Christianity Lounge

I think that would count as Eastern Catholic like the ones in Lebanon, Ukraine, or Greece right? I have a lot of respect for our Eastern Catholic Brothers because outwardly you appear to have almost the same exact praxis and theology as us Orthodox. You still have icons, married priests, no filioque, etc. It is wonderful you've managed to keep these traditions alive.

However, your church is in communion with Rome. You consider the pope to be infallible and the head of the whole church. We consider that the Church is only headed by Jesus Christ and only He is infallible. And that every single Bishop is equal in authority. Which means as far as we're concerned, you are not part of the one holy, Catholic, apostolic church established by Christ's apostles. At some point you separated and joined Rome.

And we hold this fact as much more important than the outward aspects. In fact, there are Western rite Orthodox parishes where the liturgy is served in a style just like in ancient Rome. It looks more like Catholic mass than most Orthodox liturgies. And yet they are still entirely Orthodox because being a part of the Church and shared dogma is what matters, not externals.

Also, Rome innovated certain theological ideas, ideas which we hold to be heresies, 200 years before the great schism. And yet we did not split from Rome even then when they were preaching against what we hold to be Truth. They split from us. The Greeks literally begged the Latins to come back during their final meeting but the Latins refused.

We're quite a bit more traditional than them we go back a lot further and take things from the beginning but yea the same in modern name at least. Technically we are the Chaldean Catholic Church we don't conform with any others and our mass is in Aramaic which only we speak.

I sincerely appreciate the words brother and have the utmost respect for my Orthodox brothers, I had no interest in any kind of debate. What I was driving at is that if you're a God fearing good man who does his best to walk with Christ then you are my brother and I accept you as my brother, we walk together. The concept of feeling higher than someone because of my faith, while I certainly could make a un-Christian like claim to, does not come off as correct to me in any form. Save that for the jews and muslims....they deserve each other.
 
Last edited:
I’m not that religious but I said a few Hail Marys just now

Edit
All of the right wing speakers that give talks publicly like this need body armor

Eradicator my brother I hope you don't mind I took this from the Charlie Kirk thread I didn't want to go off topic in there but I wanted to come back to this. I'm putting it out in the open because I think there are brothers here who would have a better conversation in regards to this than I would.

So....I take it you were raised Christian. What happened what changed for you?
 
Eradicator my brother I hope you don't mind I took this from the Charlie Kirk thread I didn't want to go off topic in there but I wanted to come back to this. I'm putting it out in the open because I think there are brothers here who would have a better conversation in regards to this than I would.

So....I take it you were raised Christian. What happened what changed for you?

I did 9 years of private Catholic school as a young lad and hated it. I’ve been to other churches (non catholic) since then as an adult and never really found one that clicked that I wanted to go back to. I do other volunteeeing that’s not church affiliated (ymca and equivalent)

I’m not sure what’s next for me as far as religion
 
I did 9 years of private Catholic school as a young lad and hated it. I’ve been to other churches (non catholic) since then as an adult and never really found one that clicked that I wanted to go back to. I do other volunteeeing that’s not church affiliated (ymca and equivalent)

I’m not sure what’s next for me as far as religion

Thanks for replying brother, I guess I'm asking what made you decide you were "agnostic".
 
We're quite a bit more traditional than them we go back a lot further and take things from the beginning but yea the same in modern name at least. Technically we are the Chaldean Catholic Church we don't conform with any others and our mass is in Aramaic which only we speak.

I sincerely appreciate the words brother and have the utmost respect for my Orthodox brothers, I had no interest in any kind of debate. What I was driving at is that if you're a God fearing good man who does his best to walk with Christ then you are my brother and I accept you as my brother, we walk together. The concept of feeling higher than someone because of my faith, while I certainly could make a un-Christian like claim to, does not come off as correct to me in any form. Save that for the jews and muslims....they deserve each other.
"For he that is not against us is on our part.
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." - Mark 9:40-41

St. Augustine has some interesting commentaries on this topic explaining the Orthodox view and likely the view of many other Christians.
 
I'm sorry, I thought that agnostic meant that you don't believe either way....as in you're not sure to put in plainly. That's why I wanted to ask after you said you would pray for Kirk.

I don’t think I’d be really honest if it started calling myself a Christian.

I guess I’d join a church if I was marrying a religious girl and it was a big deal to her . Otherwise I’ll continue to use the term agnostic, unless I start going to a church and want to be involved and then I’d list that affiliation.
 
I did 9 years of private Catholic school as a young lad and hated it. I’ve been to other churches (non catholic) since then as an adult and never really found one that clicked that I wanted to go back to. I do other volunteeeing that’s not church affiliated (ymca and equivalent)

I’m not sure what’s next for me as far as religion
I was angry with God for a number of years. He wasn't running things to my satisfaction. However, I eventually realized that's not how it works. This realization didn't come easy, but that's basically what happened.

I always believed in God, but I was caught up in the problem of why does God allow evil, or why is so much of life crappy. I finally accepted that God is real, he created everything and he is in charge, and the opposition (Satan) is as bad as you'd expect. I felt I had no choice but to side with God.

Once I accepted this, I found that the blessings of repenting and surrendering to God are all that people say. It's not easy, but it's worth it. God is real, and submitting to his will does bring peace and joy that are well worth it. This world is a spiritual battle field, and being on God's side is the only way to go.

Once I reached this point, I realized I should go back to Church. I ended up finding a Church that is Godly, and it provides me with a strong fellowship of believers, which is so important. It's clear to me that God led me in this direction. It is incredible to realize God is working in my life personally like this.

I have made other Christian friends outside of my Church as well, who are a tremendous blessing. Going back to church, and building relationships with as many Christians as possible is the best life strategy I can recommend.
 
I'm not even saying the guys who'd do the endless fighting with other types of Christians are necessarily wrong. Maybe God does care deeply about which branch you choose and maybe if you choose wrong or just refuse to choose like me, you are putting your eternal soul in peril. Who knows. I don't.
I don't think you need to become a Calvinist to get saved. God's grace is greater than the labels we put on it. That said, the time will come when you will seriously wrestle with these questions. I am not a member of a church that I agree with doctrinally 100%. Nor do I feel that I need to be. My church needs me and I need them.

If your commitment is to believe what the original Christians, the Apostles, believed, then you will end up as some sort of classical Protestant because you will cling to their writings, the Bible, as your ultimate reference point.

If you are more interested in how the Church developed, especially during the medieval ages, then you will end up as some form of Sacerdotalist. Whether that's Roman Catholicism, or one of the many variants of Orthodoxy. All of which claim to be "the one, true church."

The debates we have won't answer all your questions. There is some internal examination on your part that still needs to be done concerning where your convictions really lay.
 
If you are more interested in how the Church developed, especially during the medieval ages, then you will end up as some form of Sacerdotalist. Whether that's Roman Catholicism, or one of the many variants of Orthodoxy. All of which claim to be "the one, true church."
I think this is one of the ways so many people allow themselves to be deceived. They say something like "well surely they can't all be the one true Church, and I can't figure out which one that is, or maybe none of them really are, so therefore there isn't one or maybe it doesn't really matter which church I belong to, as long as I read the Bible and love God". Or "maybe I don't even need a church at all, I can just ask Jesus to save me and I'm good to go, one and done". Some people don't even think you need to be baptized. They will also use the Bible to justify this belief, but where do you think the Bible comes from?

Now think for a second.

People say the same things about the various religions in the world and they use that "logic" to attack Christianity by saying "yeah, sure, your religion out of hundreds in the world is the only real one, and everyone else is wrong, yeah right", and then so many write off religion completely, or join some froot loop "church" or follow some kind of pagan lifestyle. It's the same exact logical fallacy, I hope you can see that. Everything is not subjective and relative. Sometimes there is one correct answer.

It's very important to remember the evil one is very good at what he does and has been doing it for a long time. If he can destroy us in sin he will, but if he can merely confuse and lead us away from truth he will happily settle for that. He plays upon our ignorance and arrogance and pride in thinking we know better and can figure things out all by ourselves, or that God needs to come to us on our terms. Many think we don't need a church at all, or it's optional, and they ignore the centuries of writings and wisdom of the Orthodox Church and the Holy Fathers and act like it doesn't apply to them. This is also what leads to so many branches of protestantism.

Here's the truth: Christ came and he founded one Church and that is the Orthodox Church. If you aren't in that Church, where are you? Why would you choose to be anywhere else, separate from Christ and His body? How is that going to benefit you or anyone else spiritually? How will you justify that to Christ on judgment day?
 
Everything is not subjective and relative. Sometimes there is one correct answer.
When you guys give a history of the church to show how it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy, you tend to assume that your version of events is the objective truth. Objectively, there are indeed many early churches not in communion with each other that make this same exclusive claim, all right in their own eyes. This happened because "Apostolic Succession" isn't sufficient to preserve one church and mark it out above all the rest. Functionally, the argument gets reduced to "Orthodoxy is true because Orthodoxy says it's true." Or "Catholicism is true because Catholicism says it's true." Etc.

I submit that the church should not be limited to a mere earthy institution and recognize that it is indeed a spiritual kingdom, as the Apostles taught. The scrupulosity that comes from being obsessed with "being in the right church" is totally obliterated, since it is clear that God is saving many Christians, not just Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant.
 
When you guys give a history of the church to show how it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy, you tend to assume that your version of events is the objective truth.
It is the objective truth. On what basis do you say it isn't? Please make your case. If I'm in the wrong Church I want to know! :)

Objectively, there are indeed many early churches not in communion with each other that make this same exclusive claim, all right in their own eyes.
It doesn't matter if there is 1 or 1000 so-called "churches" who make this claim. That doesn't change the fact that the EO Church is the original Church founded by Christ and His Apostles. Again if you have a case to make, please do so. I'm happy to debate this topic and open to learning something new. I don't care about being right, I just want to know and follow the truth. That is why I am Orthodox in the first place. Not because it is cool, or I think it makes me better than someone, or any other reason. I wasn't born into it, I have no pre-existing bias for or against it (actually I have a fairly rebelious protestant background and at first I was very reluctant, and it took me a long time to accept certain aspects of it, and some things I'm still working on).

This happened because "Apostolic Succession" isn't sufficient to preserve one church and mark it out above all the rest.
That is another bold claim. Christ Himself gave the Apostles their power and authority and said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, which was founded on what? An Apostle. Are you saying He was wrong? What exactly are you saying? Sometimes I think folks take this claim lightly and don't think it's true or fully understand its importance. Please allow me to show you something.

Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)​

The OCA traces its apostolic succession through the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), which in turn received it from Constantinople, and ultimately from the Apostles. Here’s the main episcopal succession relevant to the OCA:

1. From Constantinople to Russia​

  • 988 AD: St. Vladimir of Kiev is baptized; the Church of Kievan Rus’ receives Christianity from Constantinople.
  • Metropolitan of Kiev: The line of bishops for Rus’ begins under Constantinople’s authority.
  • Metropolitan of Moscow (15th c.): As Moscow rises, the line continues there, remaining in communion with Constantinople until the 15th century.
  • Patriarchate of Moscow (1589): Established, with full apostolic succession recognized by the other patriarchates.

2. From Russia to Alaska / America​

  • 1794: The first missionaries (including St. Herman of Alaska) arrive, sent by the Russian Church.
  • 1840: St. Innocent (Veniaminov) consecrated Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kuriles, and the Aleutians — becomes the great organizer of the Church in America.
  • 1870: Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska established, later renamed Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America (1870s).

3. Key Hierarchs in North America​

  • Bishop Innocent (Veniaminov) → later Metropolitan of Moscow (1868).
  • Bishop John (Mitropolsky) (1870–1876).
  • Bishop Nestor (Zass) (1879–1882).
  • Bishop Vladimir (Sokolovsky-Avtonomov) (1888–1891).
  • Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov) (1891–1898).
  • Bishop Tikhon (Bellavin) (1898–1907) — later Patriarch of Moscow and glorified as St. Tikhon.
  • Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky) (1907–1914, 1922–1934).
  • Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky) (1934–1950).
  • Metropolitan Leonty (Turkevich) (1950–1965).
  • Metropolitan Ireney (Bekish) (1965–1977).

4. Autocephaly and Today​

  • 1970: The Russian Orthodox Church grants autocephaly to the OCA.
  • Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor) (1977–2002).
  • Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko) (2002–2008).
  • Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) (2008–2012).
  • Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard) (2012–present).
Please take a moment to appreciate how amazing this is. Do you even know your own family tree that well? Do you know five generations? Ten? Fifty? I don't.

Functionally, the argument gets reduced to "Orthodoxy is true because Orthodoxy says it's true." Or "Catholicism is true because Catholicism says it's true." Etc.
No, not at all. There is tons of documentation and evidence for the EO Church being the one true original Church. The "Catholic" church was once part of it, and now it isn't. That doesn't change the original facts. If I claim to be the real GodfatherPartTwo and say you are a fraud, do you stop being you? Should someone then say "well, since I can't tell who is lying" (or more correctly, "since I can't be bothered to figure it out" or "it challenges my pre-supposed beliefs and that makes me uncomfortable"), "now you aren't GFPT anymore". No.

I submit that the church should not be limited to a mere earthy institution and recognize that it is indeed a spiritual kingdom, as the Apostles taught.
It definitely is not merely an earthly institution, however it is also not merely a spiritual kingdom, and the earthly portion has a very important purpose. You can't just write it off because it makes you feel better as you aren't a member (but you could be, anyone can). Either way, you still have to explain and justify that choice (not to me, but on judgment day) - why you choose to be apart from His one true Church.

The scrupulosity that comes from being obsessed with "being in the right church" is totally obliterated, since it is clear that God is saving many Christians, not just Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant.
Well for what it is worth, I will do my best to explain how I understand it. Please bear with me.


St. Paul said: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).

Baptism is the entry into Christ’s Body, the Church. In Orthodox teaching, baptism is not symbolic only; it is a real rebirth, washing away sin, uniting the person with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5). Without baptism, one is not sacramentally incorporated into the life of the Church, which is the ark of salvation.

The Eucharist is the center of the Church’s life. Christ said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Through Communion, believers receive Christ Himself, participate in divine life, and are mystically united with one another as His Body. The Eucharist makes the Church the Church; it is the sacrament of unity and the foretaste of the Kingdom.

The Church is not simply a building or a gathering of believers, but the Body of Christ enlivened by the Holy Spirit. To be in the Church is to live in the communion of Saints, nourished by the sacraments, guided by Apostolic teaching, and moving toward theosis (union with God). St. Cyprian said “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.”

The fullness of salvation (the sacraments, theosis, union with God) is only in the Orthodox Church. Without a life in the Church, a person is more vulnerable to error, sin, and estrangement from Christ. However God is not bound by the sacraments; He may work outside the visible boundaries in ways we cannot fully understand. One of the great things about the Orthodox Church in my humble and ignorant opinion is that it does not profess to know everything. I found that so unexpected and refreshing and honest. The truth is, we are not meant to know everything. And in many cases, knowing stuff does not bring us closer to Christ, and in fact can do the opposite. This is an act of faith and humilty.

St. Theophan the Recluse (19th c.) said “We do not say that all those who are not visibly in the Church will be condemned; we say that in the Church is salvation, and that those who are saved outside the Church are saved by a mysterious link with the Church.”

St. Silouan of Athos (20th c.) taught that we cannot judge who is outside God’s mercy, and that we must pray for the whole world.

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that salvation is in and through the Church, because the Church is Christ’s Body and the ordinary place of grace. Yet, Orthodoxy also acknowledges that God can act outside visible boundaries, and it refrains from declaring the eternal fate of non-Orthodox. The “consequence” of not being in the Church is the absence of the fullness of grace and theosis, but not necessarily automatic damnation - judgment is left to God’s mercy.

The Church is the ark of salvation, the Body of Christ, and the place where the fullness of grace and truth dwell. Other Christian bodies, for example the Roman Catholic church, may preserve elements of the truth and grace, but not the fullness.

St. Cyprian said “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

This phrase is often quoted in Orthodox tradition. Orthodoxy interprets this not as a rigid condemnation, but as an affirmation that Christ saves through His Church - the ordinary means of salvation. The Orthodox Church does not issue definitive dogmas about the eternal fate of those outside her canonical boundaries. Orthodoxy insists that only God knows hearts and judges souls. Many Church Fathers stress humility in speaking of others’ salvation.


I hope this helps to clear things up a little bit, even if you don't necessarily agree.
 
Last edited:
Here is some more stuff to think about.

Who Actually Wrote the Bible?​

  • Old Testament: Written over many centuries (roughly 1400 BC–400 BC) by prophets, kings, and scribes of Israel, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Examples: Moses (Torah), David (Psalms), Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.
  • New Testament: Written in the 1st century AD by the Apostles and their close disciples, also under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Examples: the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude.
In summary, the Bible was written by inspired men, but the question of which writings belong in the Bible was answered by the Church. That's right, the same Church which today is known as the Orthodox Church. So you're following our teachings and writings and then using that as the basis to say the EO Church isn't valid. Think about it.

The Role of the Early Church and the Holy Fathers​

In the first centuries, many Christian writings circulated (gospels, letters, apocalypses). The question arose: Which are truly inspired and Apostolic? The Holy Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned which books were authentic and used in the Church’s worship. Criteria for canonicity included:
  • Apostolic origin (written by or connected to the Apostles)
  • Orthodox teaching (consistent with the faith of the Church)
  • Liturgical use (read in the Divine Liturgy across the Church)
The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) was the version of Scripture used by the Apostles and the early Church. The Orthodox Church still uses this. The New Testament canon gradually took shape in the 2nd–4th centuries:
  • St. Irenaeus (2nd c.) affirmed the authority of the four Gospels.
  • Origen, Athanasius, and others listed canonical books.
  • Council of Laodicea (c. 363) and Council of Carthage (397) confirmed lists close to today’s canon.
  • The canon was never decided by one man, but by the Church as a whole, in her councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Understanding​

The Bible is a book of the Church:
  • Written within the life of God’s people (Israel and the Church).
  • Preserved, recognized, and proclaimed by the Church.
  • Interpreted correctly only within the Church’s living Tradition.
  • St. Athanasius the Great (4th c.): In his Festal Letter (367), he gave the first full list of the 27 NT books we use today.
  • St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and others preached and commented on scripture, always treating it as the Church’s book.
St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil wrote the Divine Liturgy which we still follow to this very day, every Sunday. I have practically memorized the whole thing at this point. It usually takes about an hour and a half (sometimes longer) to get through it, including receiving communion. The version written by St. Basil is used on some special occasions and is a bit longer.
 
I'm going to stop after this message. There is just so much information I wanted to convey. Please forgive me if it's a bit too much, but please take your time and try to digest it. I pray that Christ will grant you wisdom, patience, and discernment.

The Orthodox Church’s Treasure Beyond the Bible​

The Bible is central in Orthodoxy, but it is not the whole of the Christian faith. The Church has preserved, through the Holy Spirit, a treasury of wisdom that includes:
  • Holy Tradition: the living transmission of the Apostolic faith.
  • Writings of the Fathers: homilies, letters, treatises (e.g., St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor).
  • Ecumenical Councils: definitions of the faith (e.g., Nicene Creed).
  • Liturgical life: prayers, hymns, icons, fasting practices, feasts — theology lived and sung.
  • Sacraments (Mysteries): baptism, chrismation, Eucharist, confession, etc., where divine grace is tangibly given.
  • Lives of the Saints: examples of holiness in every generation.
This is a 2,000-year library of wisdom and experience, far beyond what is written in Scripture alone.

What’s Missing if One Has Only the Bible?​

  • Historical continuity: The Bible doesn’t tell you which books belong in it; the Church does.
  • Interpretation: Without the Church, verses can be twisted into thousands of conflicting doctrines.
  • Sacraments: Scripture commands baptism, Eucharist, anointing with oil, etc., but the Church preserves the how of these mysteries.
  • The lived experience of grace: The saints show us how Scripture is lived, not just read.
  • Doctrinal clarity: The Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the canon of Scripture — all defined by the Church, not by Scripture alone.
So, someone with “bible only” is like a person who owns a medical textbook but has no teachers, no hospital, and no doctors to guide them.

The Role of a Spiritual Father and the Church​

Acts 8:30–31 - Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Philip (an apostle) explained the Scriptures to him.
  • The Church Fathers constantly stress that Christianity is not just reading, but discipleship.
  • The spiritual father helps interpret Scripture in light of Tradition, giving correction, discernment, and application to one’s life.
  • Without this guidance, one risks pride, misinterpretation, or inventing new doctrines.

That's all I have for now. Take care & God bless. ☦️

In Christ,

SoC
 
If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?
 
If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?
I will do my best to answer. I will readily admit the situation with the Coptic church is not necessarily my area of expertise. I am not that smart, nor well-educated, and someone like Jay Dyer, or indeed some of the members here, could no doubt do a much better job of explaining it.

To directly answer your question - it is of vital importance. You can't have a Church without it. However it is not the only determining factor. The Catholics also have Apostolic succession, but they are also schismatic and not in communion with the Orthodox Church. They broke away from it in much the same way as the Copts did. Having an "original Apostle" is indeed cool, but I don't think one can make the case that it gives them more authority or authenticity than the others. It's more complicated than that. Christianity is not a religion founded by individual Apostles independently, but one Church founded by Christ and spread through His apostles.

Regarding the Orthodox Church, key Apostolic foundations include:
  • Antioch: founded by Peter before he went to Rome (Acts 11, Galatians 2).
  • Jerusalem: founded by James the Just, “the brother of the Lord.”
  • Constantinople: traditionally linked to Andrew the Apostle (brother of Peter).
  • Other ancient sees: many Eastern regions trace their bishops back to apostles or their direct disciples.
The Eastern Orthodox Church as a communion today arose out of the Byzantine Church after the Great Schism (1054). But the Orthodox understanding is that they did not “start” a new church. Rather, they are the continuation of the same Church founded by Christ and His apostles.

Apostolic Succession and the Coptic Church​

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria indeed claims Apostolic succession from St. Mark the Evangelist, who, according to tradition, brought Christianity to Egypt in the first century. Because Apostolic succession is a central marker of legitimacy for many Christians, the Copts have a strong historical claim to being part of the “one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.” Their succession of Bishops (Patriarchs of Alexandria) has continued unbroken since antiquity.

Why They Are Called Oriental Orthodox​

The Coptic Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, which split from the rest of the Christian world after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is one person in two natures (divine and human). The Copts (and other Oriental Orthodox) rejected the council’s definition, holding instead to miaphysitism (“one united nature out of two”). Because of this doctrinal disagreement, they were no longer in communion with Rome and Constantinople, and eventually developed separately from the churches that later became known as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Argument​

The Eastern Orthodox Churches make their case on a few grounds:
  • Conciliar Continuity: They accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils, whereas the Copts only accept the first three. For the Eastern Orthodox, fidelity to the councils is as important as Apostolic succession in preserving the “true faith.”
  • Universality: Eastern Orthodoxy sees itself as maintaining both the Apostolic tradition and the Catholicity (universality) of the Church, whereas the Oriental Orthodox broke away from the wider communion after Chalcedon.
  • Doctrinal Purity: From their perspective, the Chalcedonian definition safeguards the fullness of Christ’s humanity and divinity, which they argue is essential to Orthodox Christian doctrine.
The Eastern Orthodox argue that Apostolic succession must be accompanied by fidelity to all ecumenical councils and the consensus of the undivided Church. Each side claims to be the true guardian of the Apostolic faith, though today there is more recognition that the divide may not be as stark theologically as it once seemed.

How the Copts Would Likely Respond​

From the Coptic point of view:
  • They never abandoned the true faith - they would argue they preserved the authentic teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria (who was a champion at the Council of Ephesus in 431).
  • They see themselves as having resisted what they view as a compromise or corruption at Chalcedon.
  • Their own claim to being the “true church” rests on their Apostolic continuity and their faithfulness to the teaching handed down from their own saints and fathers.

The Eastern Orthodox Position on Coptic Sacrements​

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not have one universal, codified position that is exactly parallel. Instead:
  • Officially: The Orthodox do not usually make blanket statements declaring that Oriental Orthodox sacraments are “valid” in the same way Catholics do. The Orthodox theological language tends to avoid declaring sacraments “valid” outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church.
  • Practically: Many Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions do accept converts from the Coptic (and other Oriental Orthodox) churches without rebaptism, often receiving them by Chrismation (anointing) or even simply by confession of faith. This strongly implies a recognition that their baptism is real.
  • In modern dialogue, many Orthodox theologians acknowledge that the Oriental Orthodox sacraments are indeed effective, since they are performed with Apostolic succession and true faith in the Trinity.

Modern Developments​

In recent decades, dialogue between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches has shown that many of the theological disagreements may be more about terminology and emphasis than actual doctrine. Some joint statements have recognized that both sides affirm Christ as fully God and fully man, even if they phrase it differently. This has led to calls for greater unity, though full communion hasn’t yet been restored.

Biblical Foundation​

  • The New Testament consistently speaks of one Church and one Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4–5; 1 Corinthians 12:12–27).
  • Christ Himself prayed “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).
  • So, from the very beginning, the Church is understood as a single, visible, united body - not many independent groups.

The Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) View​

  • The Orthodox Church teaches that there can only be one true Church, the visible continuation of the Apostolic community founded by Christ.
  • They identify this one Church with themselves; those who preserve the true faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession without alteration.
  • Other groups may have elements of truth and grace, but the fullness of the Church is found only in Orthodoxy.
For this reason, both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox claim to be “the one true Church,” even though they are separated from each other, which creates a theological tension. Some Orthodox theologians explain this by saying the other body is “schismatic but not heretical,” and so retains real sacraments but lacks the fullness of communion.

The bottom line in my view is that some of this stuff seems a bit autistic to me and sometimes I struggle to fully understand or appreciate these differences. However I do have faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit and I therefore believe the decisions of the Holy Patriarchs and ecumenical councils are just and binding and were done for a good reason. Therefore if someone falls out of line with the canonical, correct, and blessed teachings according to those councils we end up with a situation like the "Catholic" or "Oriental Orthodox" churches splitting off, which is regrettable but it was their own choice to do so. And they are always free to renounce their incorrect positions and re-join with the Body of Christ at any time and many people including myself would be very glad if that were to happen.
 
It is the objective truth. On what basis do you say it isn't? Please make your case. If I'm in the wrong Church I want to know! :)
There are a few objective reference points that I would point to. Namely, the Bible, primarily for doctrine. Second, the history of the church as it has developed over the centuries. When you presuppose your completed image of what the church should be, it is very easy to read that back into the history in an anachronistic fashion. It is better to start with the Bible, since it is the writings of the first Christians, then work your way through the history up to the present day. Essentially, it is better to read the history forwards, not backwards.

It doesn't matter if there is 1 or 1000 so-called "churches" who make this claim. That doesn't change the fact that the EO Church is the original Church founded by Christ and His Apostles. Again if you have a case to make, please do so. I'm happy to debate this topic and open to learning something new. I don't care about being right, I just want to know and follow the truth. That is why I am Orthodox in the first place.
Here's why it matters. The whole point of "Apostolic Succession" is to mark out the one, true church. If there are multiple churches with AS that are not in communion with each other, then AS has failed to accomplish it's purpose. The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics, it didn't prevent the church from schisming and fractioning later on.

Moreover, it would be anachronistic to assume that AS is the mechanism the Apostles used to preserve the Church from error. Their answer was never "just trust the bishop." Their answer, even to the bishops, was "I commend you to the Word of God" and "The Scripture is able to make you fully equipped for every good work."

That is another bold claim. Christ Himself gave the Apostles their power and authority and said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, which was founded on what? An Apostle. Are you saying He was wrong? What exactly are you saying? Sometimes I think folks take this claim lightly and don't think it's true or fully understand its importance. Please allow me to show you something.
The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church and no one is saying Christ is wrong. What is wrong is this interpretation the the Church was built on one Apostle and not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I invite you to look at patristic commentary of this passage. Two great fathers, Augustine and Chrysostom, say that Matthew 16:18 teaches that the Church is built on Peter's confession, that is, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Even Peter says in his own letter that Christ is the rock. The first person to interpret the passage in this way: the Church being founded on one Apostle, was a Roman pope, in order to legitimize the Papacy.

It definitely is not merely an earthly institution, however it is also not merely a spiritual kingdom, and the earthly portion has a very important purpose. You can't just write it off because it makes you feel better as you aren't a member (but you could be, anyone can). Either way, you still have to explain and justify that choice (not to me, but on judgment day) - why you choose to be apart from His one true Church.
I don't write off the earthly church. I'm a member of it. But I don't limit the spiritual church to my earthly church. That's the difference between us. I recognize that the church is a broader concept than just my local congregation, and even my denomination.
 
There are a few objective reference points that I would point to. Namely, the Bible, primarily for doctrine.
I already explained above why it doesn't make sense to try to separate the Bible from the traditions and history of the Church. You're literally taking the book that the Church created and trying to argue against the authority or legitimacy of the Church. Even if you could somehow win that argument, you'd just be undermining the validity of the Bible in the end. If you want to debate this point please read my other post and respond to the points I've made there.

Second, the history of the church as it has developed over the centuries. When you presuppose your completed image of what the church should be, it is very easy to read that back into the history in an anachronistic fashion. It is better to start with the Bible, since it is the writings of the first Christians, then work your way through the history up to the present day. Essentially, it is better to read the history forwards, not backwards.
I'm not pre-supposing at all. And again, please refer to my post above. I'm happy to explain and debate but I insist that you actually read and respond to what I already wrote as I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing repeatedly. Actually it's funny you should phrase it that way though because the Church came before the Bible. So you're accusing me of doing things backwards, but that is precisely what you are actually doing.

Here's why it matters. The whole point of "Apostolic Succession" is to mark out the one, true church. If there are multiple churches with AS that are not in communion with each other, then AS has failed to accomplish it's purpose. The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics, it didn't prevent the church from schisming and fractioning later on.

Moreover, it would be anachronistic to assume that AS is the mechanism the Apostles used to preserve the Church from error. Their answer was never "just trust the bishop." Their answer, even to the bishops, was "I commend you to the Word of God" and "The Scripture is able to make you fully equipped for every good work."
The point of Apostolic succession is not just historical continuity or "guarding from error" but a living guarantee of the Church’s identity and faithfulness to Christ. It is understood in several interrelated ways:
  • Continuity of the Church – Apostolic succession ensures that the Orthodox Church today is the same Church founded by Christ and the Apostles, not a new or breakaway institution. The Bishops stand in the same line of ministry as the apostles, preserving the visible, historical Church.
  • Guardianship of True Faith – Apostolic succession safeguards the integrity of the Apostolic teaching (Holy Tradition). The Bishops are not inventors of doctrine but custodians of what the Apostles handed down.
  • Sacramental Validity – In Orthodoxy, the succession is tied to the reality of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and ordination. A Bishop in Apostolic succession is seen as the one who rightly ordains clergy and presides over the Eucharist, ensuring the continuity of Christ’s presence in the Church.
  • Unity in the Spirit – It expresses the unity of the Church across time and space. The unbroken chain symbolizes the Church’s life in the Holy Spirit, connecting the local church to the universal Body of Christ.
In other words, Apostolic succession is essential but not sufficient by itself to guarantee the fullness of the Church’s continuity and correctness for the following reasons:
  • Succession + Fidelity to the Apostolic Faith - Apostolic succession is more than a legal-historical chain of ordinations. It must be accompanied by faithfulness to the Apostolic teaching (Holy Tradition). A bishop in valid succession who departs from the faith (e.g., by adopting heresy or separating from the fullness of the Church) still has the succession in a technical sense, but is no longer exercising it within the fullness of the Church.
  • Schism vs. Apostasy - The Orthodox Church acknowledges that Rome, the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, etc.), and others possess valid succession in the sense of an unbroken episcopal line, but Orthodoxy sees their separation as a schism (and in Rome’s case, later doctrinal deviations). This doesn’t invalidate the principle of succession but it highlights that succession alone isn’t the full guarantee of being the Church; it must be paired with unity in right faith and communion.
  • The Orthodox Understanding of “the Church” - For Orthodoxy, the Church isn’t simply all communities with Apostolic succession. The Church is defined as the community that maintains both right belief (Orthodoxy of faith) and right worship and sacramental life in the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession is the vessel, but fidelity to the Apostolic faith is what fills it with life.
So does schism mean Apostolic succession has “failed”? No. From the Orthodox perspective, the schisms show the tragic reality of human sin and division, not the failure of God’s gift. Apostolic succession continues as the foundation of the Church’s continuity, but only where it is united with right faith and communion.

In short: Apostolic succession is necessary but not self-sufficient. Orthodoxy holds that succession without fidelity to the truth is incomplete. The Orthodox Church holds both together, which is why it does not see itself as weakened by the existence of parallel lines of succession outside of communion.

Put another way, Apostolic succession in the Orthodox view is the means by which the Church remains the same Apostolic Church, faithfully preserving both the teaching and sacramental life given by Christ to the Apostles.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church and no one is saying Christ is wrong. What is wrong is this interpretation the the Church was built on one Apostle and not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I invite you to look at patristic commentary of this passage. Two great fathers, Augustine and Chrysostom, say that Matthew 16:18 teaches that the Church is built on Peter's confession, that is, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Even Peter says in his own letter that Christ is the rock. The first person to interpret the passage in this way: the Church being founded on one Apostle, was a Roman pope, in order to legitimize the Papacy.


I don't write off the earthly church. I'm a member of it. But I don't limit the spiritual church to my earthly church. That's the difference between us. I recognize that the church is a broader concept than just my local congregation, and even my denomination.
They haven't, and they won't, because Christ promised this. And I mean this with the utmost respect and love, but no, you aren't a member of His earthly Church. As for your claims, I will do my best to explain.

Christ is the true foundation of the Church​

The Orthodox Church fully agrees: the Church is built on Christ Himself, not on one man apart from Him. Scripture and the Fathers are clear that Christ is the cornerstone (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20, 1 Pet 2:4–8). Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is indeed central. The Church exists only because of Christ’s person and saving work.

The Apostles as the foundation in Christ​

At the same time, scripture also speaks of the Church being “built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets” (Eph 2:20). That doesn’t mean they replace Christ, but that Christ established His Church through their witness, preaching, and sacramental ministry. Peter is singled out in Matthew 16:18 not because the Church is “Peter’s church,” but because he was the first to confess Christ clearly, and Christ chose him to symbolize the unity of the Apostolic witness.

Patristic nuance: Peter​

Many Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, etc.) interpret the “rock” as Peter’s confession of Christ, but the Fathers often speak in “both/and,” not “either/or”. Some Fathers say the rock is Christ Himself. Others say the rock is Peter’s confession. Others (like Cyprian, Leo the Great) say Peter personally symbolizes the unity of the Apostolic office. Orthodoxy doesn’t reduce it to a single meaning. It holds that Peter’s faith, his confession, and his role among the Apostles all show how the Church is grounded in Christ through the Apostles.

The Orthodox claim of continuity​

Where Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism is in the understanding of how this Apostolic foundation is preserved. The Orthodox Church is the historical continuation of the one Church Christ founded through the Apostles. The Apostles ordained bishops, who ordained successors, and this unbroken line continues today. This is not about one man (Peter or the pope), but about the college of bishops, in communion, maintaining both the faith and sacramental life given by Christ. So when the Orthodox say the Church was “founded on the Apostles” they mean: Christ Himself is the cornerstone, but He deliberately used the Apostles as the human foundation of His visible earthly Church, and the Orthodox Church is the direct continuation of that same Apostolic body.

When a Protestant says something like “the Church can’t be founded on Peter” (I don't know if you believe this or not) they’re often assuming Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism, and that Orthodoxy claims a papal-style supremacy of Peter, but Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that. The Church isn’t built on “one man” in Rome. It’s built on Christ, confessed by the Apostles, and handed down in the life of the Church through Apostolic succession and fidelity to the truth.

In summary, Christ is the foundation. The apostles, including Peter, are the foundation in Christ. The Orthodox Church is the living continuation of that Apostolic foundation. Orthodoxy has always grounded its authority in Christ and the undivided Apostolic tradition.

Just to make this super clear, the Orthodox Church does not believe that Apostolic succession alone guards from error. The Church is preserved in truth through a living synergy of:
  • Holy Tradition (scripture within the Church’s life and worship)
  • The Ecumenical Councils (where Bishops gathered, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to resolve heresies and affirm right doctrine)
  • The consensus of the Fathers and the life of the Saints (witnesses of the Spirit’s presence in each generation)
  • The whole body of the Church (clergy and laity together receiving and confirming the truth, as in the reception of the councils)
This is how the Church has historically discerned truth from error, not by “just trusting the Bishop,” but by the whole Church guided by the Holy Spirit, preserving the faith once delivered to the Saints. Orthodox do not believe in infallability like the Roman Catholics. However when there is a valid Council and the various authorities debate and weigh in on the issues, guided by the Holy Spirit, those decisions are believed to be correct and binding. It's not remotely the same thing as the concept of an infallible Pope, which is a heresy imho, and is obviously not what I am advocating for.

By contrast, Protestantism is lacking this historical continuity and conciliar discernment which places the burden of interpretation on each individual or denomination. This leaves it extremely vulnerable to fragmentation and mis-guided or conflicting teachings, since it does not have the collective memory, the tested wisdom, or the Spirit-guided discernment of the historic Church to safeguard doctrine. Protestants often say that the Bible is enough, but they don't even fully understand it and never can, without the combined wisdom and traditions of the Orthodox Church, from which the Bible originated in the first place. The Orthodox Church has literally thousands of years of both oral and written tradition, and not everything that is vital to Christianity is even in the Bible. At least the Romans and the Copts still posess much of this treasure, while Protestantism on the other hand, separated from this living continuity, cannot claim or posses the same wisdom or safeguards, which explains why there are literally thousands of different "churches" that are all doing different things.
 
Back
Top