facts on point?

Well, I knew from history lectures that miaphysites, by and large, were anti-imperial

Uh, in Ethiopia they had their own empire.  And the Arab Kingdome of Ghassan (roughly modern Jordan, Palestine and Syria) was mostly Non-Chalcedonian (though it had Chalcedonians too) and federated with the Romans.  And there is some question about the Christian kingdoms of Nubia.


Quote
and I was wondering if they included the Ethiopian Church too.

Yes, of course.


Quote
I know they were able to keep Muslims at bay for some time. What is the state of Ethiopia now?

The Church is disestablished, but the largest. Ethiopia is the second largest Orthodox country, although Eritria is politically and ecclesiastical split off from it.


Quote
Why does Alexandria have a Bishop there?

Ethiopia has been under Alexandria since the days of Pope St. Athanasius.  The OO were not autocephalous until the 1950s.


Quote
Aren't they in communion?

Who?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #161 on: February 11, 2010, 08:04:21 AM »

It says a lot when we are called by the indigenous churches of Syria and Egypt "Melchites", doesn't it?

Indigneous?  Both Alexandria and Antioch were Greek founded cities.

It doesn't tell us much when they are calling themselves "Orthodox" and "Catholic."


Quote
Historically, Orthodoxy is the heir of the imperial church. We also happen to believe that that's the right faith, as well, but you can't deny the times when we were closely associated with an empire.
Yeah, when the emperors were iconoclasts and monothelites.

Do not pretend you don't know what I mean: most of the non-helenized population of both Alexandria and Antioch enthusiastically went into schism from what they saw as the emperor's church.

LOL. Got news for you: many Hellenized Romans were just as enthusiastic, even in Constantinople.

Quote
Which one of the churches of Alexandria used mostly Coptic, which one mostly Greek?

At the time, there was no difference.  Until the 13th century both EO and OO used the same rites.  The OO Coptic Fathers continued writing in Greek.  To this day much of the Coptic DL is in pure Greek-the Trisagion, with the "Miaphysite additions", is all Greek, except before the last "Eleison imas," they say "O Holy Trinity":the "O" is the only Coptic in the entire hymn.


Quote
The same about Antioch, except that we talk about Syriac vs Greek there?

Except that you have even less evidence for your alleged point: the Syriac speakers had a large number of Chalcedonians.  One large group indeed was imperial:they adopted the emperor's favorite heresy of montheletism and went on to dominate the area as the Maronites, who use Aramaic and Syriac to this day.  Btw, the Aramaic speaking villages in the mountains of Syria/Lebanon are and have been Chalcedonian.  In Palestine Aramaic/Syriac (and Arabic) prevailed as did Chalcedonianism: Syriac Chalcedonian literature flourished there and in Sinai.  On this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22261.0.html

we were dealing with the Arab Orthodox, but the Syriac Chalcedonian Orthodox and Chalcedonian use of Syriac was mentioned.

Severus wrote everything in Greek I believe.  That much only survives today in Syriac doesn't change that.  IIRC many of the signatures of Chalcedon are in Syriac.

Quote
Now let's see who's more indigenous, the helenized metropolis or the Coptic/Syriac speaking countryside?

The Coptic/Syriac speaking countryside. But since both those countrysides supported the Greek speeking Severus, who hailed from Asia Minor, well within Roman territory throughout the empire's history, you point?


Quote
Yeah, I also know that some Syriac speaking christians stayed with our church, to this day, but that's rather the exception, not the rule.

In fact, it is possible that the majority of the Syriac/Aramaic speakers (as witnessed by the Maronite numbers) stayed with Chalcedon.

Quote
Monothelism&iconoclasm were just inconsequential episodes as to how the church saw herself in relation with the empire.

Not really: from Nicea I to until Theodosios I, Arianism dominated the empire, Theodosios II supported both Nestorius and Eutyches, the emperors wavered on Chalcedon.  Btw, the iconoclast emperors are the ones which transferred the Balkans, including Greece, from the jurisidictiom of Rome to Constantinople.


Quote
Had they won the day, we might as well ended in a minority situation, somehow like one of the non-chalcedonian churches, relegated to some nook of the empire. It just didn't happen that way.

Or we could have ended up in submission to the Vatican, as many emperors wanted....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #162 on: February 22, 2010, 03:57:49 AM »

Admit that Romans hugely established Orthodoxy in the world.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 03:59:15 AM by Christianus » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #163 on: February 22, 2010, 10:42:53 AM »

Admit that Romans hugely established Orthodoxy in the world.

With apologies to ozgeorge...

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Tags: Roman EP Bashing nomenclature 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.124 seconds with 56 queries.