Eric --
Some comments on your post:
I had ben intrigued by the idea of an "original denomination" among the mess of groups I had found. Historically, many would assume it was Rome, and after it began corrupting doctrinally, the East, and then the Protestants broke off. But technically, the Church started in the East; and consisted of five patriarchates (jurisdictions of equal bishops), and Rome was only one of them. (the others of course, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria).
Sounds like you have been doing two things: looking for truth (careful, that can be a dangerous pasttime. Just ask any of us converts) and reading Orthodox literature. I say this because your statement above regarding equality of authority of the bishops of the 5 patriarchial seats is the same thing the Orthodox toss out all the time.
So really, it was Rome who broke away from the "original Church body", and the East is a preservation of the particular era a Church in a progression of corruption was in when the split occurred.
Are you SURE you aren't a closet Orthodox?
Christ gave the keys of authority to ONE PERSON -- St. Peter -- thus establishing the primacy of the office of the papacy over the other offices of the bishops in the Church. Now you KNOW that our Lord, being God in the flesh, knew exactly what He was doing, and thus, if He had wanted to establish an equality of authority, He would have publically gone to each of the apostles and given them a single "key". The keys are a symbol of St. Peters ultimate authority, which he is properly to SHARE with the bishops of the other patriarchial sees. But ultimately, since the keys were given to St. Peter, HE is the controller of the keys, meaning quite simply that the office of the papacy has the oversight of the whole Church. This is proven by the fact that until the lamentable schism of 1054, popes routinely deposed of heretical bishops in the East and N
NE QUESTIONED THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO!!
Of course, enough of it had occured by the time of the split, so the Eastern Church has alot of the questionable Catholic dogmas and practices.
The word "katholicos" in Greek simply means universal. That which the East believed, the West believed until the falling out over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. Universal doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, mode of baptism, the seven Sacraments of the Church, devotion to the Theotokos, and other doctrines which are disagreed with by Baptists were
universally held until the schism. Even today, there are only about 4 points of real doctrinal distinction between the East and the West. This is why John Paul II can refer to the Orthodoc churches as "the other lung" of the Body of Christ and says that the Church needs both lungs to breathe with to be healthy.
Much of what Muhammad criticized in "Christianity" was because of a corrupt Church he saw (Mary treated as the third person of the Trinity). Rome had only risen to such authority because it was the seat of the empire (what spiritual significance did that city have in the Bible?)
Rome has NO spiritual significance in the Scriptures. The fact that the headship of the office of the pope is in Rome is due to the fact that St. Peter went to Rome and established his bishopprick there. Thus, that seat became the seat of the authority of the Church.
But still, I have heard in stories of the Middle East, about small groups of Christian families, scattered about, who have continued their practice "from Biblical times". This is where I would be interested in looking for "the original Christianity". I just wonder how much affiliated they might be with the Eastern Orthodox Church, (if at all), and how many of its (or the West's) doctrines and practices they keep.
The Liturgy of our Ruthenian Catholic Church, along with that of the Copts, the Ukrainians, the Melkites, and a couple of others I cannot remember, goes all the way back to St. John Chrysostom and the 6th century. You will not find anything of a real primative Christian society in that the worship of the Church evolved over the centuries into the Liturgy we use today. Remember that Christ compared the kingdom to a mustard seed. In that analogy, we see that the seed (church right after His ascension) would not look like the full grown tree (church after several centuries).
Do they have priests, transubstantiation, Mary and the saints devotion, etc?
We are also called Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome (although the Russian, Antiochian, and Alexandrian Orthodox SPIT every time they hear us mentioned
). I was talking with a Serbian Orthodox friend of mine today and he said that our liturgical rites are identical to theirs. The only difference is that we are in full communion with Rome, which would mean that we really do represent the Eastern church prior to the schism of 1054.
Does anyone know anything about these Christians?
I am most appreciative that we are called Christians and not something else. Thank you.
If you research the teachings of the Early Fathers, you will find that the teaching of transubstantiation goes back before St. Augustine. Although it was not called by that name, it clearly was understood by the Early Fathers that Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. The earliest writing to this effect is from St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was mentored by Apostle John.
Yes, we have priests. You cannot consecrate nor offer a sacrifice without a priest. In fact, except for a few differences in wording (we do not recite the "filioque" and this is acceptable to the pope at this time) and administration (we commune our infants as soon as they can chew and swallow Jesus), there really isn't much difference between us in the East and the West. I personally think that our body is a perfect model for what the Church will be like when the Orthodox and Rome finally come to terms with the long schism they have been under.
Look, if you really want some good information, come over here:
http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi
This is the Byzantine Catholic forum. You will be treated with respect and not attacked. There are people there who are very, very knowledgeable about Church history and can answer your questions much better than I can as a mere convert.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother ED
