EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To livingwordunity; isn’t johnsalza.com/p/scripturefathers.html the best resource EVER???

To dronald… I admire your quest, and wish you Godspeed on your search.

Leaving my own personal beliefs aside for the briefest of moments; the answer will come to you with honest research, prayer, and reflection.

Just like we all must decide for OURSELVES whether to believe AT ALL…, likewise we must decide for ourselves what our ultimate spiritual home is to be. After all; we as humans have free will, and are free to make our own decisions. Right or wrong.

We all can present the cases for our various Churches/churches (you know what I would say, so I won’t go into it here); but ultimately we take personal responsibility.
 
Between the two of them, Philip was the one who was sent. See the following:

Romans 10:14-15

** But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?**​

I had always used these verses to defend the central importance of preaching and why I, therefore, had given up my engineering career for seminary and the great privilege of becoming a preacher of the Gospel! And I was never bothered by the last phrase about the need of being “sent,” because I could point to my ordination where a cackle of local ministers, elders, deacons, and laymen laid their hands on my sweaty head to send me forth in the Name of Jesus. But then, first through my reading of the history and writings of the Early Church Fathers and second through my re-reading of the scriptural context of Paul’s letters, I realized that Paul emphasized the necessity of being “sent” because the occasion of his letters was to combat the negative, heretical influences of self-appointed false teachers. I had never thought of myself as a false teacher, but by what authority did those people send me forth? Who sent them? In this I realized the importance of Apostolic [those who have been sent] succession. (Source)And Constantinople later fell to Islam. So, your point is?
Can people who were sent use their own private interpretation? Else, why would the RC and EO who both have valid apostolic succession differ on many issues? That is why the OP is a great question. The EO and RC can both claim their bishops are “sent”. But one has to be wrong, or both have to be wrong. They both cannot be right. Somewhere there had to be some innovation. How are we ever to tell who is right without at least some reliance on our own personal fallible opinions?
And Constantinople later fell to Islam. So, your point is?
Constantinope fell to Islam by the sword. Ethiopia opted on for Orthodoxy. When the Ethiopian went back to Ethiopia and preached the gospel, was it Orthodoxy or Catholicism that he preached?
 
Can people who were sent use their own private interpretation? Else, why would the RC and EO who both have valid apostolic succession differ on many issues? That is why the OP is a great question. The EO and RC can both claim their bishops are “sent”. But one has to be wrong, or both have to be wrong. They both cannot be right. Somewhere there had to be some innovation. How are we ever to tell who is right without at least some reliance on our own personal fallible opinions?

Constantinope fell to Islam by the sword. Ethiopia opted on for Orthodoxy. When the Ethiopian went back to Ethiopia and preached the gospel, was it Orthodoxy or Catholicism that he preached?
👍
 
Constantinope fell to Islam by the sword. Ethiopia opted on for Orthodoxy. When the Ethiopian went back to Ethiopia and preached the gospel, was it Orthodoxy or Catholicism that he preached?
We have no record of the Ethiopian preaching the Gospel. And Phillip went on to Azotus and Caesarea.

But as to what was preached, I think we can have a good idea by what Ignatius Bishop of Antioch says in his letter to the Smyrnæans:
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
 
But flippancy aside, I think you raise a good point. I really hate when an Orthodox speaks as though it’s just *obvious *that Orthodoxy, not Catholicism, is the true church … or likewise when a Catholic speaks as though it’s just *obvious *that Catholicis, not Orthodoxy, is the true church.

FWIW, I don’t encourage anyone who’s Orthodox to switch to Catholicism – although being myself Catholic, I don’t have any plans to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
 
For Lutherans, this question is impossible since we recognize the two pillars of holy Church in the East and in the West, of which we are a part.
Makes sense … but have you (and Lutherans in general) considered that the Orthodox don’t regard *themselves *as one of “two pillars”?
 
I wanted to comment on the Lutheran position as well.

From what I have observed, the Catholics accept the Orthodox as in communion but not the Orthodox to Roman Catholics. The Lutherans accept both, but not both to Lutherans while Evangelicals accept all, but no one else accepts us. Basically, the later you were to the party the less likely you’ll be in communion. Which isn’t entirely true seeing as the EO do not accept the RC.

Perhaps occam’s razor shall lead me to Orthodoxy, haha.
 
I wanted to comment on the Lutheran position as well.

From what I have observed, the Catholics accept the Orthodox as in communion but not the Orthodox to Roman Catholics. The Lutherans accept both, but not both to Lutherans while Evangelicals accept all, but no one else accepts us. Basically, the later you were to the party the less likely you’ll be in communion. Which isn’t entirely true seeing as the EO do not accept the RC.

Perhaps occam’s razor shall lead me to Orthodoxy, haha.
But isn’t some of Orthodoxy not in communion with other Orthodoxy? Could someone clarify this please.

Peace!!!
 
I wanted to comment on the Lutheran position as well.

From what I have observed, the Catholics accept the Orthodox as in communion but not the Orthodox to Roman Catholics. The Lutherans accept both, but not both to Lutherans
Clarification: none of those groups are in communion with each other. You’re talking about who would admit whom to communion – in other words, eucharistic hospitality or intercommunion.
 
But isn’t some of Orthodoxy not in communion with other Orthodoxy? Could someone clarify this please.

Peace!!!
I would ask what your definition of “Orthodoxy” is. (Just like, if someone said “Some Catholics are not in communion with other Catholics” then I would ask what their definition of “Catholics” is.)
 
I would ask what your definition of “Orthodoxy” is. (Just like, if someone said “Some Catholics are not in communion with other Catholics” then I would ask what their definition of “Catholics” is.)
👍 My usage is in reference to dronald’s usage of the same term in the post I was replying to.

Peace!!!
 
The following is more about what the Early Church fathers had done and said regarding recognition of the Primacy of Rome:

The majority of conservative scholars—Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—throughout Christian history have accepted that the author of the following letter was the bishop of Rome, probably the fourth, with Saint Peter being the first. The significance of this particular quote, therefore: What is the bishop of Rome, Italy, doing expecting obedience of a church in Corinth, Greece? Though Greece at this time was under Roman control, still there was no reason to expect a leader of a religious sect in Rome to have any clout over a similar group of religious sectarians in Greece, unless that leader was a bishop with authority over them.
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved … Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
Code:
—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80[/INDENT]
Ignatius, who was from the East, wrote seven letters in all to seven churches, but it was only in his letter to the church in Rome, quoted below, that he expressed such exalted praise of the bishop!

“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
Code:
—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110[/INDENT]
Irenaeus, a bishop from the region of France, who learned his faith from Polycarp, who learned his faith from John, demonstrates below the assumption of his day: that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome. How would a Protestant have to re-write this?

“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”
Code:
—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190[/INDENT]
What most impressed me about the next quote is that, as John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, this defense of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, expressed rhetorically not defensively, predates by nearly a hundred years the conciliar definitions of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ!
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
Code:
—St. Cyprian of Carthage
The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251[/INDENT]
Source:
"The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw" by Marcus Grodi

We disagree on the simplest of scripture regarding Peter, so even you quotes can reasonably be argued against. Most scholars would say the Papacy developed.At best it was silent in the beginning. Nothing is that simple. If I were Catholic I would garnish strength from quotes above for papacy, just as a protestant would against it. Right back to how to decide.​
 
We disagree on the simplest of scripture regarding Peter, so even you quotes can reasonably be argued against. Most scholars would say the Papacy developed.At best it was silent in the beginning. Nothing is that simple. If I were Catholic I would garnish strength from quotes above for papacy, just as a protestant would against it. Right back to how to decide.
Well, we have had disagreements since Cain. That doesn’t mean we are unable to decide. If you are demanding a complete agreement on everything, you are on the wrong side of reality.
 
I can’t exactly disagree with this post; but I would “balance it out” so to speak by pointing out that Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and yes Orthodox, are all catholics. So I think it makes sense to consider the question “Should I be catholic?” (or perhaps the related question “Why isn’t my church catholic?”) at the same time as one is specifically considering, say, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Of course 🙂 this is not to suggest that dronald should do anything as silly as deciding whether to e.g. become Orthodox based on what Catholics, Anglicans, or Lutherans say about the Orthodox.
That is why the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity is remarkable. If Lutherans represent Protestants, then the healing extends to the Reformed Church some day.
 
Well, we have had disagreements since Cain. That doesn’t mean we are unable to decide. If you are demanding a complete agreement on everything, you are on the wrong side of reality.
A bit ironic coming from a Catholic. Asking how to infers it can be (decided).
 
Not ironic. As a Catholic I am well too familiar with disagreements. This being a clear example.
Ironic because sometimes I get the feeling that CC justifies itself by claiming a refuge from disagreement on faith and morals, as compared to other denominations.Other denominations must be wrong because of “disagreements”. Yet you rightly say disagreements have been around since Cain (and Eve) So, agreement (unity) or disagreement do not necessarily justify one particular church over another. The reality of disagreements is deeper than that, and lies somewhere else.
 
Ironic because sometimes I get the feeling that CC justifies itself by claiming a refuge from disagreement on faith and morals, as compared to other denominations.Other denominations must be wrong because of “disagreements”. Yet you rightly say disagreements have been around since Cain (and Eve) So, agreement (unity) or disagreement do not necessarily justify one particular church over another. The reality of disagreements is deeper than that, and lies somewhere else.
You are looking at it the wrong way.

We don’t justify our opinions on disagreements but on agreements. What you and others are saying here if that because of the disagreements it is either impossible or too difficult to discern.

On the other hand, Protestantism is based on disagreements. I don’t like this Church, I’ll go to another one or I’ll make my own because I know what the real interpretation of Scriptures is, not others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top