Church history from the Eastern Orthodox View

I would like to begin this post by saying that

I DO NOT WISH TO OFFEND ANYONE!

However it seems there will be no way around it.

There are a lot of people who do not subscribe to history from the Eastern Orthodox view point.

Let's all promise to not get angry, or get our feather ruffled because someone says the Church "split" in a certain way. We are not here to lay blame, there is plenty of that to go around.

Let's just try to stay factual, and help each other discover the truth in historical terms....

God Loves us all.....

Forgive me..

Just to get the ball rolling...


For the 1st 1000 years of her history, the Church was essentially one.

Five historical Patriarchal centers – Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople – formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with each other.

During the 1st through 3rd centuries, this group wrote, gathered and organized the scriptures that would later be bound into the Christian Bible.

During the first three hundred years, Christianity was illegal.

Roman Emperors such as Nero, Maximus and Diocletian, along with princes and kings of surrounding areas, tortured and killed many thousands of Christ’s followers.

Churches worshiped secretly in the private homes of believers.

The Roman Emperor St. Constantine put an end to this era of torture and established Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire.


Major problems within the Church were settled by councils of Bishops who attended as equals.

Nicea I A.D. 325 Formulated the First Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Son of God.

Constantinople I A.D. 381 Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesus A.D. 431 Defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos.

Chalcedon A.D. 451 Defined Christ as Perfect God and Perfect Man in One Person.

Constantinople II A.D. 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ.

Constantinople III A.D. 680 Affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action.

Nicea II A.D. 787 Affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith.

In A.D. 1054, the Roman Patriarch pulled away from the other four Patriarchs, pursuing his long-developing claim of universal headship of the Church.

The Papacy (Pope) was later established as infallible, and the Nicea / Constantinople creed had been changed to better suit western ideals.

These acts, along with other Roman changes, resulted in the “Great Schism” (split) that has separated the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches since that time.

(Side note: Since the 1960's, Roman Catholics refer to themselves as "Catholic")

The Roman Church proclaimed “holy” war (Crusades) against the Eastern Church from A.D. 1095-1291.

Constantinople, the center of the Eastern Church was toppled in A.D.1204.

The Eastern Church survived through the unity of the other Patriarchal centers - Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Many icons, documents and traditions from Constantinople were preserved by their movement east into Russia.

The Spanish Inquisition 1478-1834

Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain chose Roman Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the Pope to begin to purify Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.

The accused were identified and brought before a tribunal. They were given a chance to confess their heresy against the Roman Church and were encouraged to indict others. If they admitted their wrongs and turned in others they were released or sentenced to prison. If they would not admit to heresy or indict others they were publicly introduced in a large ceremony and killed or sentenced to a life in prison.

The Spanish Inquisition is one of the best known Inquisitions, however there were others.

In 1517, Martin Luther nailed 95 complaints against “Roman Catholicism” to the door of the Church in Wittenberg Germany, starting the “Protestant Reformation”.

The Roman Church proclaimed itself as the only true faith and excommunicated the protestants.

In a valiant attempt to restore the "Holy Tradition" of the Church, and without the help of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the protestants dismissed "Roman Christianity" and moved forward with only the New and Old Testaments as their guide.

Modern western Christianity, such as Lutheran, Methodist, and Baptist grew from this reformation.

In 1529, The Church of England was established, following King Henry's displeasure with Rome not allowing him to divorce his wife.

Modern Churches such as the Anglicans are direct decendant from the Church of England.


Forgive me...

What do you mean by ONE? To my understanding the churchs of the New Testment were in their government and discipline to be entirely separate and independent of each other, Jerusalem to have no authority over Antioch -- nor Antioch over Ephesus; nor Ephesus over Corinth, and so forth. And their government to be congregational, democratic. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This then later changed at the coucil of Nieca makeing a compact with each other.
Not all churches were invited to this coucil were they?
Also, I would like to know what the Orthodox view of the Jewish believing churchs who were not invited to the council.
Thanks
And there is no need to ask for forgiveness! We are just talking right?
Also, I lost my feathers a couple of years ago, they fell out!
GEL

__________________

Essentially one, as they still are today... still using the same liturgical services, same baptism, same eucurist.
I don't recall reading anything about "Jewish believing churches" can you define that for me?
I'm guessing... but are you saying that non-Christian Jews should have been invited too?
The councils were called to solve disputes, anyone not involved in the particular dispute at hand would not have been invited to council...

Forgive me.... ( This is just an Orthodox thing...)

Wow, how do you really feel? I had always thought they did away with what they felt as useless nonesense and went back to what the Bible said about salvation.

__________________

><> ><> ><>

<><><> ><> ><>

swimmin' against the flow...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is probably exactly what they felt they were doing. However they did discard what they didn't see as useful.

It would be difficult for me to give a viewpoint other than my own...
I sure my statements are skewed.. as anyone elses will be as well....
Please post your view as well...

Forgive me...

I am talking about Jewish believers. You know, like Paul. He was a Jew and then found Christ and became a missonary. He started churchs all over and preached to the Jews and to the Gentiles.
Wasn't the dispute about whether Christ was in fact God? If there was just one church as you are stating, there would be no disputes!
This is my point. The orthodox might be able to trace thier roots back, but to say that was the only "true church without error" is grasping in my opinion.
There were several small churchs started all over during that time that were biblical new testement churchs.
Does othodox fully submerge?
Thanks
GEL

__________________

Jewish believers belonged to the same Church. Many of the early christian martyrs were Jewish. That does not mean they had their own church, or denomination.

There were various early heretics, like the Gnostics and Judaizers. Then there were the Arians, Nestorians, Manicheans, etc. Some of whom had their orgins in the Catholic Church, later to break off.

According to the CF definition of what a Christian is, the first real schism took place in the 4th century, with the controversy over the 3rd creed. The church of Alexandra, the Jacobites, and the Armenians broke off at that time.

__________________













To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Monkey Ninja

Hi GEL!

Actually, the church had a structure from the very beginning. Ecclesiology is a very important aspect of the way we approach Christ. The following is something I posted on another discussion board (I'm a pretty lazy guy), and addresses your concern, at least from the perspective of how the Orthodox view church history:

"But I think my main focus in this missive needs to be on ecclesiology – what is the Church, why is it important, and what authority does it have. This is the root of our dispute about how we interpret the Scriptures. In both messages, it is more or less phrased as being a contest between the thesis - antithesis method of interpretation – the classic scholastic method – and obedience to the teachings of the Church.

More than simply how we interpret scripture, however, the issue ultimately has incredibly far reaching implications for the way we worship, for the very way that we must live as Christians. I think on some level you both recognize that, because the insistent demand to “prove it” implies an awareness that the answer to the question is one that really dictates how we live in Christ.

In an earlier post, I cited a number of passages from the Bible that talked about the aim of Christ to establish a Church. So how did the Apostles and early Christians interpret that mandate?

It is clear from the Epistles that the Apostles – who basically traveled and taught – were loath to leave the new community of believers without guidance and sustenance. What is more, it is clear that despite disagreements among themselves, they thought it important that the fledgling church have a consistent doctrine and teaching. This was
in accord with Christ’s prayer for unity among believers. It is illustrated most excellently by the council described in Acts 15.

Now the fact that the Apostles appointed men to succeed them in the cities which they visited is, I hope, beyond dispute. Even a bad historian can easily find the records of those successive appointments. The real question I think is at issue here is whether or not the early church was a Church, so to speak – was it one, and did that unity continue over time. Somebody said something about us not having much knowledge about the early church, but that assertion is not really true. We have numerous primary documents – letters mostly, but other documents as well – which do a very good job of describing the Church in those first days. They also present a clear picture of the structure of the Church – who had authority, and why. I know the moderator hates it when any of us post, since we eat bandwidth like candy, but I hope he bears with me a little here. I won’t pretend to really cover the subject, but a representative sampling from those source documents is appropriate:

1. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Clement was an early bishop of Rome. The Corinthian Church, still rowdy apparently even after the letters from St. Paul, had forced out their own Bishop in a dispute over his leadership, and Clement wrote them a letter in about 75 AD to settle them down. Here’s part of what he said:

"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thuspreaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

And a bit later in the letter...

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue."

Clearly, at a very early stage, the authority of the Bishops was a hallmark of the Church.

2. In about 105 AD, Ignatius, the Bishop of Ephesus, and a disciple of the Apostle John (i.e., he was taught by John himself), wrote this :

"For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ."

3. Skip some time – and a large number of similar documents – and look at what Cyprian of Carthage wrote in about the year 250:

"Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bore her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is
in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.

Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree, -- when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her
rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated."


4. In 325, the first Ecumenical Council was held, to deal with the heresy of Arianism. A product of that Council was the Nicene Creed. The story of that Council makes fascinating reading, but it is important for our discussion to note that some hundreds of bishops from throughout the empire came together to reach the decisions that were made there. No one bishop acting alone could deal with this important issue – a council, a la Acts 15, was held and a decision reached.

5. Finally, for purposes of this letter, we reach Vincent of Lerins, writing in 434:

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason, -- because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” (Emphasis added)

So, it is clear that there was a continuity of structure in the Church, and there was also a continuity of belief.

These source documents, by the way, are easily available both in books and on the internet. The Fathers prior to 325 are referred to as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and those afterwards as the Post-Nicene Fathers. There are different translations by different scholars, published by different universities On the net, you can find them at the CCEL site, maintained by Calvin College. Reading the Fathers, wherever you go to do it, is a lifechanging experience."


Sorry I'm too lazy to write something new, but maybe this will address your question.

In Christ,

James

Just like us, when Paul found Christ, he became a Christian. As Lotar said, lots of the early Christians were ethnic Jews, including Jesus but they didn't have their own denomination because of their race or their past beliefs.

How is it grasping? There's only one truth, right? I mean, every theological question just has one right answer. The churches founded by the Apostles that held to the beliefs of the apostles had the right answers. Those that broke away, broke away because they held the wrong answers.

Are you saying that the Apostles went around starting churches with different doctrines? Why would they do that? Jesus picked them and the Holy Spirit sent them out to found churches, so do you think they founded churches with conflicting beliefs? That doesn't make sense. Iacobus showed you some great resources about the founding and doctrinal unity of the Apostolic churches. Any other churches that were around at that time weren't joined with the Apostolic Sees, and consequently weren't present at Nicea later, because they taught things that the Apostles didn't.

If a person has never been baptized, or if an infant is born to Orthodox parents, they are baptized by triple full immersion. So, yes. But, if a person converts from another faith and has already been Baptized in the name of the Trinity, then they are not rebaptized. I was sprinkled as an infant in the United Methodist Church, and Orthodoxy accepts my baptism as valid, even though it's not exactly the way they would've done it had I been born Orthodox. There are only a very few situations where someone who was already baptized in the Trinitarian formula could be rebaptized in Orthodoxy, and that decision has to be made by the Bishop, if I understand correctly.

__________________
Holy God
Holy Mighty
Holy Immortal
Have mercy on us.