FAQ - When was the Orthodox Church founded?

Moros · Jan 21, 2004

http://www.fr-d-serfes.org/orthodox/inceptionoforthodoxchurch.htm

Excerpted:

Can you tell me when and was the Orthodox Church founded?
The Orthodox Church was founded on the Day of Holy Pentecost in Jerusalem in 33 AD, fifty days after the Holy Resurrection of Jesus Christ our true God. It has preserved the original teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles form that time until the present. The first major Bishops of the Church (known as Patriarchs) have remained Orthodox up to the present. They are the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Later onwards other Patriarchs also began to develop within the Orthodox Church: Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albanian.

Was the Roman Catholic Church a part of the Orthodox Church?
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has added new teachings, which the ancient Christian Church above rejects. One of these is the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Not only this doctrine but also other matters of the faith have developed within the Roman Catholic Church which has since has separated both these Churches.

Can you tell me what other matters separate the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church besides the issue of the Primacy of the Pope?
What separates the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is not only the Primacy of the Pope also known as the Infallibility, but also the following innovations of the Roman Catholic Church: The Procession of the Holy Spirit. Purgatory and indulgences. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Invocation of the epiclesis. Unleavened Bread. Holy Communion. Divorce. Clergy's Martal Status.

[..]

All of the above Churches contain an element of the truth preserved by the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," but only the Orthodox Church has preserved and perpetuated the entire Christian Faith of the Ancient Church, based on the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition and the First Seven Ecumenical Councils.

FR0G · Jan 21, 2004

Could you define indulgences and invocation of the epiclesis?

ChoirDir · Jan 21, 2004

Osel nice presentation. Here are some of my thoughts on reconciliation of East and West
1) Filioque: There have been many discussions to date between the 2 sides and there is hope that issue will be resolved.
2) Unleavened vs leavened bread. This to me at least seems to be a minor issue
3) Married clergy. When the RC brought in the Byzantine Catholics and the Uniates, many of their clergy were married. I used to occasionally go to Ukrainian Catholic Church back before my Chrismation. The priest there was married but he told me that new priests coming into the Church were now forbidden by Rome to marry. It was sort of a Grandfather clause for the existing clergy at the time the Churches were brought under Rome. This to me with all the accusations against single priests must be hammered out between the Churches.
3) Divorce - this is a real funny one. I know of some Catholic parishes that allow divorced people to fully partake in all aspects of Church life and then there are those parishes that remain true to Rome and will not allow divorced people at all. It should be noted that the Orthodox do frown on Divorce. I myself am divorced and have met a wonderful woman who is interested in converting. But we will have to get special dispensation from the Bishop for our marriage. No crowning service for divorcees though.
4) Epiclesis/Transubstantiation - Nowhere in the Catholic service is the Holy Spirit invocated to change the gifts as in the Orthodox service. With the radical changes that were brought about by Vatican II it shows that Rome can make major changes.

So there is hope that a lot of the differences could be worked out in some manner.

Moros · Jan 21, 2004

The First 7 Ecumenical Councils

1. First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Defined that Christ is true God and true man, and is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. Formulated the Nicene Creed as an accurate summation of the Christian faith.

2. First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) - Ratified the teachings of Nicaea about Christ and asserted that He had an integral human nature. Defined that the three divine Persons of the Trinity are eternal and of the same divine nature. Reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.

3. Council of Ephesus (431 AD) - Defined again the doctrine of the true humanity of Christ and taught that His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is, in virtue of the Incarnation, truly "theotokos" (Mother of God).

4. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - Taught that although Jesus Christ is God and man, He is but one Person in two natures, one divine and one human.

5. Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) - Confirmed the teaching that Christ has two natures and condemned those who taught differently.

6. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD) - Upheld the truth that Christ, possessing two natures, also has two wills and two "operations", undivided, inseparable, and without confusion. Taught that the human will of Christ is distinct from, but not opposed to, His divine will.

7. Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) - Proclaimed the efficacy of the intercession of saints and approved the veneration of icons and statues. Assured the rightful place of sacred art in the religious life of the faithful.

KennySe · Jan 21, 2004

Was the Roman Catholic Church a part of the Orthodox Church?
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church.

Is there an online website which gives detail to the 1054 event?

ChoirDir said:
Nowhere in the Catholic service is the Holy Spirit invocated to change the gifts as in the Orthodox service.

What is the exact wording used in the Orthodox service which invocates the Holy Spirit? [preferably in English for me to read]

ChoirDir · Jan 21, 2004

After the elevation of the eucharistic gifts to the Father, the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy prays for the Holy Spirit to come upon them, and upon all of the people, and to change (or as the Liturgy of St. Basil says, to show) the bread and wine offered in remembrance of Christ to be the very Body and Blood of the Lord.

The prayer for the coming of the Holy Spirit is considered by the Orthodox to be an essential part of the Divine Liturgy. It is called the epiklesis, which means literally the calling upon or the invocation.

The Orthodox Church believes, as it prays, that the Holy Spirit is always "everywhere and fills all things." The invocation of the Holy Spirit at the Divine Liturgy is the solemn affirmation that everything in life which is positive and good is accomplished by the Spirit of God. Creation, salvation, eternal glorification; the entire work of God in making and saving the world is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is the one who dwelt in Jesus making him the Christ. He is the one by whom Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary. He is the one who led Christ to the cross as the innocent Victim, the one who raised him from the dead as the triumphant Victor.

He is the one who guarantees the indwelling of God with men in the Holy Communion of the Church and in the life of the Kingdom to come.

Again we offer unto Thee this reasonable and bloodless worship, and we ask Thee, and pray Thee, and supplicate Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered. And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ.

And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ.

Making the change by the Holy Spirit.

That these gifts may be to those who partake for the purification of soul, for remission of sins, for the communion of the Holy Spirit, for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven; for boldness towards Thee, and not for judgment or condemnation.

In the Orthodox Churches of the Slavic tradition, the Prayer of the Third Hour is added to the epiklesis. It is a prayer asking the Lord to send the Holy Spirit to the Church right now as he did "at the third hour" to his holy apostles and disciples on Pentecost. This prayer was added to emphasize the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the sacramental action of the Divine Liturgy, and to affirm that nothing at all may be done in Christ without the specific intervention of the Spirit of God.

The bold sections represent the actual text from the Liturgy

Polycarp1 · Jan 21, 2004

FROG asked over on OBOB what the Great Schism was all about, and in connection with the answers given there (which chanter was an immense help on), I posted the following:

Frog, from a third-party perspective, and with no intent to insult my Catholic and Orthodox brethren, the truth of the matter to me is encompassed in a modern catch phrase: "Wot we got here is a failure to communicate!"

We get only the slightest hints of the earliest church organization in a few brief passages in the New Testament, on which people from the Church of Christ to the Ultramontanists have erected enormous edifices of political theory. And there is a "dry spell" between the major N.T. books and the earliest Church Fathers.

But at about 100 A.D., what we have is a structure in which local churches are organized in each of the larger cities in the Roman Empire, and to a smaller extent in the Parthian Empire to the east of it. These churches are headed by a council of elders with its leader designated as overseer, and having responsibility not merely for that church but for the missions it has founded in the hinterland of that city. As a parallel, think of western Washington, where there might be a large church in Seattle with missions in the Kent Valley, Tacoma, Everett, Bellingham, and so on.

The overseers were nominally equal but, to borrow the Animal Farm line with no intent to insult, "some were more equal than others." The five large cities in which Christianity took hold early, four founded by Apostles and one by an Evangelist closely linked to the Apostles, came to function as Patriarchates, to which individual churches came to relate closely. Of those five, the one in the national capital, with strong connections to the head of the Apostles, and the only one in the Western, Latin-speaking half of the Empire -- Rome -- was accorded a primacy, the right to speak with authority in disputes affecting the whole church.

Those disputes came to center on the nature of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and sound bizarrely metaphysical to modern eyes -- but they had as much meaning to the beliefs and faith of the people disputing then as any of the arguments that divide Christians today.

Arius taught that Christ was the Head of all created things -- but was Himself a creation of the Father, not co-equal and co-eternal with Him. In essence, He was a man through whom God worked in an unique way -- a very modernist view, as I think you can see. Athanasius and others defended what has come to be the orthodox view from that -- the one that says that He was truly God and truly man, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnate as a human being for our sakes. The dispute was so hostile that it boded fair to plunge the Empire into civil war. Now, Constantine, not a deep theologian and a convert to Christianity, the first emperor to turn to Christ, did not know the truth of this dispute and was not prepared to try to figure it out -- but what he did know was that permitting the dispute to continue was something that would hurt the empire he was responsible for. So he convened all the bishops of the church, by imperial edict, at Nicaea in 325 AD, and ordered them to argue it out there and agree on a common consensus teaching on it that would be binding on them all. He didn't tell them what to agree on, just that they had to find a ground of agreement and stop fighting.

Conflicts over the next century or so resulted in several more Ecumenical Councils of this sort, all called by the Emperor (often at the request of the bishops), to resolve further disputes. When the smoke cleared, the result was that most of the church was in agreement on the Trinitarian formula we know today and the Chalcedonian formula of the Two Natures of Christ. A group in Syria and Egypt held to the Monophysite heresy, that Christ held only a divine, not also a human, nature -- in their view, He was a human body housing God the Son where the rest of us would have a human soul and spirit. And the Nestorians denied that Mary had given birth to God the Son -- their theology was a trifle bizarre but appears to have been that the baby Jesus was "possessed" by the Son as He grew up and undertook His ministry. (The technical objection they had was to calling Mary Theotokos -- a title of honor meaning "God-bearer" which is not, as most Protestants would think, a means of inappropriately honoring her, but rather a way to stress the fact that Jesus was God the Son incarnate from His conception on -- that Mary carried in her womb, and gave birth to, God the Son.) Both the Monophysites and the Nestorians remain churches in existence today.

The differences that led to the Great Schism of 1054 are somewhat more difficult to explain in that way, and without any intent to insult either side's views, the simplest way to explain it is as follows: The East was used to having its leadership divided and conciliar in nature, with four Patriarchs leading quasi-autonomous bishops, feedback from the scholarly laity, and a tendency to arrive at consensus on the Orthodox faith. The West had a single patriarch, successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome, who was the focal point of authority in church teaching even in pre-Nicene times. The East spoke Greek and the West Latin and its descendant dialects (which ultimately led to the Romance languages of today); the piety of the two halves was quite different, though more difficult to characterize. But all these tendencies led to an increasing conflict between the two halves of the orthodox catholic church (note the lower case adjectives! ) that culminated in excommunications, reconciliations, further excommunications, and ultimately a split in 1054, ostensibly over the filioque clause but founded in a wide variety of differences, the major ones being summarized above.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches as we know them today date from this split -- both claim, with justice, to be the continuation of the original church founded by the Apostles in response to Christ's commands. To call one or the other the church as it existed prior to this date is to ignore the facts of history -- they both were, and neither as it exists today was, for the united church before 1054 contained aspects of what is most important to each with which the other disagrees.

Is that any help? And, granting that each has valid claims to the truths it proclaims, does anyone from OBOB or TAW see error in how I've (quickly and in summary form) defined the problems leading to the schism?

I might also add that the Anglican churches have since their inception made a point of including the epiclesis in their Eucharistic Liturgies. Here's the pertinent text excerped from the traditional-language Prayer of Consecration:

And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and, of Thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to Thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood.

The most common modern language version uses:

Sanctify them by Your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of Your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in Him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully recieve this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace....

ChoirDir · Jan 21, 2004

On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert, the head of the papal delegation, was tired of waiting. He was irritated by the lack of respect shown to the Roman ambassadors, so he placed a document of anathema and excommunication (applying only to the "patriarch Michael Cerularius and those in sympathy with him") on the altar table of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) cathedral.

At the same time, the cardinal was very careful to praise Constantinople as a "most orthodox city."

The official reasons for Humbert's anathema and excommunication of Cerularius were the removal of the filioque from the Creed; the practice of married clergy; and liturgical errors. Patriarch Michael Cerularius responded to Humbert's action by excommunicating all responsible" for the July 16 incident. He drew up a long list of Latin abuses, mostly of divergent liturgical practices such as the use of unleavened bread for the eucharist, and the practice of baptism by one immersion.

Although Cardinal Humbert acted only against the person of the patriarch and his sympathizers, and although the patriarch reacted only against Humbert himself, the attempt to restore unity between East and West in 1054 resulted in a permanent schism between the two churches which persists until today.

It seems that although there were many things leading to the split, the official date of 1054 is based on individuals excommunicating each other.
I am sure that the public outcry over a bull of excommunication being laid on the altar at Hagia Sofia had a lot to do with negativity. I remember reading somewhere also that the Pope was extremely upset with Humbert for his actions.

KennySe · Jan 21, 2004

Thank you for your speedy replies, ChoirDir.

*************

As for your statement, "Nowhere in the Catholic service is the Holy Spirit invocated to change the gifts as in the Orthodox service." I ask you to reply to the following.

From Eucharistic Prayer II
Lord, you are holy indeed,
the fountain of all holiness.
Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,
so that they may become for us
the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

From Eucharistic Prayer III:
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts.
We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit,
that they may become the body and blood
of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

From Eucharistic Prayer IV:
And that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him,
he sent the Holy Spirit from you, Father,
as his first gift to those who believe,
to complete his work on earth
and bring us to fullness of grace.

Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings.
Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord
as we celebrate the great mystery
which he left is as an everlasting covenant.

At the end of all 4 Eucharistic Prayers:
Through him,
with him,
in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
for ever and ever.

Amen.

And in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/euch1.html

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,[152] fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.[153]

Polycarp1 · Jan 21, 2004

KennySe said:
As for your statement, "Nowhere in the Catholic service is the Holy Spirit invocated to change the gifts as in the Orthodox service." I ask you to reply to the following.

It's just another one of those "Myths about Catholicism that Everybody Knows," Kenny. I think you've clarified matters on that one quite well!

Pax Christi Tecum!

Cary.Melvin · Jan 21, 2004

So, who do the Orthodox think that founded the Catholic Church?

Do the Orthodox recognise the Primacy of Peter over the other Apostles?

Oblio · Jan 21, 2004

I'm not quite why you ask who we think founded your Church or how it is geermane to the OP, but since you asked ...

Our Church was once one, undivided and founded of course by Jesus Christ. The fact that we are now separate in doctrines and praxis does not change the fact that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church was founded by Christ. So we share the same founder, unfortunately we do not share the same faith.

Primacy of Peter in what manner ?

prodromos · Jan 22, 2004

KennySe said:
As for your statement, "Nowhere in the Catholic service is the Holy Spirit invocated to change the gifts as in the Orthodox service." I ask you to reply to the following.

Is it during the saying of these prayers that the gifts become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus?

From Catholic Encyclopedia on the epiklesis

Epiklesis (Lat. invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament.

It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer.

KennySe said:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
... by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit ...

The latter part (in bold) is the epiklesis which is no longer present as it once was in the Latin Mass.

John

Moros · Jan 22, 2004

Oblio said:
Primacy of Peter in what manner ?

Jesus said that Peter was "the rock which the church was to be built upon." This was taken literally and thus some Roman Catholics believe Peter to be the first Pope.

Oblio · Jan 22, 2004

But what does 'Pope' mean to Orthodox ?
The Patriarch of Rome, Primacy of honor , first among equals*, no ?

* - Pre-schism of course, there is no such honor bestowed today.

ChoirDir · Jan 22, 2004

Some interesting thooughts, the term Pope was actually first used by the Church of Alexandria. Their patriarch was called Pope and still is to this day. Regarding the Primacy of Peter, it is sort of funny that Peter established Antioch before Rome so shouldn't Antioch be the first among equals?
One of the reasons we are still split is the insistance of Rome on the Pope's supremacy above all. If a reunion were to happen, I am sure Rome would be once seen as the first among equals.

KennySe · Jan 22, 2004

prodromos,
I see what you're saying.

I put my trust in the Lord that He guides the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium.

Is it during the saying of these prayers that the gifts become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus?

As I understand it, the "becoming" occurs when the words of Jesus are spoken by the priest.

KennySe · Jan 22, 2004

Osel said:
Jesus said that Peter was "the rock which the church was to be built upon." This was taken literally and thus some Roman Catholics believe Peter to be the first Pope.

All devout Catholics believe Peter to be the first Pope.

Some non-Catholics believe Peter to be the first Pope.

http://www.christianforums.com/t73171&page=1

Photini · Jan 22, 2004

KennySe said:
As I understand it, the "becoming" occurs when the words of Jesus are spoken by the priest.

I'm not sure that in the Orthodox Church it's pinned down to a specific moment. We show extreme reverence to the Gifts even before they are consecrated.

Oblio · Jan 22, 2004

Photini said:
I'm not sure that in the Orthodox Church it's pinned down to a specific moment. We show extreme reverence to the Gifts even before they are consecrated.

This is true, the change occurs throughout the Divine Liturgy beginning IIRC with the Liturgy of Preparation before the Divine Liturgy proper. We only can say that at the completion of the epiclesis that the change is complete. Like much in Orthodoxy, we do not attempt to delve further into the specifics of the Holy Mystery.

FAQ - When was the Orthodox Church founded?

Well-Known Member

~

Choir Director

Well-Known Member

Habemus Papam!

Choir Director

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Choir Director

Habemus Papam!

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Roman Orthodox

Creed or Chaos

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Choir Director

Habemus Papam!

Habemus Papam!

Gone.

Creed or Chaos

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency