Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

Hi Jacko. I am certainly no type of scholar myself i have no scholarship. I certainly do not desire some type of new revelation of doctrine from God to set up a new church like protestants do.
I am Just a simple man looking for only the Truth in the Christian faith. If i had to rely on my brains to figure out the truth by study alone i will get nowhere.
All i can do is pray and ask God first to show me the Truth and trust that he will through the holy spirit.
Scripture is clear on this. You dont need anybody to teach you. God alone will teach you.
1 John 2:27

The only history that i look into is the history within the church.
The new teaching and traditions i was referring was the Immaculate conception of Mary. The Assumption of Mary. Purgatory etc. These are teachings that the early church nor the Apostles had.

If you wanted to be real technical you could say that the Apostles didn’t have the doctrine of the Trinity either. Of course, they had the substance of it, but they did not have the specific formulas which came later. So do we reject Nicea? All of the doctrines you mentioned have been in the Church since the beginning, although they may not have been formulated in the specific way that they were later. For example, do you think that the early Church believed that the Blessed Mother committed sin?

The fact is, not all of Tradition is documented. That’s why some historians will tell you that what came to be known as orthodoxy was only one strand of Christianity that happened to emerge as victorious. The documentation, like the Bible, can be interpreted in different ways. So, how do we know which of the ancient Churches maintained the Tradition intact, with or without supporting documentation? The only answer is that is that it is the Church that is built on the rock that is Peter, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe. Thanks for your explanation it has left me with quite a bit to pray about study and meditate on.

Luke 17:20-21 Jesus says the kingdom of God is within us. I am taking it as the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven means the same thing.

The question as to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs Act as if they hold keys to the kingdom of heaven needs to be explored. So i will put this Question to Orthodox Christians on their web sites and see what Answers they Give.

Regarding my explanation, if, during your studies, you discover any discrepancies, please let me know? Also, regarding that Eastern Orthodox web site, could you maybe keep me posted regarding their answer to post #1? Thanks Shaky…

 

[shaky]

If you wanted to be real technical you could say that the Apostles didn’t have the doctrine of the Trinity either. Of course, they had the substance of it, but they did not have the specific formulas which came later. So do we reject Nicea? All of the doctrines you mentioned have been in the Church since the beginning, although they may not have been formulated in the specific way that they were later. For example, do you think that the early Church believed that the Blessed Mother committed sin?

The fact is, not all of Tradition is documented. That’s why some historians will tell you that what came to be known as orthodoxy was only one strand of Christianity that happened to emerge as victorious. The documentation, like the Bible, can be interpreted in different ways. So, how do we know which of the ancient Churches maintained the Tradition intact, with or without supporting documentation? The only answer is that is that it is the Church that is built on the rock that is Peter, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

I am talking about new teachings that came after the split in 1054 AD. Are they needed for salvation?
For a thousand years people were saved without those teachings.

As for the church that is built on the Rock that is Peter. Its not Peter the Person himself that is the Rock that the church is built on. Its the ‘‘Confession’’ of Peter which is the Rock that the Church is built on. {You are the christ the Son of the living God} Jesus christ is the ‘‘True Rock’’ There are plenty of scriptures to support this.

 

[sidbrown]

I am talking about new teachings that came after the split in 1054 AD. Are they needed for salvation? .

That is an interesting questions. What are the beliefs that one must hold in order to be saved?

 

[shaky]

If you wanted to be real technical you could say that the Apostles didn’t have the doctrine of the Trinity either. Of course, they had the substance of it, but they did not have the specific formulas which came later. So do we reject Nicea? All of the doctrines you mentioned have been in the Church since the beginning, although they may not have been formulated in the specific way that they were later. For example, do you think that the early Church believed that the Blessed Mother committed sin?

The fact is, not all of Tradition is documented. That’s why some historians will tell you that what came to be known as orthodoxy was only one strand of Christianity that happened to emerge as victorious. The documentation, like the Bible, can be interpreted in different ways. So, how do we know which of the ancient Churches maintained the Tradition intact, with or without supporting documentation? The only answer is that is that it is the Church that is built on the rock that is Peter, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

Sorry Jacko I missed this one. Its not a matter of Mary committing any Sin. Its the matter of Mary being born without the Origional Sin nature past onto her by her parents.
Did Mary Not need the blood of her Son to get to heaven?

 

[shaky]

Regarding my explanation, if, during your studies, you discover any discrepancies, please let me know? Also, regarding that Eastern Orthodox web site, could you maybe keep me posted regarding their answer to post #1? Thanks Shaky…

Hi Joe

I put this Question about the keys On a Orthodox website. The Answer i Got was that all the Apostles and there successors have the keys to bind and loose.

They also say its not Peter the person himself that is the Rock on which the church is built.
They say its the ‘‘Confession’’ of Peter that is the Rock that the church is built on.
{You are the Christ the Son of the living God} There is plenty of scripture to support that Jesus Christ is the Rock and foundation.

You did not give me a Answer to what you believe about Jesus saying to Peter Feed my sheep. Do you think this refers to Peter having divine Revealation apart from the rest of the Apostles and Peter had to feed this to his fellow Apostles?

 

[JackQ]

I am talking about new teachings that came after the split in 1054 AD. Are they needed for salvation?
For a thousand years people were saved without those teachings.

As for the church that is built on the Rock that is Peter. Its not Peter the Person himself that is the Rock that the church is built on. Its the ‘‘Confession’’ of Peter which is the Rock that the Church is built on. {You are the christ the Son of the living God} Jesus christ is the ‘‘True Rock’’ There are plenty of scriptures to support this.

Well, 1054 isn’t a magic number. Since people obviously attained to salvation in the age of the Apostles, then by your reasoning we should toss out any doctrinal developments since that time, and that would include the Nicene Creed–people were saved without the Nicene Creed for three hundred years. If you mean that the Catholic Church has somehow simply made up doctrines that have no apostolic foundation, this, of course, is what we are accused of by both Orthodox and Protestants, both of whom claim a more primitive form of Christianity. But Christ promised he would be with us always, even to the end of the age. Christ did not abandon his Church to error.

There are certainly scriptural passages where Christ is referred to as a rock. It doesn’t follow that every time a rock is referred to in Scripture that Christ is meant. I’m afraid that to say that the confession of Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is, if it is to be argued that such is what he meant exclusively, an extremely contrived reading. If Jesus had meant that it was Peter’s confession, and not Peter, he would have said so in a clearer way, and would not have used the occasion to reaffirm Simon’s new name. Certainly Peter’s confession can be called the rock too, since it came from Peter at that time. But to say that such is what Jesus meant exclusively, or even primarily, is to ignore much in the passage, such as Peter being given the keys. Does everyone who makes the confession of Peter get the keys? I say that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Does that mean that whatever I bind on earth will be bound in heaven, or that what I loose on earth will be loosed in heaven?

 

[JackQ]

Sorry Jacko I missed this one. Its not a matter of Mary committing any Sin. Its the matter of Mary being born without the Origional Sin nature past onto her by her parents.
Did Mary Not need the blood of her Son to get to heaven?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Mary didn’t need salvation. The Immaculate Conception describes the manner in which she was saved. Here is how the dogma was actually stated:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (emphasis mine)

So, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did need the blood of her Son; that is precisely how her Immaculate Conception was effectuated.

Now you know that most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. You also know that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, since the Divine presence was in her just as the Divine presence was in the Ark. Now, according to Brenton, the direction to construct the Ark that was given to Moses is to be translated this way (from Exodus 25):

“10 And thou shalt make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood; the length of two cubits and a half, and the breadth of a cubit and a half, and the height of a cubit and a half. 11 And thou shalt gild it with pure gold, thou shalt gild it within and without; and thou shalt make for it golden wreaths twisted round about. 12 And thou shalt cast for it four golden rings, and shalt put them on the four sides; two rings on the one side, and two rings on the other side. 13 And thou shalt make staves of incorruptible wood, and shalt gild them with gold. 14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings on the sides of the ark, to bear the ark with them. 15 The staves shall remain fixed in the rings of the ark. 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimonies which I shall give thee.” (emphasis mine)

The Ark is made of incorruptible wood according to the Septuagint, and Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Thus we have this excellent foreshadowing of Mary being incorruptible, immaculate, going all the way back to Moses.

 

[shaky]

That is an interesting questions. What are the beliefs that one must hold in order to be saved?

Well According to the Orthodox the traditions of the Apostles and the early church!!
Didache 50-120AD The teachings of the 12 Apostles. Triple Immersion in baptism is taught in there. When and why did the Roman catholic Church stop this Practise?

According to the Roman Catholics every new teaching they teach!!

According to the Protestants depending which one every new teaching they teach!!

 

[sidbrown]

Well According to the Orthodox the traditions of the Apostles and the early church!!
Didache 50-120AD The teachings of the 12 Apostles. Triple Immersion in baptism is taught in there. When and why did the Roman catholic Church stop this Practise?

I don;t think that I would go along with that being necessary for salvation. Suppose for example, that someone was baptised by pouring, and he led a good life, gave to charity, and donated his time and work to helping out the sick. He went to Mass and confession regularly. So, according to what you say here, if he did not believe that baptism by triple immersion was required for salvation, he could not be saved, but would go to hell? I don’t believe it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In fact, when the Orthodox Christians of Kyiv (Ukrainians and Belarusyans) began baptizing by pouring, the northern Muscovite Orthodox (later they began calling themselves “Russian”) would have none of it and so when Orthodox Christians came to Russia who were baptized by pouring, they had to undergo baptism again using immersion.

There is some commentary on how in Russia a devotion to exterior detail led to the formation of the Old Believers (who even rejected the new spelling of the Name of Jesus in the liturgical books as heretical).

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother shaky,

Well According to the Orthodox the traditions of the Apostles and the early church!!
Didache 50-120AD The teachings of the 12 Apostles. Triple Immersion in baptism is taught in there. When and why did the Roman catholic Church stop this Practise?

The Apostolic Constitutions are very clear as to why triple immersion was the norm. The triple immersion symbolized baptism into the Trinity, as opposed to baptism into Christ’s death.

The conflict was not between the act of one immersion versus the act of three immersions, but between what one immersion stood for (or symbolized), on the one hand, versus what triple immersion stood for (or symbolized) on the other.

When the rule of triple immersion was given, apparently there was a group who was baptizing not in the three Names, but into Christ’s death.

Other Fathers gave different explanations for the symbolism of the three immersions versus one immersion. For example, one patristic commentator on the Apostolic Canons understood the distinction as a ward against the Patripassians; another understood the distinction as a ward against the modalists; etc.

What is apparent is that the triple action is important because of the meaning, not because the triple action in and of itself has any sort of salvific quality. If you were baptized with a triple immersion but you were a modalist by belief, then the triple immersion is of no effect.

The relevant question is not “why did the Roman Catholic Church stop this practice?” The relevant question - the ONLY relevant question - is, “has the Roman Catholic Church preserved the meaning behind the triple immersion in its local rite?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[shaky]

Well, 1054 isn’t a magic number. Since people obviously attained to salvation in the age of the Apostles, then by your reasoning we should toss out any doctrinal developments since that time, and that would include the Nicene Creed–people were saved without the Nicene Creed for three hundred years. If you mean that the Catholic Church has somehow simply made up doctrines that have no apostolic foundation, this, of course, is what we are accused of by both Orthodox and Protestants, both of whom claim a more primitive form of Christianity. But Christ promised he would be with us always, even to the end of the age. Christ did not abandon his Church to error.

There are certainly scriptural passages where Christ is referred to as a rock. It doesn’t follow that every time a rock is referred to in Scripture that Christ is meant. I’m afraid that to say that the confession of Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is, if it is to be argued that such is what he meant exclusively, an extremely contrived reading. If Jesus had meant that it was Peter’s confession, and not Peter, he would have said so in a clearer way, and would not have used the occasion to reaffirm Simon’s new name. Certainly Peter’s confession can be called the rock too, since it came from Peter at that time. But to say that such is what Jesus meant exclusively, or even primarily, is to ignore much in the passage, such as Peter being given the keys. Does everyone who makes the confession of Peter get the keys? I say that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Does that mean that whatever I bind on earth will be bound in heaven, or that what I loose on earth will be loosed in heaven?

Peters confession is the rock. All churches a built on the Foundation Rock of Jesus Christ
That the gates of hell will not prevail.
Are you saying the Roman catholic church is not built on this foundation?

Yes Jesus did use this occasion to reaffirm his name from Simon to Peter=Rock.
When Jesus first named him Peter. It was because he knew beforehand that Peter would make this Confession. Like he Knew beforehand when Peter denied him.

All the Apostles had the keys= Authority to bind and loose and there successors bishops priests laity.
Have you yourself not Got the Authority to bind and loose?
Have you yourself not got the Authority to baptise?

The creeds were made by both east and west and thier bishops and not by Rome by themselves and their bishops.
Orthodox Church Primitive OK. But how can you say Protestant churches Primitive with all there different new teachings!!

1054AD was the magic number because this was the time when both churches broke communion with each other.
You say:Jesus would not abandon his church to error. What about the church abandon Jesus through error?

 

[shaky]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Mary didn’t need salvation. The Immaculate Conception describes the manner in which she was saved. Here is how the dogma was actually stated:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (emphasis mine)

So, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did need the blood of her Son; that is precisely how her Immaculate Conception was effectuated.

Now you know that most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. You also know that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, since the Divine presence was in her just as the Divine presence was in the Ark. Now, according to Brenton, the direction to construct the Ark that was given to Moses is to be translated this way (from Exodus 25):

“10 And thou shalt make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood; the length of two cubits and a half, and the breadth of a cubit and a half, and the height of a cubit and a half. 11 And thou shalt gild it with pure gold, thou shalt gild it within and without; and thou shalt make for it golden wreaths twisted round about. 12 And thou shalt cast for it four golden rings, and shalt put them on the four sides; two rings on the one side, and two rings on the other side. 13 And thou shalt make staves of incorruptible wood, and shalt gild them with gold. 14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings on the sides of the ark, to bear the ark with them. 15 The staves shall remain fixed in the rings of the ark. 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimonies which I shall give thee.” (emphasis mine)

The Ark is made of incorruptible wood according to the Septuagint, and Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Thus we have this excellent foreshadowing of Mary being incorruptible, immaculate, going all the way back to Moses.

I checked this Out with the Orthodox church. They say the immaculate conception doctrine is Ineffectual. We are all born free from Original Sin=Guilt of Adams Sin.
We are all guilty of our Own Sin when we start committing them

 

[shaky]

In fact, when the Orthodox Christians of Kyiv (Ukrainians and Belarusyans) began baptizing by pouring, the northern Muscovite Orthodox (later they began calling themselves “Russian”) would have none of it and so when Orthodox Christians came to Russia who were baptized by pouring, they had to undergo baptism again using immersion.

There is some commentary on how in Russia a devotion to exterior detail led to the formation of the Old Believers (who even rejected the new spelling of the Name of Jesus in the liturgical books as heretical).

Alex

I did Read somewhere triple pouring was OK under certain circumstances!!

Its Single Immersion or Single Pouring is the Issue. why and when did the Roman Church Start doing this?

When did the new spelling of the name Jesus come about and started?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother shaky,

I did Read somewhere triple pouring was OK under certain circumstances!!

Its Single Immersion or Single Pouring is the Issue. why and when did the Roman Church Start doing this?

When did the new spelling of the name Jesus come about and started?

Can you please help me understand your position? Are you simply asking when the Latin Catholic Church stopped the practice of triple immersion? Or are you claiming that the act of triple immersion is necessary for salvation?

Btw, AFAIK, the Latins don’t “single pour,” but “triple pour” or “triple sprinkle.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Hey Shaky…

Hi Joe

I put this Question about the keys On a Orthodox website. The Answer i Got was that all the Apostles and there successors have the keys to bind and loose.

By the way, when I mentioned post #1, I was referring to a different thread that I started. Regarding post #1, of a different thread, this was the question I was hoping you would ask them:

I was told that the keys of the kingdom were not only given to Peter, but the rest of the Apostles as well, which inspired me to ask the following question:

I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind giving me one example of the church, either east or west,** (prior to the great east-west schism) **- illustrating that the keys were in fact given to another apostle other than Peter, as I have done below, regarding Peter, regarding certain Eastern Patriarchs who lived prior to the great east-west schism? Perhaps I have overlooked those citations. Thanks…

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of the Eastern part of the Church, AD 363:

“For Peter was there,who carrieth the keys of heaven.”

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, (AD 387:

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles…Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church…who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine, AD 645:

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople, 759-826, writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.

They also say its not Peter the person himself that is the Rock on which the church is built.
They say its the ‘‘Confession’’ of Peter that is the Rock that the church is built on.
{You are the Christ the Son of the living God} There is plenty of scripture to support that Jesus Christ is the Rock and foundation.

Well, it doesn’t seem that the members of the EOC have a consensus regarding Peter. I wonder what the official eastern orthodox teaching is regarding Peter? Some eastern orthodox Christians here at CAF disagree with those claims.

You did not give me a Answer to what you believe about Jesus saying to Peter Feed my sheep. Do you think this refers to Peter having divine Revealation apart from the rest of the Apostles and Peter had to feed this to his fellow Apostles?

Oop’s. sorry about that! That passage, in my opinion, by itself, does not support the notion that Peter had a divine revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles, and therefore does not support the Petrine office, but, that passage along with other passages reveal, as does the orthodox wiki, that “the holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ” - and if Peter was their leader then it stands to reason that the other apostles were also sheep Peter was commanded to feed, so to speak.

If you get the chance let me know what their answer is to the preceding question, regarding the eastern fathers, prior to the east - west schism? Thanks Shaky…

 

[shaky]

Dear brother shaky,

Can you please help me understand your position? Are you simply asking when the Latin Catholic Church stopped the practice of triple immersion? Or are you claiming that the act of triple immersion is necessary for salvation?

Btw, AFAIK, the Latins don’t “single pour,” but “triple pour” or “triple sprinkle.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I have not got a clue if Triple Immersion or triple pouring is necessary for salvation!! Some Orthodox say yes some say no. I was baptised in a protestant church by single Immersion

I am asking when did the Roman catholic stop this practice triple baptism?

 

[JackQ]

Peters confession is the rock. All churches a built on the Foundation Rock of Jesus Christ
That the gates of hell will not prevail.
Are you saying the Roman catholic church is not built on this foundation?

Yes Jesus did use this occasion to reaffirm his name from Simon to Peter=Rock.
When Jesus first named him Peter. It was because he knew beforehand that Peter would make this Confession. Like he Knew beforehand when Peter denied him.

All the Apostles had the keys= Authority to bind and loose and there successors bishops priests laity.
Have you yourself not Got the Authority to bind and loose?
Have you yourself not got the Authority to baptise?

The creeds were made by both east and west and thier bishops and not by Rome by themselves and their bishops.
Orthodox Church Primitive OK. But how can you say Protestant churches Primitive with all there different new teachings!!

1054AD was the magic number because this was the time when both churches broke communion with each other.
You say:Jesus would not abandon his church to error. What about the church abandon Jesus through error?

Jesus didn’t say, “you are Peter and on the rock of your confession I will build my Church,” he said, “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.”

All of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose in a different context, but only Peter was given the keys.

I do not have the authority to bind and loose. I am a layman. The fact that I can perform a valid baptism doesn’t mean I have the power to bind and loose.

Catholics believe in Ecumenical Councils too.

Protestants didn’t exist in the early Church, so I’m not sure what you mean there.

There were schisms between east and west before 1054. There is no one date for the schism. It happened over time. Also, don’t forget, there were the Oriental Orthodox Churches which separated much earlier, but are also Apostolic. (If you’re really sold on Eastern Orthodoxy over Catholicism, tell me why you prefer Eastern Orthodoxy over Oriental Orthodoxy.)

We can abandon Jesus as individuals because we have free will. But the Church cannot do that, because “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The Church is identified as that which is built on the rock which is Peter.

Of course I’m not saying that Christ isn’t the foundation of our Church, but mixing metaphors isn’t really an argument.

One more point, you keep saying that the Catholic Church was the one that came up with new doctrine. Please find for me Apostolic evidence for the belief in the distinction between the essence and energies of God that is made by the Orthodox. Also, please show me where divorce and remarriage was permitted in the early Church.

 

[JackQ]

I checked this Out with the Orthodox church. They say the immaculate conception doctrine is Ineffectual. We are all born free from Original Sin=Guilt of Adams Sin.
We are all guilty of our Own Sin when we start committing them

Well, that’s what the Orthodox believe. I don’t know what they do with this passage from I Corinthians 15 though:

“21 For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”