Philip Schaff's History of the Church - Passages on the Eucharist

Christian Classics Ethereal Library ^ | 1886 | Philip Schaff

[kosta50]

First, marshnallow, let's be clear on one thing: the Greek Church did not break with Rome. You would be hard pressed to show me when and where did the East "break" with Rome.

Second, the issues that separated the two Romes were theological in nature. The break was not a one time event but an evolution in progress. The (in)famous 1054 date denotes excommunication of the EP by a papal legate, whose commission expired four months prior, and EP's excommunication of the legate. Those excommunications were revoked in 1964. by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athanagoras I.

The Church drifted apart over the issues of Patristic versus non-Patristic issues, Frankish ignorance, the created grace of the Scholastic theology, and over dogmatic innovations in the West over the centuries until this very day. There was no formal schism. As far as the East is concerned, the West cannot receive at the same altar until these theological differences are resolved. That's all.

But, if you look at the literature of old, you will find accusations on both sides of heresy, which simply means teachings that differ from the teachings of the Church. Technically speaking, the Church is divided over heresy, and not a formal schism.

The Lefevbrists are formal schismatics. Schism is rebellion, disobedience. Your various schismatic Catholic groups are akin to Orthodox Old believers in Russia, who believe that certain practices of the Church have become "corrupt" and refuse to comply with the Church.

The Eastern Church never formally rebelled against Rome. It simply stopped communing with the West over dogmatic and doctrinal issues invented by the West, in other words, over something the East perceived as Latin heresy.

[kosta50]

It was simply a reiteration and formalization of what the Church always believed

Mark, you would be hard pressed to show me what the Church always believed. The Church, the doctrine, and even the New Testament evolved. There was no Catholic Church in 33 AD, as we know it, and that includes its beliefs, teachings and hierarchy. Remember, when we speak of the "Fathers" the pre-Nicene Fathers and the post-Nicene Fathers are not exactly a perfect match. The Church and its dogmatic core, as we know it, is a post-Nicene 4th century Church, not a first century creation.

To claim that there was a Catholic Church in 33 AD is no different than for the Protestants to claim that the KJV Bible dropped from the sky, bound and indexed.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, you would be hard pressed to show me what the Church always believed. The Church, the doctrine, and even the New Testament evolved. There was no Catholic Church in 33 AD, as we know it, and that includes its beliefs, teachings and hierarchy. Remember, when we speak of the “Fathers” the pre-Nicene Fathers and the post-Nicene Fathers are not exactly a perfect match. The Church and its dogmatic core, as we know it, is a post-Nicene 4th century Church, not a first century creation.

Very good. What I had meant to say is that the Church from the beginning had used (as far as we can tell) the Greek Septuagint exclusively or almost exclusively, which goes along quite well with something that we do know - that the NT was written (except possibly for a first draft of Matthew) exclusively in Greek.

To claim that there was a Catholic Church in 33 AD is no different than for the Protestants to claim that the KJV Bible dropped from the sky, bound and indexed.

There was a very basic Church structure that Ignatius called Catholic in his letter to the Smyrneans ca. 100 A.D.

[kosta50]

What I had meant to say is that the Church from the beginning had used (as far as we can tell) the Greek Septuagint exclusively or almost exclusively, which goes along quite well with something that we do know - that the NT was written (except possibly for a first draft of Matthew) exclusively in Greek

No argument there, but what is written in LXX and the NT is not exactly dogma. It depends how one reads them, for we know form Pauline Epistles that the Church was not of the same mind from day one.

There was a very basic Church structure that Ignatius called Catholic in his letter to the Smyrneans ca. 100 A.D.

Yes, but far from clear-cut definitions of Trinity, Christology or Mariology. +Ignatius calls Mary a "suitable vessel." That' night and day from Origen's Theotokos!

You also have to understand that, besides some of the Catholic sayings he made, +Ignatius's epistles have made greater impact on Arians than any other early Christian group because, strangely, although he was ordained by +Peter and was a disciple of "John" (presumably the Apostle), his canon does not include John's. And it is John's Gospel that makes Jesus divine, so naturally Arians would be inclined to quote +Ignatius, and they did.