A Historical Dare to Protestants

[jblake]

elvisman;:

I’m not confusing anything Re-read my post - slowly.

I read your post a number of times.

The simplest explanation of your assumptions, was that they were based upon confusing two different things, and not realising it.

Since that explanation of your assumptions is to be rejected as inaccurate…

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

The Church never chose to be a denomination and didn’t want the East to go it’s own way.

In as much as Rome refused to accept the discipline of the Spiritual leaders of the other branches, claiming that it didn’t want the East to go its own way, is, at best, misleading.

jonathon

 

[mmplps7783]

I understand.

---

The problem with changing churches every time you disagree with something is that your search for the truth will never end.
Jesus established ONE Church with ONE authority (Matt. 16:15-10, Matt. 18:15-18) and he felt so strongly about it that he identified his very self with it (Acts 9:7).

---

As for the scripture reference - it was only to show that pure and undefiled religion is good. Some people are offended by that word because they don’t really understand what it means.

I understand. And yes I am constantly searching. I know that man is falible that is why I don’t put my trust in man(i.e.organized religion). I do agree with your point that undefiled religion is good. But how am I supposed to know which religion has been undefiled?

 

[elvisman]

In as much as Rome refused to accept the discipline of the Spiritual leaders of the other branches, claiming that it didn’t want the East to go its own way, is, at best, misleading.

jonathon

Again - either you’re a victim or a perpetrator of revisionism.

Rome didn’t refuse - Rome was rejected by the East. The Authority of the Church challenged - not the other way around.
Read up on this subject instead of making false claims.

When one approaches history correctly and honestly, the OP can only lead to one irrefutable fact:
The Catholic Curch is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st Century.

"To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant."
Cardinal John Henry Newman, Catholic Convert

 

[mmplps7783]

The Great Schism did take place but you have it backwards, my friend.

**You like to play word games. This is what you *actually ***said:
"The Great Schism, when the Roman Catholic Church formally separated itself from Christianity, choosing to be its own denomination."
**That **is a lie. The Church never chose to be a denomination and didn’t want the East to go it’s own way. You really need to do some homework here instead of making silly statements like this.

The Catholic Church didn’t separate itself from anything. It was the Church. The Church in the East (Greek) separated itself from the Church in Rome (Latin) for a variety of reasons that included authority and location.

I hate to sound naive (too late?) but I just have one kind of confused question. If these two Catholic Churches (one Roman one Greek) seperated than why wouldn’t both be considered the “true” Catholic church?

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

The Church never chose to be a denomination and didn’t want the East to go it’s own way.

If they didn’t want the East to go its own way, why didn’t the Bishop of Rome submit to the discipleship of the leaders of the other branches of Christianity?

The Church in the East (Greek) separated itself from the Church in Rome (Latin) for a variety of reasons that included authority and location.

2 Tim 2:15-19 applied to the Bishop of Rome. Since he didn’t adhere to it, The Church acted according to the principles of Titus 3:0-11.

jonathon

 

[Namesake]

We know you people who don’t want a church … you don’t want to have to think too hard about which church is the true church … all you want is direct contact with God, no fuss, no muss, just Sunday morning sleep-ins!

Well, if having Sunday off was good enough for God it is good enough for me. He took the day off so I figure that sets a pretty good example for the rest of us. On that day He rested, ya know?

 

[stbruderklaus]

EpLao. 3Cor is the other book that is no longer found in any NT Canon. There are roughly a dozen NT books in the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) that aren’t in the Catholic NT.

jonathon

Perhaps I misunderstood something you wrote earlier, but how was the ommision of this book you reference, an act of Luther? If it was not in the western canon, why would anyone expect him to have added it?

Also, if it is only represented in the Ethiopian canon, chances are it did not receive catholic approval / recognition of authenticity. But as I am certainly not a scholar of the Ethiopian canon, I would have to do extensive research to speak to that. I think I am fairly well versed in how the western canon was established and collected, and I’m not familiar with this text you note ever having broad acceptance in the western church.

Cheers.

 

[elvisman]

I understand. And yes I am constantly searching. I know that man is falible that is why I don’t put my trust in man(i.e.organized religion). I do agree with your point that undefiled religion is good. But how am I supposed to know which religion has been undefiled?

Belong to the Church established by Jesus himself. There is only one (Matt. 16:15-19, Matt. 18:15-18).
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Paul calls this Church (there was only one):
"…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

In John 16:13-15, Jesus tells his Apostles:
"But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. ****He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine an*d declare it to you. *
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

He didn’t say this to any other Church but the one he established.
Finally, Jesus thought that his Church was important enough to identify his very self with it (Acts 9:4-5):
**He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" **
He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Do you notice that Jesus didn’t say, “Why are you persecuting my Church”? That’s what Saul was doing.
Jesus said, "Why are you persecuting ME."

If it’s that important to Jesus - it should be that important to you and me.

God Bless.

 

[jblake]

mmplps7783;:

If these two Catholic Churches (one Roman one Greek) seperated than why wouldn’t both be considered the “true” Catholic church?

At the risk of confusing you even more, Oriental Christianity and Orthodox Christianity separated even earlier. From the outside, the Oriental/Orthodox split looks ridiculous, since the major issue revolves around what a specific phrase does, or does not mean, when translated into a third language. (They are talking about unification, but a millennia and a half about misunderstanding what a word means, has resulted in a number of other wounds, on both sides, that have to be healed.)

Anyway, both Oriental and Orthodox Christianity can claim to be the “true” Catholic Church ---- a point that is usually lost on Catholic Christianity.

jonathon

 

[stbruderklaus]

You’re clever with fonts and colors, but I don’t think you’ve actually read the history you seek to purport. The claims of Rome to domination over the other historic Patriarchs was never a part of the first 5 centuries of the church, which is among the reasons why it stayed together so well. By the 7th century, Rome was starting to feel its imperial oats (evidenced by the contankerous bouts between Patriarchs) and eventually split when Rome demanded not only complete and total fealty from the other Patriarchs, but assumed the new right of Rome to make adjustments to previous rulings of Ecumenical Councils on their own fiat.

Thus, it was the Roman Patriarch who walked away, in his own hubris, from the other 4 great historic Patriarchs. 4 to 1 sure sounds like the minority was the schismatic… not the majority.

Cheers.

OOPS… wrong quote… was directing that at the other fellow.

 

[elvisman]

I hate to sound naive (too late?) but I just have one kind of confused question. If these two Catholic Churches (one Roman one Greek) seperated than why wouldn’t both be considered the “true” Catholic church?

Because they broke off from authority of the Church in Rome. That’s what “schism” means - “a formal division in or separation”.

**The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Whereas they may be Holy and Apostolic, they don’t retain all 4 marks of the Church. **

In other words, they do have Apostolic succession because they can trace their roots (as the Catholic Church can) all the way back to the Apostles. They don’t, however, possess all 4 marks of the true Church as professed in the Council of Nicea.

I hope this helps.

 

[jblake]

stbruderklaus;:

If it was not in the western canon, why would anyone expect him to have added it?

It was canonical for the German Catholic Church.

if it is only represented in the Ethiopian canon, chances are it did not receive catholic approval / recognition of uthenticity.

The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty one (both the broader canon and narrower canon) contain a number of books not found in the Orthodox Canon. Depending upon how one counts, the difference is between ten and twenty five.

In as much as the Ethiopiac Church never claimed fealty to Rome, there is no reason why their Canon should have been subject to approval there. The Bishop that they claimed fealty to, did accept their canon. (More precisely he didn’t order it to either be closed, or changed. The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) is still open. I’ve forgotten why, but nobody (either collectively, or as an individual) who might have the authority to do so, wants to close it. )

jonathon

 

[stbruderklaus]

Because they broke off from authority of the Church in Rome. That’s what “schism” means - “a formal division in or separation”.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Whereas they may be Holy and Apostolic, they don’t retain all 4 marks of the Church.

In other words, they do have Apostolic succession because they can trace their roots (as the Catholic Church can) all the way back to the Apostles. They don’t, however, possess all 4 marks of the true Church as professed in the Council of Nicea.

I hope this helps.

I think my Orthodox friends would find great fault with your logic, and your historical applications (of course, they aren’t too wild about my Lutheran tradition, either.)

That Petrine claim to total domination of the entire Body of Christ is not found in the early Fathers, and is certainly not a catholic opinion. It is, by all means, a Roman opinion… which is why the Romans have such a hard time speaking of their catholicity when they engage the Orthodox. Frankly, I think the Orthodox have a better claim to being truly catholic than either Romans or Lutherans… though a thousand years of seperation is hard to reconcile these days.

Of course, with Metropolitan Kirill in Russia and our current Pope, who’s to say it won’t happen? If they could kiss and make up, this Lutheran would be heading over there, too.

Cheers.

 

[elvisman]

You’re clever with fonts and colors, but I don’t think you’ve actually read the history you seek to purport. The claims of Rome to domination over the other historic Patriarchs was never a part of the first 5 centuries of the church, which is among the reasons why it stayed together so well. By the 7th century, Rome was starting to feel its imperial oats (evidenced by the contankerous bouts between Patriarchs) and eventually split when Rome demanded not only complete and total fealty from the other Patriarchs, but assumed the new right of Rome to make adjustments to previous rulings of Ecumenical Councils on their own fiat.

Thus, it was the Roman Patriarch who walked away, in his own hubris, from the other 4 great historic Patriarchs. 4 to 1 sure sounds like the minority was the schismatic… not the majority.

Cheers.

OOPS… wrong quote… was directing that at the other fellow.

It’s not the odds that count.
The Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of the Church.
Those who refused this truth broke away - not the other way around.

 

[elvisman]

I think my Orthodox friends would find great fault with your logic, and your historical applications (of course, they aren’t too wild about my Lutheran tradition, either.)

That Petrine claim to total domination of the entire Body of Christ is not found in the early Fathers, and is certainly not a catholic opinion. It is, by all means, a Roman opinion… which is why the Romans have such a hard time speaking of their catholicity when they engage the Orthodox. Frankly, I think the Orthodox have a better claim to being truly catholic than either Romans or Lutherans… though a thousand years of seperation is hard to reconcile these days.

Of course, with Metropolitan Kirill in Russia and our current Pope, who’s to say it won’t happen? If they could kiss and make up, this Lutheran would be heading over there, too.

Cheers.

I agree. They would find fault with what I said.
I also agree with the notion that with our current Pope and the Russian Patriarch, a long overdue reconciliation is possible.

I disagree though, (big surprise) with your assertion that the Orthodox Church has a “better claim to being truly catholic” than the Catholic Church.
I also disagree with your usage of the term “total domination”. The Petrine succession IS supported by the Early Fathers.

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

In other words, they have Apostolic succession because they can trace their roots (as the Catholic Church can) all the way back to the Apostles. They don’t, however, possess all marks of the true Church as professed in the Council of Nicea.

Neither does the Church of Rome. (It refused to submit to Authority, thereby losing unity with Christianity.)

Orthodox Christianity, OTOH, still retains the marks as professed by that Council. Oriental Christianity also appears to have those marks. (Appears, because it is unclear whether they go away when one side spends more than a millennia and a half misunderstanding what the other side means. Or as an Oriental Christianity pundit put it (somewhat paraphrased) “We spent more than a millennia patiently explaining that what we meant, and what they meant were identical. They spent more than a millennia refusing to accept that we were talking about the same thing. So we quit talking to them. Now they come back and apologise for misunderstanding us for almost two milennia.”)

jonathon

 

[stbruderklaus]

It was canonical for the German Catholic Church.

The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty one (both the broader canon and narrower canon) contain a number of books not found in the Orthodox Canon. Depending upon how one counts, the difference is between ten and twenty five.

In as much as the Ethiopiac Church never claimed fealty to Rome, there is no reason why their Canon should have been subject to approval there. The Bishop that they claimed fealty to, did accept their canon. (More precisely he didn’t order it to either be closed, or changed. The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) is still open. I’ve forgotten why, but nobody (either collectively, or as an individual) who might have the authority to do so, wants to close it. )

jonathon

Thank you for the clarification. Was the German Catholic Church that you mention a sect in Germany at or before the time of the Reformation? I don’t recall it ever coming up in the conversation between the Lutheran Reformers and the Romans.

 

[stbruderklaus]

It’s not the odds that count.
The Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of the Church.
Those who refused this truth broke away - not the other way around.

The problem, bro, is that this notion is not ever set down in an ecumenical council… isn’t that odd? The idea of total control of the Catholic Church residing with just one of the ancient Patriarchs just never came up in the first 7 ecumenical councils. I find that fascinating. However, the things that did come up, included excommunicating a heretical Roman Pope, and establishing at least for a time the “primacy” of Patriarchates other than Rome (Jerusalem and Constantinople, at different times, if I recall.)

So in all that hustle and bustle, the domination of the Roman Patriarch over the other Patriarchs never got set down in the canons nor the councils… and when Rome stands up and declares this new dogma, 1000 years after the Apostles, driving away the rest of the ancient Patriarchs, we’re supposed to believe that the Patriarchs who refused Roman innovation are the ones who left the Catholic Church?!?

Frankly, I think your definition of catholicity is what’s really wanting. That term, by the way, was defined by the Church Fathers… and not a single mention of Roman primacy was in that definition. Being the scholar of ecclesiastical history that you present yourself to be, would you like to enlighten us with the Fathers’ defintion of catholicity?

Peace.

 

[elvisman]

Thank you for the clarification. Was the German Catholic Church that you mention a sect in Germany at or before the time of the Reformation? I don’t recall it ever coming up in the conversation between the Lutheran Reformers and the Romans.

I really appreaciate the dialogue, but could you please stop using the term, “Romans” when speaking of the Catholic Church?
It is a derogatory term.