Christian unity seems to be more focused on Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism rather than Protestant Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobzills said:
Why was it required for the Orthodox Churches to use unleavened bread when the Eastern Catholic Churches today can use leavened bread? When Eastern Orthodox were called before the Inquisition, were they required to admit to their heresy of using leavened bread for the Eucharist, or be tortured? People are going around here on this thread accusing the peace loving Orthodox Christians of all kinds of imaginary horrendous crimes, when in truth, it was the Catholics who brought the Orthodox before the inquisition and threatened them with torture? And it was the Catholic crusaders who invaded, violently assaulted, destroyed and robbed the peace loving Orthodox Christians during the fourth Crusade, and not the other way around as the posters here want us to believe.
Click to expand...
After 1,000 people apparently still can’t get over it.

If we could forgive the Germans and the Japanese for WWII, but we as Christians keep hammering to see who was right and who was wrong is not to get anywhere. Moving on is a good philosophy.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
After 1,000 people apparently still can’t get over it.

If we could forgive the Germans and the Japanese for WWII, but we as Christians keep hammering to see who was right and who was wrong is not to get anywhere. Moving on is a good philosophy.

peace
Click to expand...
Bad example. Germans in WWII were bent on killing all jews from the planet.
Its not good to say:

“we forgave” the Germans

Spare me the details of the Jesuits and the many good christians that also were there- I am not saying we should not think of them-

But how dare we say

WE FORGAVE THEM!

How can we forgive them for what they did to all the JEWS?:eek:

Who do we think we are?

Come on!
 
Greetings and peace be with you Ridgerunner;
Catholics accept the validity of Orthodox sacraments, as they accept the validity of their own.

Orthodox do not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments, as they accept the validity of their own.

If there is not mutuality in this, then there is no foundation upon which to build unity.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not say when two or three are gathered in a Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican Church then I am there. Jesus made a very simple statement and his word is truth. Jesus said when two or three are gathered in my name then I am there also.

We may play juggling games with our beliefs. But we do not have the right to limit the presence of Jesus

In the spirit of praying for unity through the spirit

Eric
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Greetings and peace be with you Ridgerunner;

Jesus did not say when two or three are gathered in a Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican Church then I am there. Jesus made a very simple statement and his word is truth. Jesus said when two or three are gathered in my name then I am there also.

We may play juggling games with our beliefs. But we do not have the right to limit the presence of Jesus

In the spirit of praying for unity through the spirit

Eric
Click to expand...
But it is not true, because the Catholic Church does not accept the validity of the Anglican Sacraments.
 
Hellisreal said:
Are you so shure about that?
Click to expand...
Please see:
newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
Also:
"It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that in order for any sacrament to be valid, it must be administered with a proper form (i.e., using a valid rite) and with a proper intention (i.e., that no defective intention be stated or manifested externally). Because those who formulated the Anglican rite for ordination specifically expunged any reference to the traditional Catholic priesthood, and were quite public in their intention not to continue what they considered to be a “superstitious” understanding of Holy Orders, ordinations carried out using the Anglican formularies were null and void. Because the sacrament of Holy Orders is so intimately associated with the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and of Reconciliation, these sacraments also were not able to be validly celebrated by those who were ordained according to the Book of Common Prayer.
Code: 
  The whole matter of the invalidity of Anglican orders was given exhaustive study by a commission appointed by Pope Leo XIII. His papal bull Apostolicae Curae, issued on September 15, 1896, stated that because of a defect in both form and intention, apostolic succession was not preserved in Anglican orders. This was most recently confirmed in 1998 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his commentary on the Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (“To Protect the Faith”) issued by His Holiness Pope John Paul II."
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=10
 
Sounds good to me. Heck, on the forums, you can get in trouble if you dont like that someone blames Jesus and mary for all their problems.

Whattever floats 🙂
 
bobzills said:
Please see:
newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
Also:
"It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that in order for any sacrament to be valid, it must be administered with a proper form (i.e., using a valid rite) and with a proper intention (i.e., that no defective intention be stated or manifested externally). Because those who formulated the Anglican rite for ordination specifically expunged any reference to the traditional Catholic priesthood, and were quite public in their intention not to continue what they considered to be a “superstitious” understanding of Holy Orders, ordinations carried out using the Anglican formularies were null and void. Because the sacrament of Holy Orders is so intimately associated with the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and of Reconciliation, these sacraments also were not able to be validly celebrated by those who were ordained according to the Book of Common Prayer.
Code: 
  The whole matter of the invalidity of Anglican orders was given exhaustive study by a commission appointed by Pope Leo XIII. His papal bull Apostolicae Curae, issued on September 15, 1896, stated that because of a defect in both form and intention, apostolic succession was not preserved in Anglican orders. This was most recently confirmed in 1998 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his commentary on the Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (“To Protect the Faith”) issued by His Holiness Pope John Paul II."
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=10
Click to expand...
Yes, but Apostolicae Curae is old, and the Anglicans have changed their ordinals, and all non-USA and non-UK ordinations have at least one bishop from the Old Catholics (Who are recognized as valid by Rome) participate, thus restoring their Apostolic Succession. My old bishop from the Anglican Church could trace his Apostolic Succession through two Old Catholic bishops. So most non-USA priest and bishops are valid. The Episcopal Church is another story.
 
Hellisreal said:
Bad example. Germans in WWII were bent on killing all jews from the planet.
Its not good to say:

“we forgave” the Germans

Spare me the details of the Jesuits and the many good christians that also were there- I am not saying we should not think of them-

But how dare we say

WE FORGAVE THEM!

How can we forgive them for what they did to all the JEWS?:eek:

Who do we think we are?

Come on!
Click to expand...
Who do we think we are?

I think we are Christians. If you do not forgive them, then you are not following the command of Jesus, when the Jews crucified him - “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

Or, in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”.

Our forgiveness from God will be measured against how much we forgive our neighbor.

Unfortunately, the main message of Christianity is often forgotten. Love of neighbor! which includes forgiveness.

Yes, we forgave the Nazis. We must forgive them.

peace
 
bobzills said:
And it was the Catholic crusaders who invaded, violently assaulted, destroyed and robbed the peace loving Orthodox Christians during the fourth Crusade, and not the other way around as the posters here want us to believe.
Click to expand...
I can’t just let this pass. That was as mutual as mutual gets. And the Pope excommunicated the participants for doing it. The Byzantines played a very sordid role in the whole thing, as did the crusaders. If you say this again, I’ll tell the real story. I’m sure some would like to hear it, since some EOs are awfully fond of talking about it.

But I guess in concluding what I said far earlier, I think it should be apparent to all that there is very little prospect of reunion with Eastern Orthodoxy. Basically, the terms are conversion to Orthodoxy, nothing less.

Talking about Easter dates with the Orthodox is a little bit like discussing them with Lutherans. It might be nice to do it, but it does not come within miles of any serious issue of substance. The core issue is non-recognition of Catholic sacraments. Some of the Orthodox on here evaded it, as I expected, but the truth is they don’t accept the validity of Catholic sacraments any more than Catholics accept the validity of such “sacraments” as protestants have. I trust the Catholic readers read the responses carefully.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I can’t just let this pass. That was as mutual as mutual gets. And the Pope excommunicated the participants for doing it. The Byzantines played a very sordid role in the whole thing, as did the crusaders. If you say this again, I’ll tell the real story. I’m sure some would like to hear it, since some EOs are awfully fond of talking about it…
Click to expand...
I personally would be interested in your version of the the story of the Fourth Crusade and how it was justified to loot the Orthodox Churches of their precious gold and jewel artificats and place them in Roman Catholic Churches in the West?
One version of the fourth crusade that I read is in the archives of the library at the Catholic university of Fordham, Another version was from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you reject those two versions, archived at Catholic sites, as being accurate?
 
Hellisreal said:
Are you so shure about that?

Going back how far?
Click to expand...
I** am not so sure that the Catholic church recognizes the validity of Episcopal sacraments (except baptism and perhaps marriage). I do not believe that the Catholic church recognizes Anglican/Episcopal ordination as valid.**
 
peary said:
I** am not so sure that the Catholic church recognizes the validity of Episcopal sacraments (except baptism and perhaps marriage). I do not believe that the Catholic church recognizes Anglican/Episcopal ordination as valid.**
Click to expand...
But if the ordinations are rejected, then how are those sacraments given by the ordained valid (i.e. baptism and marriage). This doesn’t make sense…:confused:

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Ridgerunner said:
I can’t just let this pass. That was as mutual as mutual gets. And the Pope excommunicated the participants for doing it. The Byzantines played a very sordid role in the whole thing, as did the crusaders. If you say this again, I’ll tell the real story. I’m sure some would like to hear it, since some EOs are awfully fond of talking about it.

But I guess in concluding what I said far earlier, I think it should be apparent to all that there is very little prospect of reunion with Eastern Orthodoxy. Basically, the terms are conversion to Orthodoxy, nothing less.

Talking about Easter dates with the Orthodox is a little bit like discussing them with Lutherans. It might be nice to do it, but it does not come within miles of any serious issue of substance. The core issue is non-recognition of Catholic sacraments. Some of the Orthodox on here evaded it, as I expected, but the truth is they don’t accept the validity of Catholic sacraments any more than Catholics accept the validity of such “sacraments” as protestants have. I trust the Catholic readers read the responses carefully.
Click to expand...
I agree. I do not see any reunion in the near future. At least the Orthodox are firm, though.
 
Alexius said:
But if the ordinations are rejected, then how are those sacraments given by the ordained valid (i.e. baptism and marriage). This doesn’t make sense…:confused:

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
For Baptism, anyone can be the minister of the Sacrament, provided the right form is used (the words), and the right matter, pouring of water.

For marriage, the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament. Catholics must be married before a duly authorized Catholic priest. Other Christian communities have a valid sacrament of matrimony because the ministers are the couple themselves.

peace
 
Hello,

Considering that the Catholic Church trully wants reunification with the Orthodox Church…how about we go back before the schism where Rome was with its own business as Constantinople, Jerusalem etc, had their own business? I know the Catholics will say “well, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ” etc., but this is exactly what keeps us away from reunification.
So, maybe i’m thinking too superficially, but if we go back to Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria having equal “leadership”, East and West will be better off. Just my view on this.

Thanks,
Stefania
 
angelheart said:
Hello,

Considering that the Catholic Church trully wants reunification with the Orthodox Church…how about we go back before the schism where Rome was with its own business as Constantinople, Jerusalem etc, had their own business? I know the Catholics will say “well, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ” etc., but this is exactly what keeps us away from reunification.
So, maybe i’m thinking too superficially, but if we go back to Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria having equal “leadership”, East and West will be better off. Just my view on this.

Thanks,
Stefania
Click to expand...
In my view its entirely possible that Rome weilds, and possibly even claims more authority than Christ originaly intended. But for lack of historical evidence or persuasive arguments going either way, I have to say I am in a state of theological limbo between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But since I live in the west I would Roman Rite Catholicism is my best practical choice, rampant with dissent as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top