Catholic Church 33 A.D.

[lonnienord]

+JMJ It seems to me that there was a rather long time that there was only one Church. At least 1500 years Right?
all for JESUS!!
lonnie

[Orthokid]

Originally Posted by lonnienord

+JMJ It seems to me that there was a rather long time that there was only one Church. At least 1500 years Right?

Ummm... wrong. Quite wrong, as a matter of fact.

There were splits of various heretics -- what St. John refers to as "antichrists" -- from the beginning. One such group is apparently named in the Apocolypse (Revelation): the Nicolaitanes.

Most of these groups which sprung up over the centuries died out. The first lasting schisms were in the 5th century, when the Nestorians and the nonchalcedoneons parted ways with the rest of the Church, centered around arguments of Christology. There are still plenty of these Christians today.

Then there's the Great Schism, generally set as occuring in 1054. That's when the western and eastern portions of the Church split with one another, the western part now being known as "Roman Catholic" and the eastern part as "Eastern Orthodox". There are currently something along the lines of a quarter of a billion Eastern Orthodox Christians, so.... don't be too anxious to dismiss this as trivial!

All these churches -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Nestorians and nonchalcedoneons -- have an argument for claiming their origins at the first Christian Pentecost. Of course, some RC's will say that the Orthodox split from them, so that the Orthodox should be said to have been born in 1054. Likewise some of us EO's would say that Rome split from us, so that the Roman Catholic Church would be said to have started in 1054. It's all a matter of perspective....

In Christ, /Steven (Orthokid)

[Don]

good points, O.

IIRC, at all (most?) early church councils, some minority perspective was declared a heresy and kicked out and the words of the creed associated with the council (or tweaks to a previous creed) were such that the heretics could not say it and be honest.

Eusebius, again IIRC, the famous early church historian, was a member of a group that was later declared to be a heresy, so some questioned if using is history was a good thing. This also raised the question about those who had died in the faith, but the group they were in was now declared not in the faith, and what happened to them now? Were they heretics or not?
Don

[Symeon]

Yup, there have definitely been splits earlier than the Reformation, and many have survived to the present day.

In view of which ... and in view of the fact that the phrase, "Catholic Church", is generally thought to refer specifically to those churches that are in communion with the Pope of Rome (to distinguish him from the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, also known as "Pope" ...

... does this topic title strike anyone else as, well, just a tad "sectarian"?

I mean, I could also start a topic titled, "Orthodox Church 33 AD".

And no doubt the LDS folks could start one titled, "CoJCoLDS, 33 AD".

And so on.

I don't think I really want to do that ... it's just a little too in-your-face for this particular forum.

But I think I want to go on record as pointing out the problem, here.

[michael_legna]

What might be more useful than date setting (aren't we warned against that in the scriptures ) would be a listing of the leaders of the Church through out history.

Us Catholics would claim succession back through Peter to Christ, Greek Orthodox would claim it back through Andrew to Christ, the Coptics would go back through St. Mark to Christ, etc.

I am not saying anyone has to agree or accept these geneologies but it would be interesting to see how Churches trace back a proper laying on of hands or even if they see it as important or crucial.

Does this sound any less sectarian or in-your-face? If so we can start a new thread in this area with a clear first post to indicate all denominations post their geneology there.

[Symeon]

Originally Posted by michael_legna

What might be more useful than date setting (aren't we warned against that in the scriptures ) would be a listing of the leaders of the Church through out history.

Us Catholics would claim succession back through Peter to Christ, Greek Orthodox would claim it back through Andrew to Christ, the Coptics would go back through St. Mark to Christ, etc.

And the Antiochians would also claim succession back through Peter (who kicked off the church that's there, they say).

Actually, we Orthodox trace our origins to Pentecost, the day the Church was born.

I am not saying anyone has to agree or accept these geneologies but it would be interesting to see how Churches trace back a proper laying on of hands or even if they see it as important or crucial.

"Laying on of hands" is not how the Orthodox usually put these things. Sounds too, well, mechanical I suppose.

And our sense of authority and legitimacy is a bit more dispersed than that. It doesn't reside in one or more Patriarchs (highest bishop), since patriarchs have been deposed for all sorts of reasons.

It's hard to put into words (not unusual in Orthodoxy), but if pressed I'd make the attempt by saying that a church is a legitimate and authorized church if it possesses the fullness of Holy Tradition.

You see, it's possible to have a physical series of "layings-on of hands" right the way back, without actually having passed on doctrine that's orthodox. That's what the Anglican world is struggling with, now (IMHO).

Is it possible for a body of people to have orthodox doctrine, in terms of academic theology, without actually doing *any* laying-on of hands (without having bishops at all)? Only if we exclude the theological category of ecclesiology.

Which is a small example of the larger issue: that you can't pick one thing and say, "Aha! We have it! Now everyone can be sure that we're legitimate and authorized"

For us, it's a package deal. You take the package, or you don't.

Like a casserole made of a lot of different ingredients. If a diner picks out some "I don't like xx", then what's left is going to taste different from the original meal. And what the diner is eating ... won't be what the cook prepared.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by symeon

And the Antiochians would also claim succession back through Peter (who kicked off the church that's there, they say).

But they would have to show a line of succession all the way back from who ever leads them now to Peter, not just claim Peter with no connection.

"Laying on of hands" is not how the Orthodox usually put these things. Sounds too, well, mechanical I suppose.

Interesting! Does the Orthodox require laying on of hands for ordination? Can one be properly ordained without a proper laying on of hands from someone else who was properly ordained?

And our sense of authority and legitimacy is a bit more dispersed than that. It doesn't reside in one or more Patriarchs (highest bishop), since patriarchs have been deposed for all sorts of reasons.

Again I am learning all kinds of new things. You grow up one way and you tend to assume everyone does it that way. One of the things I value most about the Catholic Church is that it claims to have a centralized authority. I realize that probably has almost as much to do with my personality type as it has to do with how the scriptures teach a Church should be. But I would find it hard to leave for another that did not claim this authority.

It's hard to put into words (not unusual in Orthodoxy), but if pressed I'd make the attempt by saying that a church is a legitimate and authorized church if it possesses the fullness of Holy Tradition.

Yeah but without getting into a debate who determines what is and isn't the fullness of Holy Tradition then? The idea of a Church that one can take a disagreement between Christians to (as final determiner of doctrine) is vital to me. If I can set myself up as determiner of the fullness of Holy Tradition and bounce from Church to Church until I find one that agrees with me I can win every disagreement with another Christian (at least in my own eyes). But worse than that I become isolated and alone leading myself rather than having a true shepherd.

You see, it's possible to have a physical series of "layings-on of hands" right the way back, without actually having passed on doctrine that's orthodox. That's what the Anglican world is struggling with, now (IMHO).

I don't accept your example though I see your point.

I don't accept the Anglican laying on of hands as being proper since it both relies on succession through the Catholic Church while at the same time relying on someone at sometime who in that sames Church's eyes stopped teaching proper doctrine. This inconsistency to me is unacceptable.

Your point however is reasonable if we assume laying on of hands is merely a physical event of man. If we add to it the gift of the spirit (getting God involved) it becomes more; and negates the possibility of a loss of orthodoxy.

This is a huge advantage but conversely has also caused one of the great problems Catholics have faced in the recent crisis of clergy child abusers. How to handle a man who has clearly sinned, but is ordained by God and has not taught faulty doctrine. If the priest had committed heresy his ordination could be removed. However, the Church does not feel it can remove the priest from his service (thereby undoing what God did) for a sin other than a retreat from orthodoxy. Many Protestants I chat with cannot understand this and I can understand why, but I see the other side as well because I see laying on of hands as more than a mechanical event.

Is it possible for a body of people to have orthodox doctrine, in terms of academic theology, without actually doing *any* laying-on of hands (without having bishops at all)? Only if we exclude the theological category of ecclesiology.

Yes and that is why (contrary to popular opinion in some circles) the Catholic Church does NOT teach that there is no salvation outside of it. But a group that is orthodox is not the Church.

Which is a small example of the larger issue: that you can't pick one thing and say, "Aha! We have it! Now everyone can be sure that we're legitimate and authorized"

For us, it's a package deal. You take the package, or you don't.

Like a casserole made of a lot of different ingredients. If a diner picks out some ("I don't like xx", then what's left is going to taste different from the original meal. And what the diner is eating ... won't be what the cook prepared.

I agree there is no borgasmoard (as Rodney Allen Ripy used to say) of doctine, but that is different from tracing ones geneology.

Still - all good points and I see this as a non-approachable topic as so many people value different things in determination of what leads them to the Church. It would be so much simpler if everyone just thought as I do. ;D

[Symeon]

Michael, sorry for the long delay in responding. I'm finally getting some time to reproduce my answer -- and so here we go.

Originally Posted by michael_legna

But they would have to show a line of succession all the way back from who ever leads them now to Peter, not just claim Peter with no connection.

Oh, no problem about *that*! I thought you were just focusing on the starting-point, that's all.

Continuing ... you said

(Symeon said)

"Laying on of hands" is not how the Orthodox usually put these things. Sounds too, well, mechanical I suppose.

Oh we do and one cannot (in our Church), but the point is that the hands, alone, don't "do it". You continued,

(Symeon said)

Again I am learning all kinds of new things. You grow up one way and you tend to assume everyone does it that way. One of the things I value most about the Catholic Church is that it claims to have a centralized authority. I realize that probably has almost as much to do with my personality type as it has to do with how the scriptures teach a Church should be. But I would find it hard to leave for another that did not claim this authority.

*shrug* Whatever floats your boat. Me, I value a decentralized authority. When I contemplate centralized authority, I’m reminded of the mad Emperor Caligula, who wishes that Rome had a single neck … so that he could wring it. “The Devil will never succeed in subverting the Church, because he’ll never figure out who’s in charge!” (See my sig)

To continue,

Yeah but without getting into a debate who determines what is and isn't the fullness of Holy Tradition then? The idea of a Church that one can take a disagreement between Christians to (as final determiner of doctrine) is vital to me. If I can set myself up as determiner of the fullness of Holy Tradition and bounce from Church to Church until I find one that agrees with me I can win every disagreement with another Christian (at least in my own eyes). But worse than that I become isolated and alone leading myself rather than having a true shepherd.

The answer to "who determines" depends on "who’s asking".

At one level is the individual, who might convert in (or out) of a given church. For that person, the Name of the Game is "Who Do You Trust"? And that person has to answer that question on his own. Every person who voluntarily chose to convert to the Catholic Church answered that question ... on his or her own. Shucks, even if you have chosen not to convert, then you’ve still answered the question ... on your own. Nobody else answered the question for you.

At an entirely different level is an Orthodox Church which is considering whether to join with another Church in that intensely intimate relationship known as being "in communion". Does that other Church have "the fullness of Holy Tradition"? If so, then fine. If not ... then ?No.

Even if all the external forms have been observed.

Hands don’t do it.

More to the point that matters to me, though, is the question of "who decides what's The Truth." I happen to agree with some of what you said -- I don't want to be the sole arbiter of The Truth. Orthodox convert Frank Schaeffer wrote a hard-hitting book about extreme Protestantism, which he titled Dancing Alone. I'm not interested in "dancing alone".

The question between you and me is not, "should a Christian dance alone?" The question is, "must the source of The Truth be a specific church department or office in Rome? Or may it be more widely dispersed?" It seems to me that Catholics often assume that the only alternative to Catholic-style central authority is Protestant-style disintegration.

I think that the survival of orthodox teaching and practice in Orthodoxy for 1,000 years after the "official" split, despite the extreme pressures of Islam and Communism, demonstrates the viability of a Third Option.

(Symeon said)

I don't accept your example though I see your point.

I don't accept the Anglican laying on of hands as being proper since it both relies on succession through the Catholic Church while at the same time relying on someone at sometime who in that same Church's eyes stopped teaching proper doctrine. This inconsistency to me is unacceptable.

Yes, I think we're agreed here. The "hands" alone don't do it: you need more. One other thing you need is "proper doctrine". I would add that this is one element of Holy Tradition, and that the rest are also needed.

Since this post is getting too long for the BBoard's editor, I'll chop at this point and continue in due course.

[michael_legna]

I have to admit that I would have only assumed only the two options myself. I guess I figured that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church pretty much acted just as the Pope does (just without the official statement of ex cathedra authority) and that the reason orthodoxy had been retained is because of inertia (I picture the Orthodox Church to be probably the only organization in the world to modernize more slowly than the Catholic Church ;D ). Not that inertia is a bad thing. I certainly think some of the new ideas within the Catholic Church are suspect.

Since this post is getting too long for the BBoard's editor, I'll chop at this point and continue in due course.

I think I paired it down some. ;D But in doing so I didn't intend it as ignoring any of your points as I was basically in agreement with them. Look for an IM on a related issue.

[Symeon]

Originally Posted by michael_legna link

I have to admit that I would have only assumed only the two options myself. I guess I figured that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church pretty much acted just as the Pope does (just without the official statement of ex cathedra authority) and that the reason orthodoxy had been retained is because of inertia (I picture the Orthodox Church to be probably the only organization in the world to modernize more slowly than the Catholic Church ;D ). Not that inertia is a bad thing. I certainly think some of the new ideas within the Catholic Church are suspect.

Yes, most folks think of "the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church" in such terms.

Actually, though, there are I think seven or eight Patriarchs Of The Orthodox Church. They are seated in:

• Constantinople (Istanbul)
• Antioch (but his offices have been in Damascus since ~1200 AD)
• Alexandria
• Jerusalem
• Moscow
• Romania
• Bulgaria
• Serbia (I think)

The Patriarch of Constantinople is the senior Patriarch, and presides over Ecumenical (cross-jurisdictional) Synods. (The Emperor used to preside, but, well, there isn't one any more ... ) But he doesn't make the decisions; the Synods make the decisions.

In my reply to your IM, I noted that this model of decision making resembles distributed computer processing. If one portion goes "down", the rest can pick up the load.

When the Arabs seized Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Constantinople could carry on.

When the Turks conquered Constantinople, Moscow could carry on.

When the Bolsheviks conquered Moscow in their revolution, Constantinople and Greece (now freed from the Ottoman Empire) could carry on.

And so forth. No single neck, which might be cut in a single stroke. "The Devil will never succeed in subverting the Church, because he’ll never figure out who’s in charge!"

More comments about an earlier post, in a moment.