a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

[1Tim215Mommy]

Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick

History. Specifically the existence of the Holy Orthodox Church and the 7 Ecumenical Councils that confirm it as the Church established by Christ.

 

[prodromos]

I’m pretty sure that Catholicism has produced more holy men and women than all of the other Christian denominations combined.

As long as you don’t consider the Orthodox Church as one of those denominations, you are probably correct.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As long as you don’t consider the Orthodox Church as one of those denominations, you are probably correct.

You are “Catholicism” I know that’s difficult to accept. There is only “one” Church, there is no mention of the “other” Church in history. Our prayers are with you. We’re coming back for you all now, we lost you at the seventh council. I think it was the language and short tempered male egos. “Ecumenical” Jesus Loves You, and so do we.

 

[prodromos]

You are “Catholicism” I know that’s difficult to accept.

Not at all. We have never identified ourselves as anything but the one holy catholic and apostolic church. What I find difficult to accept is your claiming all the Orthodox Saints, which include many who reject the papacy.

There is only “one” Church, there is no mention of the “other” Church in history. Our prayers are with you. We’re coming back for you all now, we lost you at the seventh council. I think it was the language and short tempered male egos. “Ecumenical” Jesus Loves You, and so do we.

All I can say is you don’t appear to be reading the same history that I am

 

[PRmerger]

My! My! My! You really are “…ever soooo tired …”.

Sorry dear, I was actually putting an ad-lib onto the end of Patrick’s reply to you.)

Protector.

I am even more confused now!

How could you have been “putting an ad-lib” to Patrick’s post to me, which was post #116, when your post was #115.

Could you please 'splain to me why you included my post in #115? Whatever could you be meaning?

 

[PRmerger]

What I find difficult to accept is your claiming all the Orthodox Saints, which include many who reject the papacy.

If they “reject the papacy” then they have departed from the Orthodox faith which “accepts” the papacy, so it’s curious that they would be considered saints in your churches.

 

[Taurks]

PRmerger:

If they “reject the papacy” then they have departed from the Orthodox faith which “accepts” the papacy, so it’s curious that they would be considered saints in your churches.

GaryTaylor:

You are “Catholicism” I know that’s difficult to accept. There is only “one” Church, there is no mention of the “other” Church in history. Our prayers are with you. We’re coming back for you all now, we lost you at the seventh council. I think it was the language and short tempered male egos. “Ecumenical” Jesus Loves You, and so do we.

I guess we can only say we disagree, and we’ll have to leave it at that

 

[PJM]

=1Tim215Mommy;11752762]History. Specifically the existence of the Holy Orthodox Church and the 7 Ecumenical Councils that confirm it as the Church established by Christ.

Dear brother in Christ:

Were either Peter , Paul or John part of the In Schism Eastern Church?

I make no claim that the Orthodox are not founded by Apostles. However you all were a PART OF Christ one Church for nearly 1,000 years Before your Fathers chose to seperate
From the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical fact, so how your able to bend this reality to you being the church founded by Christ, [instead of the RCC] will be most interesting

Christ didn’t really do anything shocking in choosing to found One Church; with One Faith and One true God; He was following what He had previously done with Choosing only the Hebrew Nation as His Chosen people; also with only One Faith and One true God.

I’m certainly open to hear what I don’t seem to understand. But please friend, share the evidence along with your opinions.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Tzimisce]

Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Jehovah is the God of the Jews. The Old Testament is solely about the Jews.

Jesus came. He was a Rabbi. He had twelve disciples. They were all Jews. Judas killed himself. Jesus replaced him with another Jew.

I don’t believe that Jesus came for the Gentiles. He might have spoken about them or made vague references too them. But he wasn’t here for them.

After Jesus disappeared into the desert, his disciples tried to continue his work. They went into the Synagogues because they were Jews. And the Rabbis in those temples threw them out into the streets. So the disciples began to preach outside the Synagogues.

The people in the streets were Gentiles. Only then did the mass conversion begin.

It didn’t take long for the Gentiles to start to outnumber the Jews. This caused a problem for the new Christian movement. How can non-Jews be a part of Jesus’s movement? Jesus was a very devote Jew.

One of the disciples (John I think) argued that Jesus had created a new covenant with God. Thus - some of the old rules like circumcision didn’t apply anymore. The argument won out and thus Christianity was created.

I don’t believe this. Jesus was a practicing Jew up till the day he disappeared. Christians who want to be like him should hold Saturday as the Sabbath day. They should stop eating pork. They should be circumcised - just like Jesus was.

The Bible only makes sense if someone looks at it from the Jewish perspective. The “Angry God” of the Old Testament and the “Loving God” of the New Testament is very consistent if looked at from the Jewish perspective.

Even the Catholics themselves refer to the Jews as “God’s Chosen people”.

I don’t reject the God of the Jews. I don’t deny the God of the Jews. I’ve just never been included in his covenants, his history, his promises.

 

[Taurks]

Dear brother in Christ:

Were either Peter , Paul or John part of the In Schism Eastern Church?

I make no claim that the Orthodox are not founded by Apostles. However you all were a PART OF Christ one Church for nearly 1,000 years Before your Fathers chose to seperate
From the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical fact, so how your able to bend this reality to you being the church founded by Christ, [instead of the RCC] will be most interesting

Christ didn’t really do anything shocking in choosing to found One Church; with One Faith and One true God; He was following what He had previously done with Choosing only the Hebrew Nation as His Chosen people; also with only One Faith and One true God.

I’m certainly open to hear what I don’t seem to understand. But please friend, share the evidence along with your opinions.

God Bless you!
Patrick

Dear Brother, we have reason to believe we are correct. At the council of Chalcedon, an anathema was issued over anyone who would ever change the wording of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Seven hundred years later, the Pope desired to change it, and logically he must be seen as the party who broke away:

"These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (ἑτέραν πίστιν), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed (ἕτερον σύμβολον) so as to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

 

[Taurks]

Jehovah is the God of the Jews. The Old Testament is solely about the Jews.

Jesus came. He was a Rabbi. He had twelve disciples. They were all Jews. Judas killed himself. Jesus replaced him with another Jew.

I don’t believe that Jesus came for the Gentiles. He might have spoken about them or made vague references too them. But he wasn’t here for them.

I wonder - there are a few instances in the Bible where Jesus involves the Gentiles (specifically the Romans) as if there was no distinction. I was always under the impression that it made no difference to him what nationality or ethnicity one was:

Zaccheus [a Roman citizen] stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” 9And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Matthew 8:5-13
When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a [Roman] centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

 

[dzheremi]

Jesus was a practicing Jew up till the day he disappeared. Christians who want to be like him should hold Saturday as the Sabbath day. They should stop eating pork. They should be circumcised - just like Jesus was.

They should be Tewahedo? But those people are already Christians.

(Also, the Copts circumcise, too, though pork is not ritually forbidden to them…it’s just not very popular for cultural reasons.)

 

[prodromos]

I make no claim that the Orthodox are not founded by Apostles. However you all were a PART OF Christ one Church for nearly 1,000 years Before your Fathers chose to seperate
From the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical fact, so how your able to bend this reality to you being the church founded by Christ, [instead of the RCC] will be most interesting

There was no seperation from the Catholic Church by the Eastern Patriarchates. A few bone headed legates from Rome were excommunicated for overstepping their authority but there was no seperation from Rome. Perhaps the beginning of Rome’s separation from the Church was due to their subsequent crowning of one of those excommunicated bonehead legates as Pope? I can see how that might have been a contributing factor.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There was no seperation from the Catholic Church by the Eastern Patriarchates. A few bone headed legates from Rome were excommunicated for overstepping their authority but there was no seperation from Rome. Perhaps the beginning of Rome’s separation from the Church was due to their subsequent crowning of one of those excommunicated bonehead legates as Pope? I can see how that might have been a contributing factor.

That’s a 2-headed coin.

 

[Taurks]

Dear brother in Christ:

Were either Peter , Paul or John part of the In Schism Eastern Church?

I make no claim that the Orthodox are not founded by Apostles. However you all were a PART OF Christ one Church for nearly 1,000 years Before your Fathers chose to seperate
From the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical fact, so how your able to bend this reality to you being the church founded by Christ, [instead of the RCC] will be most interesting

Christ didn’t really do anything shocking in choosing to found One Church; with One Faith and One true God; He was following what He had previously done with Choosing only the Hebrew Nation as His Chosen people; also with only One Faith and One true God.

I’m certainly open to hear what I don’t seem to understand. But please friend, share the evidence along with your opinions.

God Bless you!
Patrick

Dear Brother,
While it is impossible to solve 1000 years of history and theological debate in a short message, I would just simply say (with humility and with no ill-will) that the Orthodox have reasons to hold their position. At the council of Ephesus, the Church declared in its seventh canon there may be no future changes to the Nicene Creed, or to issue a new one:

“When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith (ἑτέραν πίστιν) as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different Creed (ἕτερον σύμβολον), or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That dear friend is not only wrong; and untrue; its a lack of charity.
There are in excess of a BILLION catholics world wide; amd MANY Saints.

Are we to assume that your faith has to failures?

God Bless you,
Patrick

GK Chesterton said:
“There is only one unanswerable argument against Christianity: Christians. They prove conclusively what the Bible teaches about the Fall.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I wonder - there are a few instances in the Bible where Jesus involves the Gentiles (specifically the Romans) as if there was no distinction. I was always under the impression that it made no difference to him what nationality or ethnicity one was:

This is but one of the mistakes that Tzimisce has in his post, but you are correct.

St. Paul says it explicitely:
Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ro 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

 

[Protector]

PRmerger;11753147]I am even more confused now!

How could you have been “putting an ad-lib” to Patrick’s post to me, which was post #116, when your post was #115.

Sorry dear lady, just trying to get to grips with my new Apps. I actually thought that I had tacked it onto the end of Tomyris’s post as follows:-

Tomyris;11748122] Peter rejected Jesus three times, but Judas only once. The difference is forgiveness. …How much worse punishment do you think will fall on those who had full and complete knowledge of what they were doing in exchanging Christ for secular, worldly power and wealth, those who were supposedly full of the Holy Spirit and charged to lead His flock, than Judas got, who possibly did not have full and complete information and… may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right?

*** **and… ***** may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right?

Protector: As did Saul of Tarsus, whilst consenting to the stoning of Stephen (c.AD 34), and subsequently rounding-up and persecuting Christians.

Christ Himself said to the disciples,

Quote:
***“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” ***John 16:2

PRmerger;11753147] Could you please 'splain to me why you included my post in #115? Whatever could you be meaning?

I could claim temporary insanity occasioned by a side effect of forcibly injecting new technology into a relatively old brain. I had meant to “cut” the irrelevant sections of the two posts out so that my ad-lib would have made sense. I have no desire to instigate an Austral/American confrontation.

I hope that you are keeping well PR.

Protector.

 

[prodromos]

That’s a 2-headed coin.

Its odd that you have never suggested such a thing when your brethren post.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Dear brother in Christ:

Were either Peter , Paul or John part of the In Schism Eastern Church?

I make no claim that the Orthodox are not founded by Apostles. However you all were a PART OF Christ one Church for nearly 1,000 years Before your Fathers chose to seperate
From the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical fact, so how your able to bend this reality to you being the church founded by Christ, [instead of the RCC] will be most interesting

Christ didn’t really do anything shocking in choosing to found One Church; with One Faith and One true God; He was following what He had previously done with Choosing only the Hebrew Nation as His Chosen people; also with only One Faith and One true God.

I’m certainly open to hear what I don’t seem to understand. But please friend, share the evidence along with your opinions.

God Bless you!
Patrick

**Dearest Patrick,

I understand that from the modern Catholic point of view, it was the Orthodox Church that left Catholicism and not the other way around. And from your post, this seems to be the point of view that you have as well.

I’m not responding to your post to change your point of view…but simply to express mine.**

My point of view is based on my reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils and also the Church Fathers on both sides of the isle of two issues behind the eventual ex-communication in 1054 of Rome by Patriarch of Constantinople (this ex-communication of the Church of Rome was ultimately upheld by the other 3 Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria & Jerusalem in addition to Constantinople):

1. The changes to the Creed formulated by the Councils of Nicea & Constantinople.
2. Papal Supremacy

The First Issue argued by the West & the East** though it was originally argue by the West (local council of Toledo, Spain & the Franks) against the West (Patriarch of Rome)** : was the Nicean-Constantinoplian Creed

This issue encompassed both the making of the changes to the Creed by the West & also the content of one of the two changes made by the West.

The 1st Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (as well as confirmed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils) had issued an Anathama against any Christian who dared to believed or teach another Creed & on any Christian who changed the Creed so much as an iota.

The content added by the West was 2 separate phrases: “God from God” (Jesus is God from God the Father) besides falling under the multiple Anathamas - this phrase wasn’t an issue of Faith since the Creed already read “True God from True God” which conveys the same Truth, BUT the 2nd phrase added “And the Son” (The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father & the Son) - this is was a huge issue!!! Because not only did it fall under the multiple Anathamas, it was an issue of Faith since this phrase contradicted what had always been taught from the beginning of the Church.** This phrase “And the Son”, in Latin “Filioque”, was originally promoted by a local council in Spain & the Franks, but condemned as heretical by the Patriarchs (Popes) of Rome. It was eventually accepted by a later Patriarch (Pope) of Rome - some historians record that the eventual acceptance of the change to the Creed by Rome was a concession made in order for Rome to gain the power to coronate Charlemagne.**

The Second Issue was of Papal Supremacy (Note: It wasn’t Papal Infallibility - that idea hadn’t even entered the imaginations of anyone yet).

A few things:

1. Per an Ecumenical Council, Rome held a special place in the Church - specifically the Patriarch of Rome was given the title of First Among Equals. The Ecumenical Council detailed that it was because Rome (Old Rome) had been the Imperial City and Constantinople held 2nd place as it was the New Rome/New Imperial City. The point to be stressed here is that all Bishops are Equals.
2. Over the centuries, as Rome continued to become isolated from the other 4 Patriarchs not only by location but also by language - the rest of the Church continued to use Greek while Rome had changed to use Latin - and was under consistently attack by the barbarians. Rome became the Mecca of the West and began to see themselves the whole enchilada, so to speak, with a jurisdiction not only of Rome but of the whole world.
3. Later their writings began to included references to their importance being based on St. Peter founding the Church in Rome to back up their claims - forgetting perhaps that it was both Sts. Peter & Paul who jointly founded the Church in Rome AND forgetting perhaps that St. Peter first founded the Church in Antioch before ever going to Rome. Both the Patriarchs of Church of Antioch & of the Church of Rome have authentic Apostolic Succession back to St. Peter - yet Antioch wasn’t named 2nd to Rome by the Ecumenical Council, Constantinople was - a confirmation that Rome’s importance wasn’t due to the person or office of St. Peter.
4. History shows that the Church always recognized all Bishops as being equal in authority - including Metropolitans & Patriarchs, while Bishops of the largest cities were called Patriarch. Over the centuries, as the Orthodox Church has grown, new Patriarchates have been named as such - like Moscow - based on their size & secular importance.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about anything Patrick. I’m just letting you know on what I base my point of view.