Orthodox POV please. . .

[MattMMMan17]

Greetings brethren :) I have 2 questions that were raised in recent threads in OBOB in which 2 Orthodox posters participated. First, from the Orthodox POV, are "Roman Catholics" considered to be the first Protestants? And do you consider the Pope of the Roman See to be the leader of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? That question isn't a loaded question, I only ask because Matrona had claimed that in the OBOB thread and wanted some clarification. Thanks!

[The Prokeimenon!]

are "Roman Catholics" considered to be the first Protestants?

I think Cain was the first Protestant. He worshipped God in a way that was more suited to him (offering vegatables) rather than worshipping according to the commandment of God (offering meat.) Incidentally, the proper sacrifice to God wouldn't have been written down- How did Abel know what to do? I guess he had Tradition :)

Moses

[Michael the Iconographer]

I didn't say Roman Catholics were the first protestants, but I did say I see the Old Catholics as being Protestant even though they did not come from the Reformation. Most Orthodox I know see Catholics and Protestants as being two sides of the same coin and as having much more in common with each other than either side has with Orthodoxy. The Western mindset which dominates both groups is so very different from the Eastern/Orthodox mindset and that effects everything we do.

[vanshan]

Protestant is probably an inaccurate term. It wasn't protest that led the Roman See astray it was things like power, arrogance, aggression, and theological corruption.

We do see the Roman Church as having lost grace, therefore, being in the same condition as the Protestants. Certainly God works beyond Orthodoxy in both the Protestant and Catholic Churches, but without question we maintain that the fullness of God can only be found in Orthodoxy. All are welcome, but you must submit to the true, unadulterated teachings of Christ as they have been carefully preserved in Orthodoxy rather than creating a gospel to suit yourself.

Of course, historically we acknowleged the Patriarch of Rome as the "first among equals" which was a position of honor, not one giving authority to rule over any other bishop. The Roman See was equal to all others in authority. Now that the Roman Church has left in schism, we do not recognize the Papacy as part of the One Holy, Apostolic Church.

Basil

[Mother Vashti]

http://sfstory.free.fr/images/MarsAttack/4.jpg
"Something tells me I'm in the WRONG Forum"

1. Didn't God have a problem with Cain's heart (Genesis 4:7), and for that reason Cain's offering was refused? What difference does it make to God if you have meat, vegetables, or two mites to throw in? Didn't Jesus perceive that the widow with two mites was truly throwing in the faith in her heart? I just don't see how knowledge of tradition automatically makes an offering acceptable to God.

2. I think it's a very astute observation that the differences Proties and Cats draw up between each other is just the Western mindset; I'm glad you fellas see it too. But in Cameroon, we find conflicts between North and South, English- and French-speaking, Christian and Muslim, Traditional and Western, etc. All these conflicts overlap one another, over the same body of people (in this case, a country). Isn't the Apostolic vs. Non-Apostolic mindset, in effect, a conflict between Eastern and Western European Christians, within a larger body called Christianity?

[Photini]

In the eyes of many Orthodox theologians, the Roman Catholic Church is not so radically different than it's Protestant branches. THey will say this in reference to the "doctrine" of infallibility, which at it's roots, is found to be the sickness of human self-assurance and pride. When living the mystery of the Church the "infallibility" that Rome prides itself on becomes superfluous. It is nothing more than the mark of human self-assurance. It is this same human self-assurance that is the source of the ever-splintering Protestant sects.

And as far as I am concerned, there is no "leader" of the One Holy Catholic Church, save for Christ Himself.

[Reader Nilus]

Our Head is Jesus Christ the Lord, we have Bishops and the clergy but they are also servants of the King as the lay folk are. Rome went off by itself, the way protestants went off by themselves, Rome started the spliting of the church to thousands of pieces, in that case yes it is the first protestant church.
Jeff the Finn

[Matrona]

Greetings brethren :) I have 2 questions that were raised in recent threads in OBOB in which 2 Orthodox posters participated. First, from the Orthodox POV, are "Roman Catholics" considered to be the first Protestants?
An Orthodox layperson might phrase it that way, but that is not the official opinion of the Orthodox Church.

And do you consider the Pope of the Roman See to be the leader of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
Absolutely not. The Pope has as much effect on us as he has on the price of tea in China, and we neither recognize him nor any sort of authority he may claim over us. At one time, his seat was considered first among equals in our Church, but he NEVER had authority over a single soul in any one of the Eastern Patriarchates. When the one holding that seat decided to separate his patriarchate from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the first among equals became the patriarch whose see is the city of Constantinople.

That question isn't a loaded question, I only ask because Matrona had claimed that in the OBOB thread and wanted some clarification. Thanks!
Granted, it's a bit of a stretch to call that great city's bishop the head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (which is the Eastern Orthodox Church and no other) but His All-Holiness is first among equals with our patriarchs, and besides, any secular history book will tell you about St. Constantine moving the capital of the Roman Empire from Old Rome to New Rome.

The only real head of this Church, however, is Christ the Great High Priest, and He is the only single individual normally considered as the head of our Eastern Orthodox Church the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[entropy_rising]

Being a Newbie here in CF, I'm not sure if I should make a new post in asking, can you guys show me biblical verses and quotes from early Christianity that show that 1) the Pope/Peter was NOT superior and 2) that they were NOT infallible?

Catholics make careers out of giving biblical quotes and early fathers quotes demonstrating the opposite...

Thanks.

[entropy_rising]

If I do need to make a new post, I'll do that on being informed.

[Oblio]

Being a Newbie here in CF, I'm not sure if I should make a new post in asking, can you guys show me biblical verses and quotes from early Christianity that show that 1) the Pope/Peter was NOT superior and 2) that they were NOT infallible?

Catholics make careers out of giving biblical quotes and early fathers quotes demonstrating the opposite...

Thanks.

That's fine, as long as they do not do so here in TAW ;)

One Scripture that jumps to mind is Acts 15 where in Council it is declared that 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...'

Orthodox Chirtianity has always been Concilliar and is not ruled authoritatively by a Papal Vicar of Christ. There are not two heads to the Church. We see this in Scripture and throughout her history.

[entropy_rising]

Are the other 11 apostles represented by the archbishops, patriarchs, and the metropolitans of the Orthodox churches?

And if this is the case, where can I get a list of correspondances between apostles and modern churches?

As a Catholic it always bothered me that we used the phrase "apostolic" succession but we only have one apostle. Right now I'm doing research to resolve that problem. That's partly why I'm here, asking things.

[Oblio]

Somewhere here (on TAW IIRC) there is an informal mapping that you seek. There is no requirement that I am aware of for a one-to-one mapping of Apostles to modern Bishops. What is required is a Bishop for each geographical area without intervention from another. The larger and more ancient of these areas are termed Patriarchates and for that reason they do map back to the Apostles (as do all our Bishops) that evangelized the same area. (e.g. James->Pat. of Jerusalem). This does not prohibit a one-many relationship, IOW a succession from Constantinople->Slavs->Russia->America

[ExOrienteLux]

Right off the top of my head, I know that Jerusalem is the see of St. James, Antioch is a see of St. Paul (I think), Constantinople is the see of St. Andrew, and that St. Thomas went to India and established the Indian Church (which broke away with the rest of the Non-Chalcedonians). I don't feel like going to dig up the other sees or making absolutely sure that these are right. I'm a lazy computer bum, so sue me. ;)

[Oblio]

But Chalcedon was more than a defeat for Alexandrian theology: it was a defeat for Alexandrian claims to rule supreme in the east. Canon 28 of Chalcedon confirmed Canon 3 of Constantinople, assigning to New Rome the place next in honor after Old Rome. Leo repudiated this Canon, but the east has ever since recognized its validity. The Council also freed Jerusalem from
the jurisdiction of Caesarea and gave it the fifth place among the great sees. The system later known among Orthodox as the Pentarchy was now complete, whereby five great sees in the Church were held in particular honor, and a settled order of precedence was established among them: in order of rank, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. All five claimed Apostolic foundation. The first four were the most important cities in the Roman Empire; the fifth was added because it was the place where Christ had suffered on the Cross and risen from the dead. The bishop in each of these cities received the title Patriarch. The five Patriarchates between them divided into spheres of jurisdiction the whole of the known world, apart from Cyprus, which was granted independence by the Council of Ephesus and has remained selfgoverning ever since.

When speaking of the Orthodox conception of the Pentarchy there are two possible misunderstandings which must be avoided. First, the system of Patriarchs and Metropolitans is a matter of ecclesiastical organization. But if we look at the Church from the viewpoint not of ecclesiastical order but of divine right, then we must say that all bishops are essentially equal, however
humble or exalted the city over which each presides. All bishops share equally in the apostolic succession, all have the same sacramental powers, all are divinely appointed teachers of the faith.

If a dispute about doctrine arises, it is not enough for the Patriarchs to express their opinion: every diocesan bishop has the right to attend a General Council, to speak, and to cast his vote.

The system of the Pentarchy does not impair the essential equality of all bishops, nor does it deprive each local community of the importance which Ignatius assigned to it

The first Six Councils (325-681). - The Orthodox Church, +KALLISTOS (Ware) (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P5.HTM)

[entropy_rising]

As usual, thanks for your help.

[OrthodoxTexan]

Right off the top of my head, I know that Jerusalem is the see of St. James, Antioch is a see of St. Paul (I think), Constantinople is the see of St. Andrew, and that St. Thomas went to India and established the Indian Church (which broke away with the rest of the Non-Chalcedonians). I don't feel like going to dig up the other sees or making absolutely sure that these are right. I'm a lazy computer bum, so sue me. ;)
Antioch was Peter's see, not Paul's. Peter was Bishop in Antioch before he went to Rome. The only other one you left out was Alexandria (St. Mark).

[artofwar]

I think Cain was the first Protestant. He worshipped God in a way that was more suited to him (offering vegatables) rather than worshipping according to the commandment of God (offering meat.)

Ouch, interesting way of looking at it but wasnt it a heart issue??? is there any real proof that Peter started the Catholic/Orthadox church?
I dont get the traditions, i thought these are the things that arnt actually Christian but more mystical, forgive me if I am wrong and you can back it up with Scripture

[ExOrienteLux]

Antioch was Peter's see, not Paul's. Peter was Bishop in Antioch before he went to Rome. The only other one you left out was Alexandria (St. Mark).
See? This just proved my hypothesis that I was wrong on a few of the sees and that I'm too lazy to make sure that I was right. Oh, well. Mea culpa, and I'm sure Sts. Peter and Paul won't hate me for mixing up their sees.

[Oblio]

I dont get the traditions, i thought these are the things that arnt actually Christian but more mystical, forgive me if I am wrong and you can back it up with Scripture


The Bible tells us that Traditions are those things once delivered to the Saints that we are to hold fast to. Examples of Traditions are Holy Scripture (the centerpiece), the Liturgy, the Pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils (e.g. The Creed), the Writings of the Chuch Fathers,Holy Icons, the Lesser Councils (canon of Scripture), Church Architecture, Hymnography. These all form a seamless whole of Tradition, none contradicting another, and each holding the other up and complementing and reinforcing the other. They are doctrinally the substance of the Christian faith.

Protestant denominantions hold to portions of these Holy Traditions (Creed, portions of the Bible, Icons, Church Architecture, even some of our prayers and hymns). Only the Orthodox Church holds to all the Traditions of Christianity, faithfully, and without adulteration or dilution.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Ouch, interesting way of looking at it but wasnt it a heart issue??? is there any real proof that Peter started the Catholic/Orthadox church?
I dont get the traditions, i thought these are the things that arnt actually Christian but more mystical, forgive me if I am wrong and you can back it up with Scripture

Can you back up with scripture your insistance on backing things up with scripture? 1 Tim 3:15 says the pillar and foundation of all truth is the Church of the Living God. St. Paul clearly doesn't see scripture as being the end all be all of doctrine.

[Oblio]

artofwar,

It is key to understand that a reliance on Scripture alone (actually personal interpretation of Scripture alone) for doctrine is a new and foreign doctrine to historical Apostolic Christianity. It was promulgated by those who had to do so for that was the only way* they could counter the authority of a Western Church that had strayed from the original faith. While most Traditions and doctrines are backed up with Scripture (and I am not saying this one is or is not), there is no requirement for them to be found explicity in Scripture. What you will find, is that no Tradition contradicts Scripture, or any other Tradition. Scripture, especially the NT, is not meant to be an exhaustive catechism or rulebook, or book of Rubrics for worship. It is a set of Apostolic writings that conform to what the Church believed and still believes, much of it corrective, and as St. John and others tell us, there are many things that were not written down that contain the Truth of our faith.

* Added: Actually, it is not the only way. They could have left Rome and returned to the Church, that is the Orthodox Church, that the Roman Patriarch had left 500 years before.

[Matthias]

Hey Matt. Your avatar is probably the best I have seen on CF ever. My mother has a similar picture in her bedroom. I love Jesus and the Sacred Heart. It makes me smile whenever I see it. Awesome avatar; the best yet IMHO.