DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**popsicesHoupe** · 12-20-2007, 02:08 AM

No! it is not true that Orthodoxy is the root of the tree of all of Christianity. This idea is the "Branch Theory" which I know has been condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox (at least) The Orthodox Church is it's own tree! The Tree of Life! we are not a part of any other churches.

In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ").

As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation.

In Christ,
Mike

12-20-2007, 02:08 AM	#7
popsicesHoupe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 417 Senior Member	No! it is not true that Orthodoxy is the root of the tree of all of Christianity. This idea is the "Branch Theory" which I know has been condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox (at least) The Orthodox Church is it's own tree! The Tree of Life! we are not a part of any other churches. In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ"). As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation. In Christ, Mike
	Quote