So does the Vatican, although it smears it with Corban and calls it "annullment." And divorce for adultry, for instance, did exist in the early Church, not only in patristic literary discussions, but surviving legal records in Egypt.
It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. You use the terminology of abandonment of the apostolic faith and you claim that Roman Catholicism is guilty of this. However, is it not true that using the same type of reasoning, a person could conceivably argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is guilty of this also? Here are some examples as to how someone might argue that there is a difference between the apostolic faith and the Eastern Orthodox teaching of today:
1. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce.
I'll give you that many Orthodox have become lax in applying the rule (but the Vatican is hardly the party to point that mote out to us), but bad pastoral practice is also nothing new.
2. Women are allowed to attend Church services with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the apostolic faith.This is quite an obsession with you. Why?
It has also been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that it remains overwhelmingly the practice, for whatever reason, in the Orthodox world.
Btw, the claim can be made that it is apostolic practice. The case that it is apostolic faith cannot be sustained.
3. Call no man Father. This was the case in apostolic times, but is not true today.Spiritual fathers have always been called fathers, so I don't know where, except from Protestant tracts, you are getting this.
The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.
4. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. However, now it is taught that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven.We don't have indulgences, so I don't know where you are getting this.
5. Unless you hate your mother, father, your wife and your children, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. But today it is taught that you can be an Orthodox priest and love your mother, love your father, love your wife and love your children. Now you are really grasping at straws. Christ loved His mother, brothers and sisters, and they were there at Pentecost. St. Peter loved his wife and daugher, as St. Clement tells us.
1. So you do agree that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” BTW, I do think that the Roman Church has also abandoned this teaching, since they allow easy annulments at least in the USA.
No, the historical record shows the practice of old was what the Orthodox preach. (whether they all follow it is another matter, but they all pay lip service to it, as the canons won't let them do otherwise.
2. I don’t regard this as an obsession,
you bring it up any chance you can, and many you can't.
but as an obvious example of how the Orthodox Churhch has abandoned the apostolic teaching as given by St. Paul on this matter. The question I was considering was whether the apostolic teaching has been abandoned ONLY by the Roman Church. But it has been abandoned by both the Roman Church and by many of the Orthodox Churches in the USA.
Even if every single Orthodox woman in the USA "abandoned" the practice, that still wouldn't tell you a thing about the vast majority of Orthodox women today.
Odd if it was so important that Christ never aludes to it, and St. Paul only mentions it once.
3. Where did I get this?: Matthew 23:9 The teaching in Apostolic times: “And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. I Cor. 4:15. Btw. Corinthians predates Matthew.
The Apostles refered to their disciples and flock as their "children" (Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
4. Where am I getting this?: The teaching in apostolic times: Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Also Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25.
Yes, you quote that before. What you didn't cite was an Orthodox authority "that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven." Btw, the quotes you have say it is hard. They do not say it is impossible.
5. Here is the teaching in apostolic times: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.” Has not the Orthodox Church abandoned this teaching since Orthodox priests can be a disciple of Christ while he loves his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life.
I Timothy 3: 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
The question I was looking at here is whether or not the apostolic teachings have changed ONLY in the Roman Church.
No, they have changed in the Nestorian and of course the Protestant churches as well.
An argument can be made that these teachings of apostolic times have changed in the Orthodox Church as well.
not with justification it can't. Your number 5, for instance, is EXACTLY today among the Orthodox as it was among the Apostles. I suspect the Vatican's refusal to ordain married men, as the Apostles did and the Orthdoox do, has skewed your viewpoint.