The first problem that you run into, though, is that the Eastern Church can also lay claim to the apostles. The early Protestant movements, especially Lutheranism, can also do the same (depending on what you mean by “claim”). To reduce it to the schism between East and West, for the sake of brevity, which of the two is the true visible church of Christ?The thing about all of this is: if the Roman Catholic Church can truly lay claim to the apostles, then it can be said that the Gates of Hell could not have prevailed, therefore the Catholic Church is still the Church of Christ.
Actually it is not a problem at all. And why? Because the CC acknowledges the Orthodox with true Apostolic Succession and a valid priesthood.The first problem that you run into, though, is that the Eastern Church can also lay claim to the apostles. The early Protestant movements, especially Lutheranism, can also do the same (depending on what you mean by “claim”). To reduce it to the schism between East and West, for the sake of brevity, which of the two is the true visible church of Christ?
With substantially different dogmas and practices from each other. They cannot both equally be true.Actually it is not a problem at all. And why? Because the CC acknowledges the Orthodox with true Apostolic Succession and a valid priesthood.
Nope! Name the differences in dogma.With substantially different dogmas and practices from each other. They cannot both equally be true.
The procession of the Holy SpiritNope! Name the differences in dogma.
That’s amazing, those who reject the One Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic Church as not being the true Church directly from the Apostles. Argue by placing the Catholic Church in the history from which they deny the Catholic Church being present.With substantially different dogmas and practices from each other. They cannot both equally be true.
Who on this thread has denied the existence of a Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?That’s amazing, those who reject the One Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic Church as not being the true Church directly from the Apostles. Argue by placing the Catholic Church in the history from which they deny the Catholic Church being present.
Some??? You mean like 300,000,000???Today there are only “some” Orthodox who are out of communion with the pope which defines a “schism” tear if you will, this is never a total separation of the East and West.
So the Orthodox do accept papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and papal supremacy? I am sure they would beg to differ!!Different dogmas? I don’t think so all Catholic dogma is revealed by scripture witnessed by Apostolic Sacred Tradition. These can never change and never have.
Nope! They still are true. Here what the CC Catechism states:The procession of the Holy Spirit
The Immaculate Conception
Purgatory
Number of ecumenical councils
Papal infallibility
Papal supremacy
To name a few. You may seek to minimize such differences, but dogmatic differences they are. If the true visible church is recognized by correct dogma, then either Rome or Orthodoxy is the true visible church. They cannot both be.
Who on this thread has denied the existence of a Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Some??? You mean like 300,000,000???
**So the Orthodox do accept papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and papal supremacy? I am sure they would beg to differ!!/**QUOTE]
Yep! Much like Arians who begged to differ with the Trinity-right? Did the Arians accept the Trinitarian doctrine in 325 A.D.? Does it negate the doctrine back then and today? Rejection does not equate into falsehood.
If they are both still true, does that mean the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Eastern Orthodox rejection of some Western dogmatic statements?Nope! They still are true. Here what the CC Catechism states:
Rejections do not disprove or negate doctrine/dogma. Let me ask you something…okay? Do Jehovah Witnesses reject or accept the dogma of Hell as revealed by God?If they are both still true, does that mean the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Eastern Orthodox rejection of some Western dogmatic statements?
IggyAntiochus;8920958:
QUOTE]Who on this thread has denied the existence of a Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Some??? You mean like 300,000,000???
So the Orthodox do accept papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and papal supremacy? I am sure they would beg to differ!!/
Yep! Much like Arians who begged to differ with the Trinity-right? Did the Arians accept the Trinitarian doctrine in 325 A.D.? Does it negate the doctrine back then and today? Rejection does not equate into falsehood.
No, no one is saying that Nicea. My point here is that the West and East both accept and reject different dogmatic conclusions from the other. As a result, they are two distinct bodies, separate from each other. Both claim to be the true church of the apostles. My point to Zeldarocks is when you are examining whether the Roman Catholic Church is the continuation of the ancient Catholic Church, you must deal with whether or not that continuation exists in Rome or the East. Despite what you or the Catechism are saying, the Eastern churches not in communion with Rome distinctly believe they and they alone are the true successors to the undivided Catholic Church.
They reject it, of course. My point is not that rejection equals truth, but my point is that there cannot be two church bodies which claim to have infallibly revealed dogma that is mutually exclusive and yet both of them be 100% correct. Either one or the other is false.Rejections do not disprove or negate doctrine/dogma. Let me ask you something…okay? Do Jehovah Witnesses reject or accept the dogma of Hell as revealed by God?
Nicea325;8921043:
My brother in Christ,I do believe what you are saying and it is a very legitimate question to ask or present as a non-Catholic Christian. Precisely why the RCC has given explanations about the issue in the Catechism to clear up all the confusion of 1,000 years. As a RCC Christian, I know both the Western and “Orthodox” Eastern churches are to blame for the split.No, no one is saying that Nicea. My point here is that the West and East both accept and reject different dogmatic conclusions from the other. As a result, they are two distinct bodies, separate from each other. Both claim to be the true church of the apostles. My point to Zeldarocks is when you are examining whether the Roman Catholic Church is the continuation of the ancient Catholic Church, you must deal with whether or not that continuation exists in Rome or the East. Despite what you or the Catechism are saying, the Eastern churches not in communion with Rome distinctly believe they and they alone are the true successors to the undivided Catholic Church.
The fact both split does not mean one is “true” and one the other is not the “true” Church of Jesus. Both were ONE for a long time,but you know as I do,human pride,sin,arrogance,etc,etc put a huge strain on both;however,it does not mean both are NOT part of the true church. Separation over the centuries has caused many to ask what you are asking and to even question it-it is all legit. Let us not forget about Peter’s denial aof Our Lord Jesus Christ. I know you do not believe Peter is NOT a “true” Christian or not belonging to Jesus Christ Church…due to his weaknesses and human pride.
Hope that made some sense?
IggyAntiochus;8921056:
All of what you say here is correct, Nicea, and very well put. But I think it still leaves the question hanging as to which best represents apostolic Christianity. Yes, the Orthodox and Rome are very similar to one another, but there are distinct dogmatic differences that are not minor in any sense. So when a serious student of history examines the question of which of the two maintained pure apostolic doctrine, you have to ultimately conclude that its either West or East. There are no quick fixes that apologetic scripts and formulaic responses can answer.My brother in Christ,I do believe what you are saying and it is a very legitimate question to ask or present as a non-Catholic Christian. Precisely why the RCC has given explanations about the issue in the Catechism to clear up all the confusion of 1,000 years. As a RCC Christian, I know both the Western and “Orthodox” Eastern churches are to blame for the split.
The fact both split does not mean one is “true” and one the other is not the “true” Church of Jesus. Both were ONE for a long time,but you know as I do,human pride,sin,arrogance,etc,etc put a huge strain on both;however,it does not mean both are NOT part of the true church. Separation over the centuries has caused many to ask what you are asking and to even question it-it is all legit. Let us not forget about Peter’s denial aof Our Lord Jesus Christ. I know you do not believe Peter is NOT a “true” Christian or not belonging to Jesus Christ Church…due to his weaknesses and human pride.
Hope that made some sense?
Nicea325;8921077:
My friend,both represent Apostolic Christianity because as I stated,both have Apostolic Succession,sacraments and valid priesthood. Do not try to viiew it from your visual perceptions,but from within. The conclusion is that both repesent Apostolic Christianity.All of what you say here is correct, Nicea, and very well put. But I think it still leaves the question hanging as to which best represents apostolic Christianity. Yes, the Orthodox and Rome are very similar to one another, but there are distinct dogmatic differences that are not minor in any sense. So when a serious student of history examines the question of which of the two maintained pure apostolic doctrine, you have to ultimately conclude that its either West or East. There are no quick fixes that apologetic scripts and formulaic responses can answer.
God Bless
IggyAntiochus;8921116:
I agree that they both represent apostolic Christianity (with the caveat that I disagree with them in significant areas). However, there are three options to choose from when examining them in a theological and historical context:My friend,both represent Apostolic Christianity because as I stated,both have Apostolic Succession,sacraments and valid priesthood. Do not try to viiew it from your visual perceptions,but from within. The conclusion is that both repesent Apostolic Christianity.
God Bless
A - Rome contains the fullness of apostolic doctrine
B - The East contains the fullness of apostolic doctrine
C - Neither of them contain the fullness of apostolic doctrine
What is not logically an option is both of them contain the fullness of apostolic doctrine because they believe doctrines which contradict each other and the apostles did not teach doctrine that is mutually exclusive!