Are you referring to document or father of the church?
Here is my question again
Show me where “ Orthodox Church ” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?
Please give me that reference, whether ECF or whatever source you have. But follow the requirements of the question.
So reading between the lines, you do, in fact, believe I am condemned to hell?
I’m not sure that one would, other than early fathers using the word orthodoxy, and that doesn’t really matter because east and west were in communion for a millennium.
Is my name on any of those documents in those sources I quoted? NO
Given that the opportunity presented itself, I merely gave references properly referenced. Paul gave those warnings. I’m just quoting him when those sins show up.
I’m not looking for the adjective. I’m looking for the name “Orthodox Church”. Are you saying you tried to find it, but you can’t find it in the 1st millenium?
That is NOT what you said.
You said (emphasis mine)
“The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors”.
That is wrong.
St. Ignatius Bp of Antioch, (direct disciple of John the apostle), St Polycarp Bp of Smyrna,(also a direct disciple of John the apostle) , St Irenaeus, Bp of Lyon, (who knew Polycarp), THEY use the name "Catholic Church"in their writings
EVEN the Nicean creed, it is an article of faith to believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
This is such a non-argument, that it’s laughable-worse than laughable. I wish you would stop using it. There is a case to be made-and a good one-as to why the Catholic Church is the true Church. Make that case. This case based on when the term “Orthodox Church” isn’t it.
Yet one more person who has no answer to my question.
It’s not worthy of an answer, because it’s beyond laughable. Make the substantive arguments as to why Orthodox should become Catholic. There are substantive arguments to be made that might actually persuade people. This is not one of them. It only invites ridicule. No one is going to take it seriously.
You’re asking a question that has no answer. There was no need for any church to be formally named the “Orthodox Church” until well after the break in communion was fully realized and only then was some way needed to differentiate between the two churches. As others have suggested, there are better points to discuss between the Orthodox and Catholics.
when it was said
“The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church” FROM
I have every right to ask where is “Orthodox Church” mentioned in writing going back to the beginning.
A simple yes or no would have sufficed. But, Ok, fine, you did not say I am condemned but you did say that since my “sins” have shown up, you felt compelled to quote St. Paul in such a way as to say I am condemned. Or would it be more accurate to say that I have condemned myself by my joining the Orthodox Church? Or am I misinterpreting what you’ve quoted and I am not actually condemned to hell?
Who told you there is no answer
AND point being
show me where schism is approved in scripture OR Tradition?
On the contrary schism is condemned in scripture. As in dividing from the only Church Jesus established, in the beginning, with the office of Peter and those in complete union with him. Jesus didn’t pray for a squishy union but a perfect union .
I posted all the scripture passages condemning division and the consequences for those who die in that sin
Paul warned, Re: division, Gal 5:20-21 …dissension … "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
See the issue? People have choices in what they choose, and who they belong to. AND, we don’t live in a consequence free existence.
From the Greek NT in that scripture reference
Re: dissension διχοστασίαι = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects.
Irenaeus in writing against the Gnostics, heretics of his day, made the following point, against the arguments used by the gnostics
- who has preeminent authority
- where is the succession from Peter, by name of bishops down to Irenaeus day?
I don’t think we’ll find one and who cares? The name was adopted after the split, although we see in councils and writings of the fathers, the word orthodoxy or orthodox used often.
Don’t worry, I know all the sentences used from the fathers for Roman Catholic apologetics. Was big into it myself once.
And you ask any Orthodox Christian and they believe themselves to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
It’s true - we do!
Point being, “Split” from Peter, is the key. That’s why I gave the references I did. That’s all I’m required to do.
They (the Fathers) are Catholic.
Melkite Bp emeritus Elya in a Q/A wrote Re: Catholic and Orthodox
Thank goodness you don’t serve on the Orthodox/Catholic commissions and committees that are working through the issues that presently separate us. Despite our frailties, I have full faith we will, in time, return to full communion in way that is neither, “submit to Rome!” nor “repent of your papist heresies!”