Questions about the Orthodox and Catholic Church

[ronki23]

In my opinion, the Orthodox Church is the 'pure' Church. So

-What makes the Orthodox Church unique?
-Why is the Orthodox Church only popular in Eastern Europe if it's the original Church? Shouldn't it also be prominent in the Middle East?
-Why did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church?

Most importantly, why are there more Catholics than Orthodox?

I like both

 

[Shiranui117]

In my opinion, the Orthodox Church is the 'pure' Church. So

-What makes the Orthodox Church unique?

We have a more organic experience of the Faith that gives more weight to a lived experience with God and His grace. Whereas mysticism is dying out in the Catholic Church and never existed within Protestantism, we have maintained a rich monastic and ascetic tradition to this very day that is a direct continuation of the ascetical practices of the Desert Fathers. Whereas Catholicism and Protestantism derive the current expressions of their theology from the Scholastics (and for the Protestants, from the Reformers), we Orthodox continue in the same vein of thought as the Church Fathers of the first, second, third and fourth centuries AD onward--we still read and hold in high regard people like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Syria, Ephraim the Syrian, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and the list goes on.

-Why is the Orthodox Church only popular in Eastern Europe if it's the original Church?

Because Western Europe went into schism with Rome, and Western Europe had easy access to the Americas and Africa.

Shouldn't it also be prominent in the Middle East?

It was, until Islam came in and slowly killed off or converted the Christian population over the last 1400 years. The number of Christians living in Middle Eastern countries used to be as high as 30% a century ago. Egypt is still 11% Christian, even with all the terrorist attacks that are happening. Western interventions meant to destabilize the Middle East from Sykes-Picot up through the poorly-named "Arab Spring" of a few years ago have served to endanger Christian communities and forced hundreds of thousands and even millions of Orthodox Christians to flee the Middle East for the West.

-Why did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church?

They decided to make it dogma that the Pope is the supreme, infallible head of the Church on earth, in contradiction to 1000 years of Church history that proves otherwise. A few other things like changing the Nicene Creed (the standard Christian profession of faith) and taking Augustine as the primary basis for Latin theology while largely ignoring the rest of the Church Fathers did it as well. (Augustine was a convert to Christianity who didn't have enough time for proper theological education so he relied on pagan Latin philosophy to defend Christianity and got some things wrong.) Simply put, the Catholic Church changed and became different from the Orthodox Church.

Most importantly, why are there more Catholics than Orthodox?

Because Western Europe has lots and lots of easy access to the ocean (and therefore all the other continents) and was ruled over by Catholic kings who made it their business to spread the Catholic faith to all their colonial holdings in the Americas, Africa and Asia. But for the last 1,000 years, Orthodox Christians have either been ruled over by oppressive Islamic caliphates or empires who forbade the spreading of Christianity upon pain of death on the one hand, or by Orthodox kingdoms and empires who were trapped by Catholics to the West, Muslims to the South and the Mongols to the East on the other hand (and these same Orthodox kingdoms and empires were later taken over by atheistic Communist dictatorships). Catholicism has just had all the logistical and geopolitical advantages that Orthodoxy didn't. Despite this, Orthodoxy managed to spread across Siberia and as far as China, Japan, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest by the 1800's.

If Orthodoxy was in Western Europe and Catholicism was in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, you would be asking why Catholicism was so tiny in comparison to Orthodoxy.

 

[outlawState]

-What makes the Orthodox Church unique?

I suppose once upon a time (up to Council of Chalcedon and beyond until the formal 1054 AD schism) it was at least recognized by Rome as an orthodox church, which cannot usually be said of any other church not in communion with Rome.

-Why is the Orthodox Church only popular in Eastern Europe if it's the original Church?

It's not the "original church."The original church was in Antioch and Jerusalem, i.e. the middle east, not eastern Europe. The theology of the orthodox church is also a product of the Councils of Nicea (4th century) and Chalcedon (5th century). So you can see that it is quite a late church.

There were other churches around that rejected one or both Councils. Specifically in 512 the Antioch Partiarch split into two, non-Chalcedonians known as Syriac Orthodox Church (which is a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church), which has continued to appoint its own Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch.

The Chalcedonians became the Byzantine (Rûm) Church of Antioch. In the Middle Ages, as the Byzantine Church of Antioch became more and more dependent on Constantinople, it began to use the Byzantine rite.

The Church of Alexandria, today known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria also broke away from Eastern and Roman Orthodoxy after Chalcedon.

Shouldn't it also be prominent in the Middle East?

Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy is prevalent in the middle east now due to Islam displacing the Romans (Franks - Latin rite) and Byzantines (Greeks - Eastern rite), and due to the preference for Miaphysitism in the middle east over Dyophysitism per Chalcedon (i.e. orthodoxy). However the Catholics re-established themselves in Egypt as the Coptic Catholic church, probably as the result of French involvement in Eqypt.

Also Nestorian Christianity (predates Chalcedon) is found in such places as the Byzantines never penetrated. Nestorianism was persecuted by the Byzantines.

-Why did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church?

Leavened/unleavened bread in Eucharist, celibacy of priests, filoque. 1054AD

Most importantly, why are there more Catholics than Orthodox?
I like both

Politics. The political supremacy has always lain in the West, not the East. Ultimately numbers largely reflect politics not truth.

 

[Estro Felino]

What makes the Orthodox Church unique?
What is generally called Orthodox Catholic Church is a communion of autocephalous national Churches, even if the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered primus inter pares, first among equals, but he's not a central authority.
I don't think the Orthodox Church is so unique; de facto both the RCC and the OCC are considered the Universal Church.


Why is the Orthodox Church only popular in Eastern Europe if it's the original Church? Shouldn't it also be prominent in the Middle East?
Maybe you ignore what happened in the 7th century in the Middle East...

Why did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church?
It was the Patriarch of Constantinople Caerularius who used a banal theological dispute as pretext to favor the Great Schism in 1054, even if the two Churches were already separated de facto since the period of iconoclasm.
@Shiranui117
1054 is just a symbolic date used by historians to describe the irreconcilable rupture between the two Churches, mainly due to political reasons. The Pope, who did not tolerate any religious intromission from the Byzantine Emperor, ended up by not recognizing his authority. The iconoclastic period shows how the Pope had become totally autonomous from the Imperial authority: emperor Leo III tried to impose iconoclasm to Pope Gregory II, who obviously rejected the order. The emperor reacted by declaring the dioceses of Southern Italy and Greece under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate: I believe these facts show clearly how the Schism had already taken place.

I guess that the Venetian sack of Constantinople confirms the Churches were already separated and not in good relations.




Most importantly, why are there more Catholics than Orthodox?
Because the Spanish and the Portuguese colonized most of the new world, basically.

 

[Shiranui117]

I suppose once upon a time (up to Council of Chalcedon and beyond until the formal 1054 AD schism) it was at least recognized by Rome as an orthodox church, which cannot usually be said of any other church not in communion with Rome.

It still is considered orthodox, in fact. The Catholics say our doctrine is entirely correct (other than the fact that we refuse to accept post-schism Roman dogmas), and we have valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. Orthodox Christians who convert to Catholicism aren't rebaptized or even confirmed, all we have to do is go to Confession with a Catholic priest and boom, we're Catholic. Catholic Eucharist is also open to Orthodox Christians (provided we have a blessing from our Orthodox bishop to do so).

It's not the "original church."The original church was in Antioch and Jerusalem, i.e. the middle east, not eastern Europe. The theology of the orthodox church is also a product of the Councils of Nicea (4th century) and Chalcedon (5th century). So you can see that it is quite a late church.

This is demonstrably false. Outside of the fact that the Church of Antioch and the Church of Jerusalem have always been part of the Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy still survives in the Middle East (no thanks to the Muslims). There have been Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem from the 21st century going straight back to Sts. Peter and James, respectively. The Antiochans have one of the largest missionary efforts among the Orthodox churches in the English-speaking world, and they're also working together with Alexandria to evangelize Africa as well.

Also, just because the main population center of Orthodoxy has moved away from the Middle East to Eastern Europe due to Islamic persecution and liquidation of the Church, doesn't mean that we're only an Eastern European Church or that we have nothing to do with Antioch and Jerusalem (which as I proved above, we still very much do). Our roots are in the Middle East and we are very conscious of that. Many Sundays of our church calendar are dedicated to Middle Eastern Saints, and given that almost all the Fathers came from the Middle East, we still definitely have a living connection to that region in our faith and tradition. Antioch and Jerusalem are third and fourth in the primacy of honor in our Church, after Constantinople and Alexandria.

The Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon are simply extensions of the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers. We still hold to the teachings of Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Rome, Origen and Tertullian (minus the heretical bits of the latter two) and all of the pre-Nicene Fathers. To say that Orthodoxy was "invented" in the 4th and 5th centuries, or that it's "quite a late church", shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning Christian history.

In fact, I was just in Thessaloniki and Athens last week, and I visited the places where St. Paul preached. The bishops of those churches can trace their lineage straight back to the men appointed by St. Paul to lead the congregations there. The Athenians and Thessalonians are, and always have been, Orthodox, going straight back to the first century.

 

[Shiranui117]

It was the Patriarch of Constantinople Caerularius who used a banal theological dispute as pretext to favor the Great Schism in 1054, even if the two Churches were already separated de facto since the period of iconoclasm.

Outside of the fact that it was Cardinal Humbert who caused the initial schism in 1054, marching into the Hagia Sophia and slapping down a bull of excommunication against the Patriarch of Constantinople on the altar in the middle of the Divine Liturgy (while the Pope was dead, no less). But even that was only a personal excommunication between the Patriarch and the Pope (the latter of whom was already dead anyway).

The real split was in 1204 when the Crusaders sacked, looted and raped the city of Constantinople, destroying the Byzantine Empire and turning it into a Crusader puppet state. Things were a little bit tense and awkward after 1054, but not irreparable. The Catholic Venetian sack of Constantinople (the culminating event of the Fourth Crusade) is what really sunk East-West relations and split the Catholics from the Orthodox.

 

[outlawState]

It still is considered orthodox, in fact. The Catholics say our doctrine is entirely correct (other than the fact that we refuse to accept post-schism Roman dogmas), and we have valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. Orthodox Christians who convert to Catholicism aren't rebaptized or even confirmed, all we have to do is go to Confession with a Catholic priest and boom, we're Catholic. Catholic Eucharist is also open to Orthodox Christians (provided we have a blessing from our Orthodox bishop to do so).

I do not accept your glowing assessment of "reciprocated recognition of orthodoxy". Mutual recognition of "orthodoxy" is limited to recognition of baptism and non-refusal of the sacraments to those who request them. Doctrinally the two churches still remain far apart on a whole range of issues, even since 1965 when the mutual excommunications were lifted.

This is demonstrably false. Outside of the fact that the Church of Antioch and the Church of Jerusalem have always been part of the Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy still survives in the Middle East (no thanks to the Muslims). There have been Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem from the 21st century going straight back to Sts. Peter and James, respectively. The Antiochans have one of the largest missionary efforts among the Orthodox churches in the English-speaking world, and they're also working together with Alexandria to evangelize Africa as well.

I can accept that there remained Byzantine (Greek) orientated Christians in Antioch but the politics of the patriarchy is hugely convoluted. Today, five churches claim the title of Patriarch of Antioch, of varying denominations and political allegiances, and for a time during the Crusades there was a sixth Latin Patriarch. So I am not sure that your claim to an unbroken "orthodox patriarch" in Antioch is correct. I can concur with you that the Patriarchy of Antioch is "one of the oldest in the world" but what the competing contenders lay claim to is not necessarily what was originally practiced by the first church of Antioch. I need not remind you that the three synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata rejected the use of the term "homoousios."

Also, just because the main population center of Orthodoxy has moved away from the Middle East to Eastern Europe due to Islamic persecution and liquidation of the Church, doesn't mean that we're only an Eastern European Church or that we have nothing to do with Antioch and Jerusalem (which as I proved above, we still very much do). Our roots are in the Middle East and we are very conscious of that. Many Sundays of our church calendar are dedicated to Middle Eastern Saints, and given that almost all the Fathers came from the Middle East, we still definitely have a living connection to that region in our faith and tradition. Antioch and Jerusalem are third and fourth in the primacy of honor in our Church, after Constantinople and Alexandria.

I can accept this.

The Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon are simply extensions of the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers.

I cannot accept it. There is no notion from the apostolic fathers of the biblical word "begotten" inferring "begotten before all ages," That is a novel interpretation. It is not found in any of the Pauline letters,

We still hold to the teachings of Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Rome, Origen and Tertullian (minus the heretical bits of the latter two) and all of the pre-Nicene Fathers. To say that Orthodoxy was "invented" in the 4th and 5th centuries, or that it's "quite a late church", shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning Christian history.

I don't accept what you say. The "orthodox" theology developed in the 4th and 5th centuries bears a striking divergence from, and use of novel philosophical complexities, that are absent from the founding fathers and the letters of the apostles. In particular "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" so heavily emphasized by the orthodox are nowhere to be found in the writings of the apostles.

In fact, I was just in Thessaloniki and Athens last week, and I visited the places where St. Paul preached. The bishops of those churches can trace their lineage straight back to the men appointed by St. Paul to lead the congregations there. The Athenians and Thessalonians are, and always have been, Orthodox, going straight back to the first century.

As I have already said, I think that the first century apostles would have quite a lot of difficulty in recognizing and owning modern "orthodox" theology and church practices.

 

[metis]

In my opinion, the Orthodox Church is the 'pure' Church.

There really is no such thing as a "pure church".

-What makes the Orthodox Church unique?

Each church is unique in it's own way, but Orthodox and Catholics share far more than they disagree on.

Why is the Orthodox Church only popular in Eastern Europe if it's the original Church? Shouldn't it also be prominent in the Middle East?

Largely because of distance and some differences of opinion, both theological but more political. There is some Orthodox presence in the Middle East, such as at Mt. Sinai and also at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

-Why did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church?

Actually it was more the other way around, but I tend to just see it as a manifestation of some differences, mostly political, that had existed for centuries before.

Most importantly, why are there more Catholics than Orthodox?

Because more of the population of Europe was in the west and central part of the continent, plus these western powers went and created colonies in the Americas, Australia, and parts of Asia.

I like both

Good, imo.

 

[Shiranui117]

I do not accept your glowing assessment of "reciprocated recognition of orthodoxy". Mutual recognition of "orthodoxy" is limited to recognition of baptism and non-refusal of the sacraments to those who request them. Doctrinally the two churches still remain far apart on a whole range of issues, even since 1965 when the mutual excommunications were lifted.

"Glowing assessment"? Hardly. Nowhere did I speak of a "reciprocated recognition of Orthodoxy". The Orthodox still refuse to recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, and it is only in certain cases dealing with the reception of converts to the Church that some Orthodox will tentatively accept the validity of Catholic baptism.

The Catholics speak of the Orthodox as a Sister Church, and they accept our Sacraments as completely valid, albeit illicit since they view us as being in schism. Catholics do not believe the Orthodox to hold any heretical beliefs, rather they see us as rejecting what Catholics deem to be dogma--namely, the Filioque, Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.324" (emphasis in the original)

I can accept that there remained Byzantine (Greek) orientated Christians in Antioch but the politics of the patriarchy is hugely convoluted. Today, five churches claim the title of Patriarch of Antioch, of varying denominations and political allegiances, and for a time during the Crusades there was a sixth Latin Patriarch. So I am not sure that your claim to an unbroken "orthodox patriarch" in Antioch is correct. I can concur with you that the Patriarchy of Antioch is "one of the oldest in the world" but what the competing contenders lay claim to is not necessarily what was originally practiced by the first church of Antioch.

So do you hold to the "Great Apostasy" view of the Restorationists? Did Christ fail to protect His Church as He promised, which St. Paul called the pillar and foundation of the truth?

I need not remind you that the three synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata rejected the use of the term "homoousios."

If you know this much about history, then you should also know that in those early councils, "homoousios" meant something slightly different than what it meant at the First Council of Nicaea. Originally, ousia and hypostasis were complete synonyms; saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were of one essence was the same as saying that they were one Person. However, by the time the Council of Nicaea came around, ousia and hypostasis had been differentiated in their meanings, such that ousia referred purely to nature or essence, and hypostasis was shifted to mean something more like the Latin persona or the Greek prosopon. So when Nicaea declares the three Persons of the Trinity to be homoousios, they are saying something different than what Paul of Samosata and the Sabellians meant by the word homoousios.

I cannot accept it. There is no notion from the apostolic fathers of the biblical word "begotten" inferring "begotten before all ages," That is a novel interpretation. It is not found in any of the Pauline letters,

You haven't read St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies, then? Do you know who the Apostolic Fathers are? People like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Justin Martyr?

I don't accept what you say. The "orthodox" theology developed in the 4th and 5th centuries bears a striking divergence from, and use of novel philosophical complexities, that are absent from the founding fathers and the letters of the apostles. In particular "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" so heavily emphasized by the orthodox are nowhere to be found in the writings of the apostles.

You do find such language among the Apostolic Fathers. The Word is repeatedly identified as being one with God and of the same nature as the Father. I can show you a number of places where this is the case.

As I have already said, I think that the first century apostles would have quite a lot of difficulty in recognizing and owning modern "orthodox" theology and church practices.

Alright then, which of the churches in the world do you think they would recognize, if not the teachings of those who directly succeeded them?

 

[exchemist]

I suppose once upon a time (up to Council of Chalcedon and beyond until the formal 1054 AD schism) it was at least recognized by Rome as an orthodox church, which cannot usually be said of any other church not in communion with Rome.



It's not the "original church."The original church was in Antioch and Jerusalem, i.e. the middle east, not eastern Europe. The theology of the orthodox church is also a product of the Councils of Nicea (4th century) and Chalcedon (5th century). So you can see that it is quite a late church.

There were other churches around that rejected one or both Councils. Specifically in 512 the Antioch Partiarch split into two, non-Chalcedonians known as Syriac Orthodox Church (which is a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church), which has continued to appoint its own Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch.

The Chalcedonians became the Byzantine (Rûm) Church of Antioch. In the Middle Ages, as the Byzantine Church of Antioch became more and more dependent on Constantinople, it began to use the Byzantine rite.

The Church of Alexandria, today known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria also broke away from Eastern and Roman Orthodoxy after Chalcedon.


Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy is prevalent in the middle east now due to Islam displacing the Romans (Franks - Latin rite) and Byzantines (Greeks - Eastern rite), and due to the preference for Miaphysitism in the middle east over Dyophysitism per Chalcedon (i.e. orthodoxy). However the Catholics re-established themselves in Egypt as the Coptic Catholic church, probably as the result of French involvement in Eqypt.

Also Nestorian Christianity (predates Chalcedon) is found in such places as the Byzantines never penetrated. Nestorianism was persecuted by the Byzantines.


Leavened/unleavened bread in Eucharist, celibacy of priests, filoque. 1054AD


Politics. The political supremacy has always lain in the West, not the East. Ultimately numbers largely reflect politics not truth.

Yes agreed a good summary of the complex relationships and evolution involved.

By the way, regarding the Russian Orthodox, when I went to Rome I saw the tomb of St Cyril, who brought Christianity to the slavs - and gave them an alphabet based on Greek: the Cyrillic script used to this day. His tomb is deep inside a 3 layered church (Basilica San Clemente). There is a memorial plaque in Cyrillic and fresh flowers, which I found rather touching.

 

[metis]

Yes agreed a good summary of the complex relationships and evolution involved.

By the way, regarding the Russian Orthodox, when I went to Rome I saw the tomb of St Cyril, who brought Christianity to the slavs - and gave them an alphabet based on Greek: the Cyrillic script used to this day. His tomb is deep inside a 3 layered church (Basilica San Clemente). There is a memorial plaque in Cyrillic and fresh flowers, which I found rather touching.

Where in Rome is that church located as I would have liked to have seen that when I was there?

 

[exchemist]

Where in Rome is that church located as I would have liked to have seen that when I was there?

Quite near the Colosseum, via Labicana. Map here: Basilica di San Clemente - Esquilino - Rome, Roma, Italy

 

[metis]

Quite near the Colosseum, via Labicana. Map here: Basilica di San Clemente - Esquilino - Rome, Roma, Italy

Thanks. I was in the area but didn't see or visit the church. Hey, a good excuse to go back, eh!

 

[exchemist]

Thanks. I was in the area but didn't see or visit the church. Hey, a good excuse to go back, eh!

I found it one of the more memorable sites we visited, due to the way you descend to an earlier era as you go down from one level to the one beneath. It's a little church, but the sense of the history of Christianity, and before, is overwhelming.

 

[outlawState]

I will reply to your post in stages as it is now too long for a single reply.

The usage of the word begotten

You said

You haven't read St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies, then? Do you know who the Apostolic Fathers are? People like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Justin Martyr?

This is what Irenaeus' says "Against Heresies" Book 3, Ch 9,

"On the other hand, He [i.e. Jesus] says, "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;" that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord."

So it is evident that Irenaeus associates the word "begotten" with the incarnation, and not with the "eternal generation" of the Word. Now I admit a potential issue with the various versions of the NIcene creed, in that the 381 version may have been modified in respect of"begotten" from the 325 version

325 AD Version
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

381 AD Version
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

The 381 version clearly utilizes the word begotten to infer the eternal generation of the (heavenly situated) "Son" (i.e. Logos), whereas in the 325 version it is still possible to conceive the word "begotten" in the Irenaean sense of the incarnation (i.e. separation of the Word from the Father), despite the "begotten not made" phraseology. Yet the Irenaean meaning is inherently strained in both versions of the Nicene Creed, given that as regards to his body, Jesus was "made" in the same way as anyone else, i.e. in the womb. That is to say, Jesus was both begotten and made.

Even Catholicism says that Jesus had a rational, human soul, inferring that his body was made for him, but (as an aside) I tend to think that there was much more in Apollinarius of Laodicaea's observation than is generally acknowledged, i.e. that the soul of Christ was divine and of the Logos due to his supernatural conception.

The corollaries of the Catholic and presumably Orthodox interpretations are that by saying that Jesus had a human soul, they are then forced to adopt a dyophysite view of Christ by saying that his human nature was unified with the divine nature, whereas the Apollinarius conception has his human rational soul being fully divine (as to origin), although limited by his humanity.

So it is seen that the "begotten not made" phraseology of the Nicene Creed, at least in 381AD and very likely also in 325AD (but depending on interpretation), does principally infer "generation" of the Logos from God the Father (before all aeons), and so also does suggest a semi-Arian approach, not actually articulated in the bible, and which the apostles therefore would have had a great of trouble with. Whereas the Irenaean "orthodox" usage of begotten denotes only the begetting of the human Jesus and the separation of the Word from the Father i.e. the "Word becoming Flesh."

 

[outlawState]

If you know this much about history, then you should also know that in those early councils, "homoousios" meant something slightly different than what it meant at the First Council of Nicaea. Originally, ousia and hypostasis were complete synonyms; saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were of one essence was the same as saying that they were one Person. However, by the time the Council of Nicaea came around, ousia and hypostasis had been differentiated in their meanings, such that ousia referred purely to nature or essence, and hypostasis was shifted to mean something more like the Latin persona or the Greek prosopon. So when Nicaea declares the three Persons of the Trinity to be homoousios, they are saying something different than what Paul of Samosata and the Sabellians meant by the word homoousios.

I know that this is the gloss that the Roman Catholics have put on the decrees of the Synods of Antioch, but it is superficial. One reason is that post nicea, the Council of Antioch in AD 341 deliberately re-rejected the word "homoousious" as well as rejecting Arian formulations. I know that later propagandists have denoted this and later Councils as "modified or semi arian" but attribution of "heresy" is not imputable to the rejection of a single non-biblical word. If it's not in the bible, it can't be heretical to reject it (unless you're a Nicene church)?"

One issue with homoousios was that it appeared to deny any possibility of subordination, or hierarchy, as between the Father and the Logos, quite irrespective of the issue of eternality. As Jesus said "the Father is greater than I." The formulations God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (also non-biblical) spring directly from the adoption of homoousious. It is worrying that one non-biblical word can engender more non-biblical phrases, and on account of which, people have been put to death as heretics by Nicene creedalists.

I think that a reason why "homoousious" prevailed in the end was because no-one could come up with a better analagous word. Yet isn't it that "homoousious" (and any analogous word) is just an exercise in philosophy?

If the Antiochans rejected "homoousious," I don't blame them. Hypostasis and even prosopon are adequate words. Did not Christ himself infer that he was the face of God? "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" he said. How could anyone disapply the Father's persona orprosopon to Christ? That seems to me to be the real issue - the matter that Christ is attributed with a different hypostasis to the Father. Yet this is not to confound the Father with the Son. It is simply to acknowledge the inherent limitation and inadequacy of language, as based in physical concepts, to describe spiritual matters. Spiritually the Father and the Son are "one," and conceptually distinct in limited applications of our understanding. As to such applications, one real distinction is as to subordination 1 Cor 11;3, 1 Cor 15. "The head of Christ is God."

So perhaps Antioch is not quite as "orthodox" as you make out.

 

[Shiranui117]

I know that this is the gloss that the Roman Catholics have put on the decrees of the Synods of Antioch, but it is superficial. One reason is that post nicea, the Council of Antioch in AD 341 deliberately re-rejected the word "homoousious" as well as rejecting Arian formulations. I know that later propagandists have denoted this and later Councils as "modified or semi arian"

This overlooks the fact that Constantine's successors were themselves followers of Semi-Arianism, and so deliberately made sure that people who shared their same opinions were installed as bishops of major churches. This happened frequently in Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria, along with other places in the East. So of course there was a Council of Antioch in 341 which rejected homoousios; that was the entire reason Constantine II and Constantius had them installed as bishops in the first place.

but attribution of "heresy" is not imputable to the rejection of a single non-biblical word. If it's not in the bible, it can't be heretical to reject it (unless you're a Nicene church)?"

This assumes a Sola Scripturist standpoint, which as you should know is anachronistic at best. The "Bible alone" has never been the sole source of Christian doctrine.

One issue with homoousios was that it appeared to deny any possibility of subordination, or hierarchy, as between the Father and the Logos, quite irrespective of the issue of eternality. As Jesus said "the Father is greater than I." The formulations God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (also non-biblical) spring directly from the adoption of homoousious. It is worrying that one non-biblical word can engender more non-biblical phrases, and on account of which, people have been put to death as heretics by Nicene creedalists.

And Nicene Christians were routinely and viciously put to death by Arians as well in Visigothic lands. Your point is?

I think that a reason why "homoousious" prevailed in the end was because no-one could come up with a better analagous word. Yet isn't it that "homoousious" (and any analogous word) is just an exercise in philosophy?

It's a delimiting line to indicate correct belief and distinguish it from heresy. It's an approximation, but without it, you get things like Arianism and Sabellianism.

If the Antiochans rejected "homoousious," I don't blame them. Hypostasis and even prosopon are adequate words. Did not Christ himself infer that he was the face of God? "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" he said. How could anyone disapply the Father's persona orprosopon to Christ?

Careful now, you're using extra-Biblical language. And no, we cannot say that Christ is the prosopon of the Father, because that is the same as saying that the Father is Christ. Christ isn't simply the Father's representative, but the Father Himself. Now if you're an adherent to Sabellianism, that's a different matter and I'm not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe. My only interest is that people have an accurate understanding of history.

That seems to me to be the real issue - the matter that Christ is attributed with a different hypostasis to the Father. Yet this is not to confound the Father with the Son. It is simply to acknowledge the inherent limitation and inadequacy of language, as based in physical concepts, to describe spiritual matters. Spiritually the Father and the Son are "one," and conceptually distinct in limited applications of our understanding. As to such applications, one real distinction is as to subordination 1 Cor 11;3, 1 Cor 15. "The head of Christ is God."

We Orthodox fully realize that the definitions and explanations for the Trinity we use aren't perfect, they're just the furthest we can peer into the deep blue ocean that is the mystery of God. That's why we don't place a huge emphasis on treating theology like an exact science as Catholics and more confessional Protestants are wont to do.

So perhaps Antioch is not quite as "orthodox" as you make out.

Given that St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 105 AD, the first or second bishop of Antioch after St. Peter, and likely a student of St. John the Apostle) explicitly calls Christ God, yes, Antioch is just as Orthodox as Antioch herself says she is, and a few heretics who snuck onto the bishop's throne via the political maneuverings of Roman emperors isn't going to change that.

 

[Shiranui117]

I will reply to your post in stages as it is now too long for a single reply.

The usage of the word begotten

You said

This is what Irenaeus' says "Against Heresies" Book 3, Ch 9,

"On the other hand, He [i.e. Jesus] says, "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;" that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord."

So it is evident that Irenaeus associates the word "begotten" with the incarnation, and not with the "eternal generation" of the Word.

First, I'm going to correct your reference--you were citing from Book 5, chapter 27.
But, be careful here--the "he" in the part you underlined does not refer to Christ, but rather to the nonbeliever. See the preceding lines:

But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. . .
It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, He that believes in Me is not condemned, John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord.​

I'll point out that additionally, in Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 8, he says the following:

Just as he does not err who declares that God is all vision, and all hearing (for in what manner He sees, in that also He hears; and in what manner He hears, in that also He sees), so also he who affirms that He is all intelligence, and all word, and that, in whatever respect He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, will still indeed have only an inadequate conception of the Father of all, but will entertain far more becoming [thoughts regarding Him] than do those who transfer the generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning and course of production [to Him], even as they do to their own word. And in what respect will the Word of God— yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word — differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?​

Here we see that St. Irenaeus both explicitly calls Christ eternal, and identifies Him as God Himself. But as you have rightly pointed out, elsewhere, He is not the same Person as the Father.

381 AD Version
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

I will note here that aeons can also mean "ages", and this is how it's normally translated; hence our English word, "eons".

The 381 version clearly utilizes the word begotten to infer the eternal generation of the (heavenly situated) "Son" (i.e. Logos), whereas in the 325 version it is still possible to conceive the word "begotten" in the Irenaean sense of the incarnation (i.e. separation of the Word from the Father), despite the "begotten not made" phraseology. Yet the Irenaean meaning is inherently strained in both versions of the Nicene Creed, given that as regards to his body, Jesus was "made" in the same way as anyone else, i.e. in the womb. That is to say, Jesus was both begotten and made.

I think you're misrepresenting St. Irenaeus. He explicitly argues against those who would espouse a non-eternal begetting of the Son from the Father.

Even Catholicism says that Jesus had a rational, human soul, inferring that his body was made for him, but (as an aside) I tend to think that there was much more in Apollinarius of Laodicaea's observation than is generally acknowledged, i.e. that the soul of Christ was divine and of the Logos due to his supernatural conception.

The corollaries of the Catholic and presumably Orthodox interpretations are that by saying that Jesus had a human soul, they are then forced to adopt a dyophysite view of Christ by saying that his human nature was unified with the divine nature, whereas the Apollinarius conception has his human rational soul being fully divine (as to origin), although limited by his humanity.

It's my understanding that Apollinarius claimed Christ to not have a human mind, soul or will at all, but rather that these things were replaced by Christ's divine Nous.

So it is seen that the "begotten not made" phraseology of the Nicene Creed, at least in 381AD and very likely also in 325AD (but depending on interpretation), does principally infer "generation" of the Logos from God the Father (before all aeons), and so also does suggest a semi-Arian approach,

Not true. Semi-Arianism says that Christ is of a different nature from the Father--similar, but still definitely different.

Whereas the Irenaean "orthodox" usage of begotten denotes only the begetting of the human Jesus and the separation of the Word from the Father i.e. the "Word becoming Flesh."

Again, I'm certain you're misinterpreting Irenaeus, but feel free to post further citations from him if you'd like to suss out what he's getting at. I will admit that Against Heresies is not monkey barrels of fun to read.

 

[outlawState]

First, I'm going to correct your reference--you were citing from Book 5, chapter 27.
But, be careful here--the "he" in the part you underlined does not refer to Christ, but rather to the nonbeliever. See the preceding lines:

But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. . .
It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, He that believes in Me is not condemned, John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord.​

I stand corrected on that point. I see elsewhere he uses the term "His offspring, the First-begotten Word," in CHAP. XXXVI of the same book.

Where in the bible does it ever refer to the "first begotten word"? I believe he is a propagandist with limited intelligence. It is also a reason why heresies arise i.e. due to the inability of the elect to repudiate them. When the church gets given over to people of limited intelligence then heresies arise. What was the reason for so many centuries of vainglorious debate on the composition of Christ when Islam and Goths, Vandals and Huns etc was knocking at the door, destroying and devouring every nation in which such "debate" had ever arisen?

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" says that he was separated from the Father.

"He was made flesh" says that the word became separated from the Father by reason of the flesh.

"As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world." Sent = separation.

"He sent his son to them." etc

If Jesus never left God, then he wasn't sent.

I think it is obvious that Jesus "separated from God" as an implicit feature of the incarnation.

 

[Estro Felino]

"He was made flesh" says that the word became separated from the Father by reason of the flesh.

If Jesus never left God, then he wasn't sent.

I think it is obvious that Jesus "separated from God" as an implicit feature of the incarnation.

I think you try to twist the meaning of some very simple words, because the Creed does use very simple words.

γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,= it means Jesus had to be fed by Mary's blood..so he was delivered (gennao) by Her. He was not created through magic.(poieo)

σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,: it means he was made flesh through Mary's body....it doesn't imply a separation from God.

Jesus wasn't sent...