Re: Seely's Views 2

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 13:58:23 EDT

The description of the Orthodox Church as "the eastern splinter off the Church of Rome" is quite inaccurate. They never had accepted the claims of papal primacy of jurisdiction which were developing before 1054. OTOH it is much more accurate to call the Byzantine Church as "imperial" than it is the Roman. In the west the bishops of Rome tried to claim secular authority while in the east caesaropapism, control of the church by the emperors, was more the pattern.

Of course you are right that not all eastern Christians beyond the bounds of the empire were Nestorian: I was probably too brief in my statement. But I can't comment
further on the supposedly "the more extreme speculations in later councils of the Imperial Church" unless I know what they are. I can't find "wilkerson" from the link you give. I have some familiarity with the material and the types of arguments at the site site & it doesn't give me much confidence.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Innovatia
  To: ASA Listserver
  Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 10:57 PM
  Subject: Fw: Seely's Views 2

  From: Don Winterstein
  To: Jim Armstrong

  JA: Unless I am mistaken, the eastern branch of Christianity feels that the western branch has created "a form of idolatry" (heresy) by deciding to worship one begotten of God rather than God Himself who preexisted the begotten one. Many/most western Christians take exception to that, but would we say the eastern branch is practicing idolatry because their understanding of God and man's history with Him differs in this way?

  DW: The eastern branch accepts the Nicene creed, which states that Christ is fully God. So they would not criticize the west for worshiping Christ. Their big bone of contention with the west was that the west modified the Nicene creed to include the phrase I've set off with brackets (above), the infamous "filioque clause." The easterners thought filioque was such an egregious error that it became a major factor in bringing about the permanent split between the two bodies in 1054.

  Just a comment in passing - the "eastern church" you refer to is the eastern splinter off the Church of Rome - the Constantinian church. Besides these was the Church of the East, or Syrian church, which did not recognize the authority of the Pope (Imperial Christianity), whether Western or Eastern branch, and eclipsed both in size and importance. Many other church traditions historically trace back to apostolic origins independent of the Constantinian church. These include the Vaudois, Waldenses, Albigenses, Celtic church, Italic church, and the many churches scattered across central Asia, from Antioch to China, who rejected the authority of the imperial church - western or eastern branch.

  Following George Murphy's comment about Nestorians in the eastern Roman church, the Church of the East was not, for the most part, Nestorian either, as some church histories suggest, though they rejected the more extreme speculations in later councils of the Imperial Church, as church historian Benjamin G. Wilkinson describes in his book, on-line at:
  http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/wilkerson/tttoc.htm

  Dennis Feucht
Received on Tue Sep 14 17:02:47 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 14 2004 - 17:02:49 EDT