OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 04:34:21 AM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Saying RCC is 2000 years old... Orthodox Statement or not?  (Read 1869 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« on: June 01, 2009, 03:02:09 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 03:03:02 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 03:25:06 PM »

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.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 04:34:01 PM »

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!
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 04:45:20 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2009, 05:01:44 PM »

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

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!
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2009, 07:23:21 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

No
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 07:26:10 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

It is 139 years old
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2009, 07:41:16 PM »

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

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. 
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2009, 07:43:35 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

It is 139 years old
And your source is?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 07:45:09 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2009, 07:50:16 PM »

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 07:50:44 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2009, 08:30:07 PM »

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
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2009, 07:11:02 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 07:12:01 AM by mike » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2009, 09:57:57 AM »

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.
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
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2009, 01:06:40 PM »

...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.
Logged
RollingThunder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2


« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 03:50:06 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

It is 139 years old
And your source is?

Speaking for myself,

"This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870"
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 03:50:40 PM by RollingThunder » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2009, 04:15:38 PM »

Let's be more precise.

Is papal infallibility 2000 years old? Shocked

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.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2009, 05:27:26 PM »

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

stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2009, 12:45:16 AM »

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

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.078 seconds with 46 queries.