Saying RCC is 2000 years old... Orthodox Statement or not?

[88Devin12]

There is a lot of argument out there about whether the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church were founded over 2000 years ago...
I would like to pose a question,
Would it be unorthodox to say, that both Churches were founded 2000 years ago as one Church? Yet then clarify the Orthodox position by saying that the Romans split off and lost their right to claim succession from the original church?

Also, would it be wrong to say that the RCC came down from the Church of Rome over 1000 years ago, yet has significantly continued to depart from where it was pre-schism?


Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against this position, I really don't care either way, whatever the Church says, I'll go with. (though those few of us on this forum certainly are NOT the Church or representational of it) I believe the Orthodox Church IS the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that Rome has lost it's right to claim that title and to claim succession from the Apostles by it's schism. I am only posing this as a question.

[ialmisry]

Not.

Something like saying that American law is over a thousand years old.  In a way, yes it is: most states adopted codes that specify that they accept the commonn law down to a certain king of England.  But America had no part in the formation of that law.  Similarly with "American" medieval history: they know about Richard the Lion Hearted, King Arthur etc. but nothing about Cahokia (the largest city in what is now America in the Medieval Period).  (Btw, I've very interested if French Canadians, Cajun's etc. have a similar collective memory about Phillippe IV  and Louis IX etc.).  In other words, the have roots that go back that far that they are conscious of, but no, they themselves do not go back that far.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I would like to pose a question.  Would it be unOrthodox to say that both Churches were founded 2000 years ago as One Church? Yet then clarify the Orthodox position by saying that the Romans split off and lost their right to claim succession from the original Church?

The way you've phrased it here seems perfectly Orthodox.  And the RCC is 2000 years old, no doubt about it.  Here come the "ecumenist" charges!

[Jetavan]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

Ha!  Well, is the Papacy even as it is even more traditionally understood 2000 years old?  After all, the title 'Pope' was first used in Alexandria.  The Throne of Peter; the first among equals; these all seem to be developments over time.  Why is one development worse than another?  The Orthodox have traditionally accepted certain developments surrounding the Papacy, it just seems that which ones are acceptable directly relates to how well they benefit the Orthodox.

Ah, the keys to heaven finally in the hands of an earthly king, just like we always wanted!

[Father H]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

No

[Father H]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

It is 139 years old

[Father H]

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

Ha!  Well, is the Papacy even as it is even more traditionally understood 2000 years old?  After all, the title 'Pope' was first used in Alexandria.  The Throne of Peter; the first among equals; these all seem to be developments over time.  Why is one development worse than another?  The Orthodox have traditionally accepted certain developments surrounding the Papacy, it just seems that which ones are acceptable directly relates to how well they benefit the Orthodox.

Ah, the keys to heaven finally in the hands of an earthly king, just like we always wanted!

You raise some important concerns that need answered.  The difference is that the developments of Rome as primus never had anything to do with who was the head of the Church, but rather the elder brother among bishops.  Also, Orthodoxy has consistantly held that the primacy of Peter is that of the episcopacy, not of one throne within the episcopacy.  This was affirmed by St. Cyprian and the council of Carthage.  Christ has always been the sole Head of the Church.  The "first among equals" was not a development of the Church.  It is mentioned by Christ:  "let him who would be first among you be the servant of all."  This was spoken specifically to the 12--they were equals, but there would be a first among them. 

[ChristusDominus]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

It is 139 years old

And your source is?

[ChristusDominus]

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

Ha!  Well, is the Papacy even as it is even more traditionally understood 2000 years old?  After all, the title 'Pope' was first used in Alexandria.  The Throne of Peter; the first among equals; these all seem to be developments over time.  Why is one development worse than another?  The Orthodox have traditionally accepted certain developments surrounding the Papacy, it just seems that which ones are acceptable directly relates to how well they benefit the Orthodox.

Ah, the keys to heaven finally in the hands of an earthly king, just like we always wanted!

I have recently been reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers regarding "First among Equals".
It's surprising to know that it goes back a long way, back to the Early Chruch.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Just want to make sure this thread does not spiral into debating Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility, like so many other threads.  If it is being used as a reference for time, that is fine; but debating its nature should not be done here.

Thank you.

-- Nebelpfade

[Michał Kalina]

Ha!  Well, is the Papacy even as it is even more traditionally understood 2000 years old?  After all, the title 'Pope' was first used in Alexandria.  The Throne of Peter; the first among equals; these all seem to be developments over time.  Why is one development worse than another?  The Orthodox have traditionally accepted certain developments surrounding the Papacy, it just seems that which ones are acceptable directly relates to how well they benefit the Orthodox.

Ah, the keys to heaven finally in the hands of an earthly king, just like we always wanted!

Both EOs and Catholics (and I suppose Orientals and Assyrians also) believe that canons written or Councils do not introduce new things into theology but confirm and/or precise the dogmas, which were believed by the believers before.

So Catholics believe that papal infallibility was "active" since Peter became the first Bishop of Rome and rest of the Church agreed upon this. Assyrians believe that since Ephesus whole Church had been Nestorian, the rest believes that it had not been.

While saying that Catholic Church is 2000 year old we agree that all their beliefs are in use for that time.

[ialmisry]

Ha!  Well, is the Papacy even as it is even more traditionally understood 2000 years old?  After all, the title 'Pope' was first used in Alexandria.  The Throne of Peter; the first among equals; these all seem to be developments over time.  Why is one development worse than another?  The Orthodox have traditionally accepted certain developments surrounding the Papacy, it just seems that which ones are acceptable directly relates to how well they benefit the Orthodox.

Ah, the keys to heaven finally in the hands of an earthly king, just like we always wanted!

Both EOs and Catholics (and I suppose Orientals and Assyrians also) believe that canons written or Councils do not introduce new things into theology but confirm and/or precise the dogmas, which were believed by the believers before.

So Catholics believe that papal infallibility was "active" since Peter became the first Bishop of Rome and rest of the Church agreed upon this. Assyrians believe that since Ephesus whole Church had been Nestorian, the rest believes that it had not been.

While saying that Catholic Church is 2000 year old we agree that all their beliefs are in use for that time.

Which is why we don't say that.

It is sort of like saying the pope of Rome is Pontifax Maximus.  The office actually bedates Christ by 7 centuries or so.  But the Pope of Rome holding the office dates only from over three centuries after Christ, i.e. it existed for a millenium without the Pope of Rome, but now for most of the office's existence, it has been joined to the episcopacy of Rome.  So too saying the RCC/Vatican is 2000 years old is anachronistic (and yes, I am aware that Luberti has pointed out that saying Vatican is anachronistic because Vatican City state only dates back to the previous century.  The anachronism here is intentional), because what makes the it was it is, e.g. papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc. does not go back 2000 years.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

...The anachronism here is intentional), because what makes the it was it is, e.g. papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc. does not go back 2000 years.

Absolutely. Right on.

[RollingThunder]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

It is 139 years old

And your source is?

Speaking for myself,

"This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870"

[ChristusDominus]

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old?

It is 139 years old

And your source is?

Speaking for myself,

"This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870"

I am aware that.

[username!]

The instution of the Roman church has been around since the beginning. 

[stashko]

Isn't the orthodox church of jeruslam  the mother church for all the orthodox and catholics ,iv read it some where on this forum....

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Saying RCC is 2000 years old... Orthodox Statement or not?