/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

bump

guys?

>Is every Orthodox Church originally founded by an Apostle?

Yes. Not each church, but each See.

>how did Orthodox Churches end up in Eastern Europe and Africa when -presumably- the Apostles never went there?

But they did. Also, if the Apostles didn't go, their successors did.

>Is it possible to have an Orthodox Church not founded by an Apostle?

Nope. All Sees have apostolic succession in some way.

>If so can people form new Orthodox Churches today?

Yes. The OCA is attempting to become autocephales, but right now it is still an arm of the Russian Church iirc.

I get the sense you're confusing church building with Church, or See.

>>544352

Can you explain the step by step process from Apostles founding a See to an Orthodox Church being created much later by those who are not Apostles? I can't get this clear in my head.

>>544351

>>544355

This is a slow board, anon.

To answer your question: Most Apostles went on missions to found new churches – like Thomas to India. However, aside from founding new churches, they created bishops to lead the churches they make. These bishops carry the authority of the Apostles and are meant to lead the flock in their stead.

After the Apostles were martyred or passed away, the bishops carried on their mission of spreading the word of Christ and founding new churches in their stead. That's how, many centuries after the resurrection of Christ, new churches can pop up in places like Africa and Russia. New Orthodox churches can indeed be founded today on the same principle, and a couple are in the works (like the OCA).

Here's the basic idea:

>Christ chooses Apostles

>Apostles create churches

>Bishops created to lead churches

>Bishops create more bishops

>Current day Church

As for how a new Orthodox Church is founded:

>Priest sent to un-Christian territory by existing church

>Priest converts local peoples, creates a small local church

>Church grows over time and eventually more priests are sent to found more churches

>A bishop is eventually assigned to lead the group of churches directly and locally

>Eventually a large number of people have been converted

>The new collection of churches is still under the wing of the church that initially sent missionaries (any bishops will answer to the bishops in the old country)

>They appeal for more freedom and can be granted autocephaly under the right conditions

>This means they're considered an independent branch that's fully in communion and doctrinal harmony with the other branches

>With much time, an autocephalous church can eventually develop into an esteemed Patriarchate like Russia or Romania

And there you go.

>>544355

I have yet to learn the church history in detail but I have basic understanding so I'll try to explain this:

>Christ gives the word to the Apostles

>Apostles spread the word to the people

>Found a "base of operations" - a See

>So far the church is still united

>Apostles have their own disciples

>Disciples spread the word farther and keep the Holy Tradition

>This is where the apostolic succession comes in place

>Basically the ordained bishops hold a "lineage" that can be traced back to the Apostles

>The Pentarchy are the five biggest Sees: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinopolis and then Rome holding honorary princeps inter pares status for being the Roman capital and also the See being founded by St. Peter (not the only one founded by him tho)

>As more people come to Christianity the influence of individual Sees spreads too

>Heresies sprout up here and there but so far only one church

>The Roman branch starts pushing the primacy of Rome

>Some theological differences also form

>1054 The year of the schizm, this is where we start differentiating between the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church.

Someone more knowledgeable could include some details/correct this.

>>544361

>>544360

So Bishops who are selected by Apostles have the authority to create Bishops in other places.

So a Bishop in Jerusalem can create a Bishop in Romania and when the Romanian Church gets big enough, it asks to split away from the See of Jerusalem? And until that point the Romanian laity technically belong to the Church of Jerusalem and not the "Romanian" Church?

>>544368

Precisely! The current Orthodox Churches in Sub-Saharan Africa are looked over by the Alexandrian Patriarchate. They'll follow their guidance and direction until they get big enough to become autocephalous, as a sort of "Alexandrians outside of Alexandria."

This is part of the reason why the modern-day situation with the Orthodox Church in America is so complicated. Many different branches of the Orthodox Church – like the one in Russia, the one in Greece, and so on – all sent missionaries to different parts of the states over the course of decades. The existing Church is a weird amalgam of these different groups. The Russian part is big, so it was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate, but the other Patriarchs haven't been as forthcoming given that the parts they're in charge of may not be as robust (there are also other issues involved).

>>544376

2 questions:

Why become Independent at all? Why not just remain loyal to the Pentarchy and have that *special connection* to being in the ultimate 5 Churches of Christianity?

When the Great Schism happened, how many Orthodox Churches were there that split from Rome?

>>544383

Well, in the old days, having to answer to a Patriarchate wasn't easy. Communications could be difficult – especially somewhere on the frontier of the Church's grasp. There are other issues too, mostly related to decision making. A good example might be the use of liturgical language. If you're a bishop in, let's say, somewhere in Asia, and you're in a non-autocephalous church, you need to run any big changes you make past your superiors. Let's you want to make services in the local language so that your parishoners can better understand what's going on. If you were autocephalous, you could make that call. But since you're not, you have to check with your home bishops, and they can just as easily tell you to keep using Greek.

Nowadays, it's mostly the latter reason that comes into play.

Your question is hard to answer, as the Schism wasn't a single moment, but more like a series of small schisms with occasional big breaks. The 1054 date is usually picked as a cutoff because it's the formal break in communion between the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Old Church #2 bishop) and the Pope (Old Church #1 bishop). If you're interested in learning more, another anon wrote in good detail about it here:

>>542265

The quick and easy response would be that the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople broke communion with Rome when they became aware of the break. But, again, it was a process.

>>544394

Thanks man, it's much clearer now!

>>544397

Of course, happy to help. Feel free to ask other questions here or in the QTDDTOT

>>544368

>So Bishops who are selected by Apostles have the authority to create Bishops in other places

Point of clarity–it takes at least three Bishops to consecrate a new one, and only with the favor if the reigning patriarch, at least, that's the Catholic method. The Pope elects priest to the Bishopric and three already consecrated Bishops consecrate the new one. But otherwise, yes. Old bishops make new bishops in new places.

>>544344

Ill try to give you a non-biased telling of Church history.

>Middle Ages

>All of Christianity was headed by Five Patriarchs

>Patriarch of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

>Cultural differences start to create tension between the Pat. of Rome and the other four Patriarchs

>Pat. of Rome was the most powerful, due to the fact he was the only Patriarch in all of Western Europe. He was also traditionally seen as the Leader of the Patriarchs due to apolitical succession of Peter

>He felt that he should have higher authority than the other Patriarchs to have a central head of Church

>Obviously other Patriarchs didn't like this

>West uses unleavened communion bread because it was the type used at last supper.

>East uses Leavened bread because Christ raises things up.

>Whole Church makes a statement of the Nature of the Trinity

>West adds a statement that the holy spirit comes from the father and the son, to combat several major Heresies gaining traction in west

>East still holds that the Holy spirit solely comes from the Father

>Both East and West believe in praying for the dead

>West thinks that after death, the soul is purified slowly through purgatory then saved

>East thinks that the soul is instantly purified and saved

All of this led to The Patriarch of Rome demanding the other Patriarchs recognize his authority, the other Patriarchs denying his authority, and both excommunicating each other at the same time.

I'd also like to add that Russian Orthodox Church - which is probably the biggest and most influential one today - went through a period known as 'Raskol':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskol

Due to reforms enacted by Patriarch of Moscow together with Tsar Alexis.

While this hasn't resulted in a movement as powerful as Reformation in the West, it did produce splinter groups, who sought refuge in Siberia - where at the time government's long arm didn't always reach, or in other countries, such as China.

I am not sure whether any of those refugees have churches of their own and what are their relationships with other Orthodox churches today.

>>545189

>>545189

Why were there 5 Patriarchs and not more? What was special about these 5 compared to the other Apostolic Sees?

>>545250

This is how the Pentarchy came to be:

Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, the greatest of the apostles, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, it became a large and well-known Church very quick. Thus it was recognized very early on to have a primacy over all other Churches, and people would often write directly to the Bishop of Rome for advice and such, due to them being the direct successor to the two greatest apostles, and thus having a very solid apostolic tradition, while it wasn't necessarily as clear in some other Churches.

Alexandria was founded by Mark, who was sent by Peter, and was also a large and well-known Church.

Antioch was again founded by Peter and Paul, and was a large and well-known Church.

In the 4th century, Byzantium became the new capital of the Roman Empire and was renamed Constantinople. As a result, a lot of the geopolitical focus that used to be on Rome moved there, and the Church of Constantinople, the New Rome, wanted to be recognized as a Patriarchate too. The First Council of Constantinople had in its canons that Constantinople would be second in honor and primacy next to Rome, which was accepted canonically, but caused controversy and notably rejection from Rome. The problem here was of course that Constantinople wanted overnight to have primacy over Alexandria and Antioch.

Nonetheless, it tried again to be recognized as being second in honor to Rome, and after a while this became accepted in the East (although Rome wouldn't accept Constantinople's position as second in honor to Rome until the 13th century, when it would make its own Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople after the schism).

Jerusalem was also recognized from early on as having a certain place of honor, due to being literally the first and most ancient Church, but its small size prevented it from having a recognized primacy as a Patriarchate. Nonetheless, it would end up being recognized as one of the 5 ancient Patriarchates too.

So there you have it: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. But it was not some kind of clear doctrine that all agreed on - indeed, it was mainly an ecclesiastical thing, and views in Rome and in Constantinople (and in Alexandria) varied a lot. It just wasn't seen as reason enough to have a schism.

>>545189

Let me add some notes

>He felt that he should have higher authority than the other Patriarchs to have a central head of Church

>Obviously other Patriarchs didn't like this

The division between East and West on the Papacy actually happened really late. It might be more accurate to say that the Pope was recognized as the head of the Church, and as having primacy over the whole Church, but the relation between Rome and the other Churches would be unclear, as it sometimes acted like a "big sister" Church and sometimes like a "Mother" Church.

>West uses unleavened communion bread because it was the type used at last supper.

>East uses Leavened bread because Christ raises things up.

It's recognized that, according to John, Christ used leavened bread, and according to the synoptics, Christ used unleavened bread. The tradition in the East always used leavened bread and so it was recognized that while the last supper did take place during the feast of unleavened bread in the synoptics, Christ ate leavened bread there (the Greek certainly doesn't try to make a difference) and so did it illegally.

But the whole controversy over leavened vs unleavened bread was basically nonsense, or rather, nitpicking at the Armenian "heretics" and then extending this nitpicking to the Latin "heretics".

cont

>>545189

>>545271

>>West adds a statement that the holy spirit comes from the father and the son, to combat several major Heresies gaining traction in west

>East still holds that the Holy spirit solely comes from the Father

That's a bit more complicated on both sides of the story. To put it simply, I think we can say this: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. East and West disagreed over what it means to "proceed", and what is the relation of "through the Son" with "from the Father", because both Churches used the expression "from the Father through the Son" to different ends.

>Both East and West believe in praying for the dead

>West thinks that after death, the soul is purified slowly through purgatory then saved

>East thinks that the soul is instantly purified and saved

Not really… We believe that neither Hades or Paradise are the full experience of torment or bliss right now, the full experience will only come after the Resurrection. So Hades takes on a "purgatorial" form, as the fiery thirst burns away attachment to sin, but our prayers are necessary for this "purgation" to take place, for the fire of God to burn away sin rather than burn the soul, for the sins of one on the path of destruction to be forgiven. What we disagree on is on the nature of Heaven and Hell (the full thing, or only a foretaste of what is to come?), but we agree that some of those who are in torment can be purified and saved before the final judgement comes, however Latin theology necessitates Purgatory to be "in-between" Heaven and Hell to justify this belief, while we don't need that simply because, other than "Purgatory" not being a thing in the early Church, what we believe about Hades is sufficient to justify why we pray for the dead.

>All of this led to The Patriarch of Rome demanding the other Patriarchs recognize his authority, the other Patriarchs denying his authority

As I said above, it's not that simple. Honestly, the East only truly rejected the authority of the Pope -after- the catastrophe that was Florence. Before that point, it was seen as a strained and uncomfortable relationship, but not necessarily one of true rejection.