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

[Church_Militant]

The pope would have to resign and acknowledge that ONLY Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18).

Funny, that is precisely what His Holiness teaches all the time. Why should he resign when he’s doing such a great job of teaching the Christian faith?

The bishops would have to drop their claim to sole teaching authority, recognizing the Holy Spirit as the Church’s only infallible and authoritative teacher ( John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

Only right after you and all the evangelicals admit that you have no clue or authority as to what you’re preaching. Of course, you’d all have to come to some sort of real authoritative doctrinal unity since you all consider yourselves de facto individually Holy Spirit directed infallible teachers and claim that you each are teaching correct interpretations of Bible passages even when you don’t agree and contradict each other all over the place.

*The Catholic priesthood would have to disband, confessing that the Sacrifice of the Mass in an insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross and that no one can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7, Hebrews 10:18).

Why abandon a clearly Biblical teaching that has been taught by Christianity for some 2,000 years for some modern new wind of doctrinal error? Sacrifice of the Mass More articles… Why deny the clearly Biblical aspect of confession of sins and what the Word of God actually says concerning it. Catholic Confession.

*Catholic altars would need to be torn down, confession booths removed, statues destroyed (Exod. 20:4).

Really? Iconoclasm:

Veneration and prayer to Mary and the saints would have to stop (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Intercession & Communion of Saints

The Church would have to confess that it has been preaching a false gospel, leading countless millions down the wide path that leads to destruction.

I don’t think so. In fact since the gospel that you preach is actually a modern new wind of doctrinal error, I would point out that Galatians 1: 8-9 actually applies to the “Christianity Lite” of the modern post reformation faith communities.

*It would have to acknowledge that baptism is not the instrument of justification, that sacraments cannot dispense the grace of God, that eternal life is not a merited reward, and that venial sins, acts of penance, purgatory and indulgences are all the inventions of men and the doctrines of demons.

Right, yeah…I see that happenin’…NOT! Why? Because it would mean the contravention of scriptural beliefs and practices that your own faith communities have abandoned in the last 500 years as they descend further and further into error.
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Finally the church would have to proclaim that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and forsaking the dependence on tradition, using only the Scriptures as it’s sole guide to the truth.

Which is the gross fundamental error of Sola Scriptura from which every other error of post reformation theology has cascaded down. Bible study notes in refutation. and MP3 download study itself.

None of this is about to happen. If it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church it would be a Biblical church.Only partially correct…Yes, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, (God Forbid!) but it would no longer be the literal Biblical church that it has been for 2,000 years.

Eastern Christianity doesn’t agree with the Evangelicals either.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Funny, that is precisely what His Holiness teaches all the time. Why should he resign when he’s doing such a great job of teaching the Christian faith?Only right after you and all the evangelicals admit that you have no clue or authority as to what you’re preaching. Of course, you’d all have to come to some sort of real authoritative doctrinal unity since you all consider yourselves de facto individually Holy Spirit directed infallible teachers and claim that you each are teaching correct interpretations of Bible passages even when you don’t agree and contradict each other all over the place. Why abandon a clearly Biblical teaching that has been taught by Christianity for some 2,000 years for some modern new wind of doctrinal error? Sacrifice of the Mass More articles… Why deny the clearly Biblical aspect of confession of sins and what the Word of God actually says concerning it. Catholic Confession.Really? Iconoclasm:
The Intercession & Communion of Saints
I don’t think so. In fact since the gospel that you preach is actually a modern new wind of doctrinal error, I would point out that Galatians 1: 8-9 actually applies to the “Christianity Lite” of the modern post reformation faith communities.
Right, yeah…I see that happenin’…NOT! Why? Because it would mean the contravention of scriptural beliefs and practices that your own faith communities have abandoned in the last 500 years as they descend further and further into error.
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About PurgatoryWhich is the gross fundamental error of Sola Scriptura from which every other error of post reformation theology has cascaded down. Bible study notes in refutation. and MP3 download study itself.None of this is about to happen. If it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church it would be a Biblical church.Only partially correct…Yes, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, (God Forbid!) but it would no longer be the literal Biblical church that it has been for 2,000 years.

Eastern Christianity doesn’t agree with the Evangelicals either.

Well said. I think three of us who refuted SolaFide’s suggestion is the same but worded differently.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, I agree. When the Eastern Orthodox removes its excommunication of the Pope, and stops accusing us of heresy, and builds on mutual respect, we have a change of reunification.

Our better efforts, as you say, are with the West.

peace

Lots of luck and God speed.

When the pope of Rome removes the filioque (as he is doing), and he stops accusing us of heresy (which some are doing), and builds on mutual respect i.e. free of patronizing of a supposed “defect” without Vatican I, we have a chance of reunification.

Your Protestant progeny, I hope you can reclaim them, but of course we will take them just as well (and I say that as one formerly of their number).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Catholic Church does say that the Holy Spirit is the only infallible teacher. In Protestantism, there is no definitive truth, because everyone uses their own interpretation, and all disagree. Protestantism has no absolutes. Christ promised that the Church would be led into all truth by the Spirit, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it; this is only possible if the Church was kept infallible, otherwise Jesus’ promise will have been a lie.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is not an insult to the finished work of Christ, because it is not a repetition or additional sacrifice to the crucifixion. It is a “making present again” of the One Eternal Sacrifice. To disband the priesthood would be an abondoning of Truth, and would make the sacraments useless.

Tearing down altars would be sacrilege against God Almighty; the altars were dedicated to Him. Confessionals exist to accomodate the Sacrament of Penance (John 20:23, among other places.) As for the statues, I don’t remember the Jews tearing down the Cherubim, the Golden Oxen, the altar, and the Ark of the covenant from the temple. To do so would be sacrilige. And lastly, the Church, founded on the Apostles and Christ Himself, has never preached a false gospel. It, in fact, is the only Church to preach the Gospel in its entirity.

Baptism is the means of regeneration (“One must be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God…” and Jesus’ words: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” and St.Paul, “Baptism… now saves you.”) Sacraments do dispense the grace of God, as Jesus was Grace in the flesh and possessed a physical Body.
The Catholic Church does not teach that one can merit Heaven on his own; the Bible states that some sins are “sins unto death” i.e., mortal sins, and therefore makes a distiction between two types of sin. Acts of penence are throughout the Bible, and are too numerous to be mentioned here, Purgatory is well-founded and logical, as Evangelical believe in a similar event called “glorification”-- except they say it’s instantaneous. And indulgences go hand-in-hand with penance, and are found in the Bible also. They are the doctrines of Christ’s Church on earth.

Salvation is by grace alone, from God. Active faith, proven by good works and true repentance, is nesessary for salvation. A lot of people have faith alone-- Such as my friend who is lives with his girlfriend-- but active faith, dynamic faith proven by good works (Read the Epistle of James, which, by the way, Luther wanted to remove from the Bible along with Revelation). Prove to me that Oral Tradition (Found in the Bible) is not on par with Written Tradition (The Scriptures). Without them, you have no canon, no Trinity, no proper understanding of the Incarnation, and no creed.

Don’t over do the distinction between sins, leave out the satisfaction element of penence (contrition is better way of seeing it, and asceticism). Speculate less on the hereafter, and not try to rationalize why we pray for the departed.

Drop the indulgences.

Otherwise the Orthodox and the Latins are pretty much agreed about all the rest (at least vis a vis the Protestants).

Perhaps, from your perspective, you do have the right focus.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

**Yes it does because, technically, any believer, in dire circumstances, CAN baptize. That means you or me. Marriage is a sacrament that the couple basically bestows upon themselves with a minister or priest as witness before God.

But the Anglican church disrupted the apostolic continuity of succession. During the time after Henry VIII, people like Cromwell were basically in control and many were put to death, even for mentioning the ‘Roman’ church in any way, shape or form.**

Btw, we don’t buy the Latin idea (borrowed from Roman contract law) that the couple marry themselves.

The Church marries them.

What GOD has joined let no man rend asunder.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Funny, that is precisely what His Holiness teaches all the time. Why should he resign when he’s doing such a great job of teaching the Christian faith?Only right after you and all the evangelicals admit that you have no clue or authority as to what you’re preaching. Of course, you’d all have to come to some sort of real authoritative doctrinal unity since you all consider yourselves de facto individually Holy Spirit directed infallible teachers and claim that you each are teaching correct interpretations of Bible passages even when you don’t agree and contradict each other all over the place. Why abandon a clearly Biblical teaching that has been taught by Christianity for some 2,000 years for some modern new wind of doctrinal error? Sacrifice of the Mass More articles… Why deny the clearly Biblical aspect of confession of sins and what the Word of God actually says concerning it. Catholic Confession.Really? Iconoclasm:
The Intercession & Communion of Saints
I don’t think so. In fact since the gospel that you preach is actually a modern new wind of doctrinal error, I would point out that Galatians 1: 8-9 actually applies to the “Christianity Lite” of the modern post reformation faith communities.
Right, yeah…I see that happenin’…NOT! Why? Because it would mean the contravention of scriptural beliefs and practices that your own faith communities have abandoned in the last 500 years as they descend further and further into error.
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About PurgatoryWhich is the gross fundamental error of Sola Scriptura from which every other error of post reformation theology has cascaded down. Bible study notes in refutation. and MP3 download study itself.None of this is about to happen. If it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church it would be a Biblical church.Only partially correct…Yes, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, (God Forbid!) but it would no longer be the literal Biblical church that it has been for 2,000 years.

Eastern Christianity doesn’t agree with the Evangelicals either.

Yet again, everything here the Orthodox and Latins are more or less in agreement (but for one thing, we have the same data in the Biblical and Jewish beliefs in “purgatory,” but not exactly the same conclusions, but ones that put us on one side, and the Protestants on the other).

Guess, again, your priorities are in right order.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Only partially correct…Yes, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, (God Forbid!) but it would no longer be the literal Biblical church that it has been for 2,000 years.

Eastern Christianity doesn’t agree with the Evangelicals either.

Well said. I think three of us who refuted SolaFide’s suggestion is the same but worded differently.

I hope I make that four.

I don’t belong to a Bible believing Church.

I belong to THE Bible believing Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Only partially correct…Yes, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, (God Forbid!) but it would no longer be the literal Biblical church that it has been for 2,000 years.

Eastern Christianity doesn’t agree with the Evangelicals either.

Yet again, everything here the Orthodox and Latins are more or less in agreement (but for one thing, we have the same data in the Biblical and Jewish beliefs in “purgatory,” but not exactly the same conclusions, but ones that put us on one side, and the Protestants on the other).

Guess, again, your priorities are in right order.

I like the term that Deacon Edwin a bi-rite of the Byzantine Rite. He says that theology of the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite are the same. These beliefs are just expressions.

 

[mgrfin]

The Church does teaches that Jesus is the Head of the Church. The Pope is the visible head, and Jesus is the invisible head. The Pope acts as an Ambassador of Christ.

The Church does affirm that the Holy Spirit is the sole authority.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Not going to happen. Without the priesthood. There would be no Mass. No Mass no Eucharist. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a resacrifice. It’s the make presence the sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner. Christ sacrifice transcends time and space.

God does forgive sins but he also gave his Apostle to forgive the sins.

Jesus said, “Peace be with you. As the Father, has send me, so I send you.” He breathed on them. “Received the Holy Spirit. Whoever sin you forgiven them, they are forgiven, whosever sin you retain they are retain.”

This authority was handed down from the Jesus to his Apostles. The Apostles handed this down to their sucessors, the bishops and priests.

Not going to happen either. To this would insult Jesus Christ precepts.

Baptism in essential for our salvation. Peter said, "Baptism saves you. Venial sins derives from John’s own word, “there is sin that is not deadly.” Purgatory is in noted in the Bible but not in word. In Philippians Jesus’ name is praised in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. This under the earth is Purgatory.

The Church does believe salvation is through God’s grace. The Church does not adhere to a man-made doctrine of faith alone.

The Catholic Church is the only Biblical Church. It’s the fullness of faith and truth because she is the pillar and bulwark of truth. In fact, the Catholic Church is the original Church of Jesus Christ. The truth Church of Christ bears four marks.

It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Emmanuel, or God with us.

Tearing down the altars - the Protestants tried that in the 16th century. Then the Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. set up their own altars, cause they could not totally ignore the words in the New Testament (fulfilling the Old) regarding the true Sacrifice.

As for the 'power offorgiveness of sins", I never hear a Protestant comment on that quote. I guess that sins they feel there is no sin after Baptism, they can just ignore those words, on giving the power he had exercised to forgive sins to his priests.

But we all know there is sin after Baptism. The Lutherans lose the battle on 'justification by faith only". They now know "The Church does believe salvation is through God’s grace. The Church does not adhere to a man-made doctrine of faith alone.

Good post, Manny.

peace

 

[Mannyfit75]

Emmanuel, or God with us.

Tearing down the altars - the Protestants tried that in the 16th century. Then the Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. set up their own altars, cause they could not totally ignore the words in the New Testament (fulfilling the Old) regarding the true Sacrifice.

As for the 'power offorgiveness of sins", I never hear a Protestant comment on that quote. I guess that sins they feel there is no sin after Baptism, they can just ignore those words, on giving the power he had exercised to forgive sins to his priests.

But we all know there is sin after Baptism. The Lutherans lose the battle on 'justification by faith only". They now know "The Church does believe salvation is through God’s grace. The Church does not adhere to a man-made doctrine of faith alone.

Good post, Manny.

peace

Thanks.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I hope I make that four.

I don’t belong to a Bible believing Church.

I belong to THE Bible believing Church.

Before you posted it was three now its four. I am happy that the Eastern Orthodox maintains its Apostolic Traditions. For that reason, I have come to honor the Eastern Christians even though they are not in full communion with us.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit will eventually unite our two beloved Churches. I would like to see in our life time, but realistically, it will probably happen after we past away. There still some issues that need to be discussed.

 

[Church_Militant]

I hope I make that four.

I don’t belong to a Bible believing Church.

I belong to THE Bible believing Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Lots of luck and God speed.

When the pope of Rome removes the filioque (as he is doing), and he stops accusing us of heresy (which some are doing), and builds on mutual respect i.e. free of patronizing of a supposed “defect” without Vatican I, we have a chance of reunification.

Your Protestant progeny, I hope you can reclaim them, but of course we will take them just as well (and I say that as one formerly of their number).

Well, when are you going to stop accusing Catholics of heresy? (which ALL of you are doing, not just some). When are you going to stop saying our sacraments are invalid? We don’t say yours are, do we? Seems like we’re being conciliatory and you’re not…

Your Islamic progeny. I hope you can reclaim them, but of course we will take them just as well (and I say that as one whose son-in-law was formerly of their number)

 

[Alexius]

Well, when are you going to stop accusing Catholics of heresy? (which ALL of you are doing, not just some). When are you going to stop saying our sacraments are invalid? We don’t say yours are, do we? Seems like we’re being conciliatory and you’re not…

Your Islamic progeny. I hope you can reclaim them, but of course we will take them just as well (and I say that as one whose son-in-law was formerly of their number)

Muslims come from the Orthodox? Or are you saying they come from the Arabs?

The fact is that the Orthodox may say whatever they like about Rome. I believe that they are in a better position aswell, as Rome is way too ecumenical for her own good…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

**Yes it does because, technically, any believer, in dire circumstances, CAN baptize. That means you or me. Marriage is a sacrament that the couple basically bestows upon themselves with a minister or priest as witness before God.

But the Anglican church disrupted the apostolic continuity of succession. During the time after Henry VIII, people like Cromwell were basically in control and many were put to death, even for mentioning the ‘Roman’ church in any way, shape or form.**

Then what does the Catholic Church do that their church doesn’t? I mean, if the Holy Spirit works through their sacraments even though their hierarchy is invalid, then why should they become Catholic. Perhaps the new stance of Rome has weak spots, no?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Muslims come from the Orthodox? Or are you saying they come from the Arabs?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Careful my friend. Do not equate Arabs with Muslims. There are Arab Christians like our Caldeanean brothers and sisters. Arab is a group of people of middle eastern origin who can either be Muslim or Christian.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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?

Did I say I justified looting of Orthodox churches? No, I didn’t. I wouldn’t argue with the Catholic Encyclopedia account, and would only add a few things from secular historians that show it was nastier on both sides than the fairly mild version in the CE. Being a long way from Fordham, I have not read whatever you read there, and I expect there are a number of versions there if their archives are at all complete.

One of the things not mentioned in the CE that I could see was the massacre of 10,000 Italians in Constantinople before the Crusade. A trade dispute that the Byzantines settled their own way. That, and the deliberate blinding of Enrico Dandolo with fire made serious enemies of the Venetians. Incredibly, then, Alexius IV, whose father, Isaac Angelus had been deposed and blinded by a usurping relative, thought he ought to make a deal with the Crusaders and Dandolo, who was by then the Doge of Venice, to regain the throne. More incredibly, it seemed for awhile that Dandolo was going to live up to it, though that might be doubted. At least he and the Franks did put Isaac Angelus back on the throne of Constantinople, as they promised. Perhaps not so incredibly, the Byzantines, who vastly outnumbered the 7,000-8,000 Crusaders, thought they could renege on the deal Alexius and the emperor Isaac Angelus made with the Crusaders and Dandolo (money for the crusade in Palestine, supplies, 10,000 Byzantine soldiers to help with the Crusade, reunion with the Catholic Church) and leave the former to starve outside the city walls. So another usurper dethroned Isaac and the Byzantines attacked the Franks in what they thought would be an effective preemptive strike against a starving, outnumbered, but clearly angry crusader army. But the Franks were tougher than they thought and Dandolo was craftier than they thought. (He and his Venetians attacked by sea when the Franks counterattacked.) And yes, about 2,000 Byzantines died in the Crusader attack; some soldiers and some noncombatants, and the Crusaders sacked the city. Dandolo got half the spoils and the Crusader leaders got the rest.

The Pope was against it all the way, and excommunicated the crusaders for making war against a Christian people.

The crusaders never did get to Palestine. A number of them decided to rule Constantinople for awhile, and did, until yet another Byzantine declared himself emperor and took the city back.

A sordid, sorry business, and nobody can be proud of it, and neither the East nor the West has any legitimate claim to “victim status” in it. And, frankly, it’s time the EO let go of it. It was a rough and treacherous age, in which piety and savagery were often mixed; both in the East and in the West. At some point, people have to let go of their ancient resentments. The biggest threat now posed to both the East and the West is Islamic militancy; the Islamists still fuming over the Crusades and still referring to westerners as “Crusaders”. It’s just backward.

 

[peary]

As a group destined to disappear into their mother churches.
That has already been tried…for hundreds of years.

A disaster. It only hardened the lines of division, driving the parties further apart.

Now, according to the Freising statement, reiterated in the Balamand agreement, the Church of Rome has rejected uniatism as a basis for church reconciliation.

There must be another approach.

Michael

Like I keep saying: they should make an all-out effort to establish unity through the Eucharist. Then, everything else will eventually fall into place.

 

[bobzills]

Did I say I justified looting of Orthodox churches? No, I didn’t. .

I thought you said something like both sides were to blame and neither the East nor the West has any claim to victim status. If so, when did the Orthodox march to
Rome and loot the Vatican of its treasures and place them in Orthodox Churches in Greece?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did I say I justified looting of Orthodox churches? No, I didn’t. I wouldn’t argue with the Catholic Encyclopedia account, and would only add a few things from secular historians that show it was nastier on both sides than the fairly mild version in the CE. Being a long way from Fordham, I have not read whatever you read there, and I expect there are a number of versions there if their archives are at all complete.

One of the things not mentioned in the CE that I could see was the massacre of 10,000 Italians in Constantinople before the Crusade. A trade dispute that the Byzantines settled their own way. That, and the deliberate blinding of Enrico Dandolo with fire made serious enemies of the Venetians. Incredibly, then, Alexius IV, whose father, Isaac Angelus had been deposed and blinded by a usurping relative, thought he ought to make a deal with the Crusaders and Dandolo, who was by then the Doge of Venice, to regain the throne. More incredibly, it seemed for awhile that Dandolo was going to live up to it, though that might be doubted. At least he and the Franks did put Isaac Angelus back on the throne of Constantinople, as they promised. Perhaps not so incredibly, the Byzantines, who vastly outnumbered the 7,000-8,000 Crusaders, thought they could renege on the deal Alexius and the emperor Isaac Angelus made with the Crusaders and Dandolo (money for the crusade in Palestine, supplies, 10,000 Byzantine soldiers to help with the Crusade, reunion with the Catholic Church) and leave the former to starve outside the city walls. So another usurper dethroned Isaac and the Byzantines attacked the Franks in what they thought would be an effective preemptive strike against a starving, outnumbered, but clearly angry crusader army. But the Franks were tougher than they thought and Dandolo was craftier than they thought. (He and his Venetians attacked by sea when the Franks counterattacked.) And yes, about 2,000 Byzantines died in the Crusader attack; some soldiers and some noncombatants, and the Crusaders sacked the city. Dandolo got half the spoils and the Crusader leaders got the rest.

The Pope was against it all the way, and excommunicated the crusaders for making war against a Christian people.

The crusaders never did get to Palestine. A number of them decided to rule Constantinople for awhile, and did, until yet another Byzantine declared himself emperor and took the city back.

A sordid, sorry business, and nobody can be proud of it, and neither the East nor the West has any legitimate claim to “victim status” in it. And, frankly, it’s time the EO let go of it. It was a rough and treacherous age, in which piety and savagery were often mixed; both in the East and in the West. At some point, people have to let go of their ancient resentments. The biggest threat now posed to both the East and the West is Islamic militancy; the Islamists still fuming over the Crusades and still referring to westerners as “Crusaders”. It’s just backward.

You left out a little detail: the pope appointed a Latin Patriarch for Constantinople, and otherwise helped himself to the results, excommunication or no. Sooooo it’s all to be forgotten because the pope of Rome abolished the Latin patriarchate of constantinople in 1964?

Weren’t there Islamic militants in 1204? My, how things have changed.