B
brb2
Guest
Its your church affiliation … so you tell us.
The Orthodox left the RCC … after 1000 years, over Filoque matter, etc.
- Status
The Orthodox left the RCC … after 1000 years, over Filoque matter, etc.
I
irisfromohio
Guest
You NAILED this one, because it was what drew me to Catholicism. Even though I was very young when I discovered the attraction, I remember arguing the pastor of Grace A.M.E. (African Methodist Episcopal)in Bible School, that the Catholic Church was the church Jesus founded. My arguments were not very sophisticated, but I recall making the point that the version of the Bible we were studying was getting farther and farther away from its original meaning. He wasn’t pleased and I believe he spoke to my mother, because it was shortly after that “discussion” that she encouraged me to explore my feelings of being a Catholic. In fact, she FORCED me to be a member of one of the first RCIA classes in the 70’s at St. Patrick’s in Bellefontaine OH. I was 20 and I have never looked back:thumbsup:This is really cool!!! Most former Protestants who convert will state that is was their study of the early Christian church that brought them to Catholicism. I love the fact that Protestants hold the Bible above all else, without regard that it was not assembled in its current format until around the year 400 AD.
What was the church before (and after) that? Catholic.
Who assembled the Bible in its current format? The Catholic Church.
Therefore, when holding dearly and fervently to “solo scriptura”, our Protestant friends are actually holding to a tradition of men. The tradition of the organization, what books to include (with some exception), even the tradition of the identity of the sacred authors.
The men who established all of this were what kind of men? Catholic.
The conclusion is that to hold to the Bible alone is to hold to Catholic tradition. Which is a good thing.
Keep spreading the word! As Archbishop Sheen said to the Holy Spirit, “You convert them and I’ll instruct them.”
I
irisfromohio
Guest
And one more thing with respect to the schism between the RCC & Orthodox traditions:
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Filioque
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Filioque
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You might notice that the Orthodox kept to the catholic - oh I guess I mean Orthodox definition in the filioque question. If you look at that alone, without resorting to real theological discussion, it puts Rome in the “Protestant” position of leaving, not the Orthodox. But again, in a discussion of this particular time line argument, it shows no evidence that the Orthodox were schismatics rather than the Catholics.
I am not sure that bringing in my affiliation is useful, since I’m not actually making an argument for any particular position at all. It seems a bit ad hominem .
J
JustaServant
Guest
Translation: I am unable to give a response, so I won’t even try.
G
GenuineCatholic
Guest
Haha… i never did like you Anglicans. They almost look Catholic and its insulting.
Have you ever noticed that the CATHOLIC Church was the line from Christ, and that all other branches of “Chrisitanity” are merely PROTESTERS? And have you ever realized how eirily close the word protest is to PROTESTant?? Oh wait… THEY COME FROM THE SAME WORD. I’m sorry to break it to you, and to all protestants, but that all you are: Protesters to Christ by protesting His Church.
And the Orthodox are wrong, they are a branch from US. And actually, many Orthodox people will agree. I sometimes attend Orthodox services. They are not protestant, because as someone already stated, they make up the “same lung” as we do. Of course we the Catholic Church already have Byzantine and Ukrainian Catholic Churches which is the same as Orthodox only Catholic, but the Orthodox still fits in right under us, they only lack a couple truths, therefore they are not corruptly protestant like any other “denomination”.
And by the way, i would encourage all you Faithfull Catholics to look up the Independant Catholic Christian Church. It is by far the most disgusting thing i have ever seen. So yes, i would encourage you to look it up and revile against it as i do. You can find it on Youtube as well. rolls eyes
In the end, its boils down to that we have protestants in the world thanks to Satan. Protestants rule the “Church of America”. as Mother Angelica wisely puts it. And guess where the Church of America is headed? To Nothingness. Right now, you take one look in many protestant Churches ((mostly evangelical)) and it is like a business or social hour building. Not a Church. Here in Montana we have Faith Chapel. A place that i would love to see burn. They have TVs in there, that play rap videos!! And they have rock concerts! They dress like they are going to a stripperbar! They kids have the foulest language in there! I would sucker punch ANYONE i heard swear in a Catholic Church!! They decorate the rooms like a party for a playzone!
They do what they want and say what they like. That is where the Protestant “Church of America” is going. Soon, you’ll walk into a protestant “church” and it will be a BOX. With NOTHING in it. Where people can just do and say whatever.
And plus, addressing the issue on Protestants claiming we “add to Scripture”, i have some news for you. WE HAVE PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER! WE HAD IT SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN. You protestants didn’t even exist. It has been the same since it was put together. It was the likes of you demonic protestants who took OUT books that DIDN’T AGREE WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL THEOLOGY. I have heard it said that Martin Luther ((such an abomination)) even took ot Revalation, but the Lutherans eventually put it back in. HAH! I guess protestants actually did something right for once, not that puting the book back in did anything to refreshen their protestant status. They are still a disgrace… But anyhow, its even because of Protestants we have these modernist issues in the CHurch today. But as Scripture says, Not even the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church. You protestants won’t win. And as far as your not believe in our One True Faith, you can decide not to believe in the wall right in front of you, but you’re own personal opinion doesn’t make it any less real. You will walk right into it, and you WILL get hurt. And if your too stupid to change your mind… well i hope you wrap yourself in a lot of bubble wrap and wear a helmet…
J
JustaServant
Guest
The purpose of this timeline is simply to show certain doctrines Catholics (Orthodox and Episcopals) hold to have always been part of the Church. Episcopals and Orthodox hold similar views toward Baptism and the Eucharist. It was actually a few Episcopal priests who pointed me in the direction of the early church to prove these essential doctrines.
My purpose is to show first generation christians believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, and that Baptism was not simply a ‘meaningless symbol’. These things were not simply an 'afterthought.
P
placido
Guest
Can you please provide at least five to ten characteristics that show the differences between the “early church” and the “Roman Catholic church in its current form”?
And where is the “early church” now?
placido
D
deanarrca
Guest
Genuine Catholic I can tell you are passionate and mean well–
But remember
2 Timothy 4:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
I might add you need to correct misconceptions with love too- Saying you wish a protestant Church to burn down is maybe not the way to go in winning hearts or credibility to your side.
I have known strong and wonderful Christians in all the Protestant Churches I have been a member of. I learned to trust and love Jesus in a protestant church. Those who are seeking will find and be led home.
I have seen anti-Catholic fundamentalists go the hate route about the Catholic church.
Using hate is a sure fire way to turn people away from your cause. They will think you are filled with hate and not listen to you and I am sure you don’t want that.
You need to remember we have Christian brothers in the Protestant Churches that just aren’t in full communion with the Church yet. Trust God to lead them home.
But remember
2 Timothy 4:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
I might add you need to correct misconceptions with love too- Saying you wish a protestant Church to burn down is maybe not the way to go in winning hearts or credibility to your side.
I have known strong and wonderful Christians in all the Protestant Churches I have been a member of. I learned to trust and love Jesus in a protestant church. Those who are seeking will find and be led home.
I have seen anti-Catholic fundamentalists go the hate route about the Catholic church.
Using hate is a sure fire way to turn people away from your cause. They will think you are filled with hate and not listen to you and I am sure you don’t want that.
You need to remember we have Christian brothers in the Protestant Churches that just aren’t in full communion with the Church yet. Trust God to lead them home.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Lets stick to the first 100 years.
Seventy years after the Resurrection we have Ignatius telling those he wrote to stay close to the Bishop, and denouncing those who rejected that the Eucharist was Body and Blood of Christ.
Sixty years after the Resurrection we have Clement writing Corinth exhorting them to reinstate a priest they had expelled (which they did). Clement was Bishop of Rome at the time.
Thirty years after the Resurrection (some scholars say twenty) we have the Didache telling us how to Baptize (including sprinkling if running water isn’t available), and telling of a need to reconcile before receiving the Eucharist so that the “sacrifice” (not memorial meal) may be pure.
In structure, sacrament, etc., the Church then was, as the Church now, Catholic.
Seventy years after the Resurrection we have Ignatius telling those he wrote to stay close to the Bishop, and denouncing those who rejected that the Eucharist was Body and Blood of Christ.
Sixty years after the Resurrection we have Clement writing Corinth exhorting them to reinstate a priest they had expelled (which they did). Clement was Bishop of Rome at the time.
Thirty years after the Resurrection (some scholars say twenty) we have the Didache telling us how to Baptize (including sprinkling if running water isn’t available), and telling of a need to reconcile before receiving the Eucharist so that the “sacrifice” (not memorial meal) may be pure.
In structure, sacrament, etc., the Church then was, as the Church now, Catholic.
T
thechristian
Guest
the book of ACTS is the best way to know the church as it suppose to be…yesterday…today…and tommorrow.
God loves you…God bless
God loves you…God bless
D
deanarrca
Guest
Yes you can go to the Bible, but you need to interpret and understand the things written in the Bible the way Jesus and the Apostles understood and taught them.
An Infallible Bible can be interpreted fallibly- so it is indeed important to ask how the Apostles and early church interpreted Scripture.
So why not look at the actual Church too. You will see the book of Acts with greater understanding in real life context and application.
J
JustaServant
Guest
You’re right, and it looks like the first century christians agreed with you:
Compare this verse Luke wrote in Acts:
to this statement by Barnabus probably only a decade or so later:
J
JustaServant
Guest
Taking the Bible out of history is like taking the engine out of your car, putting it on the garage floor and saying ‘thats all I need’.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Wow, your theological argument based on word roots is really convincing, and to the point. Almost as profound as your example of Christian love.
T
thechristian
Guest
Yes you do…yes it can…yes you do…yes we must look at the actual church thru the book of acts YES…I believe so.
God loves you…God bless
J
JustaServant
Guest
Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”
Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.
And around 60 years after Luke penned Acts:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66.
S
St_Aloysius_1
Guest
Thing is, the Orthodox have the timeline wrong. Prior to the schism, they had no problem supporting the Pope and recognizing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
There were several theological battles over the centuries and the Orthodox quit the Church more than once, only to return and swear fidelity to Rome and Christ’s Church. Finally, they split for good.
While the Bishop of Rome has always been the head of the Church and recognized as such, by all, for the first 1000 years of Christianity, there is no such parallel figure in the Orthodox Church. The Eastern Bishops were all under the authority of the Pope until the schism and only had regional authority. This is a fact of history that makes the Orthodox timeline a bit of a fabrication.
T
thechristian
Guest
Yes acts 2:42 does say that…and yes Acts 20:28 does also say that…my point exactly,
that is why we need to look at at acts as model for the church today.
God loves you…God bless
M
macroom2
Guest
Traditional Catholic scholars don’t agree among themselves on the dates and order of the writing of the books of the New Testament. The destruction of the Temple is predicted but the actual destruction is never mentioned, and that would indicate that all or most were written before 70 AD. The Gospel of John is usually given a late date, but the author shows a familiarity with Jerusalem. The ultra liberal Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament gives the arguments for the early composition of all the books.
- Status