EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[truthseeker32]

Thanks for posting that truthseeker32. I something ask myself: which would I join (the Roman Communion or the Orthodox Communion) if I had been born into neither.

That is an interesting approach. I wonder if I would be handling things differently if I had been born into the Roman Catholic Church and immersed in its traditions.

 

[josie_L]

But I think it would be reasonable for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith to say the same thing about other members, including Roman Catholics. Correct?

Yes, they probably would say this about ALL Catholics (you keep forgetting that we are comprised of more than one rite). Moreover, their view would be even “harsher” than ours, i.e., there are some Orthodox bishops who don’t even recognize that Catholics are validly baptized or are unsure of its validity. So, if a Catholic should convert to Orthodoxy there is a possibility of being baptized (again). The Catholic Church does view all Orthodox sacraments as valid (there are no variations).

 

[josie_L]

Kind of like the conspiracy ascribed to Luther regarding his translation into German.

Jon

You’re comparing apples and oranges.

 

[JonNC]

There is only one Catholic Church and its dogmas and doctrines and liturgical practices have been presented to the world since its inception and have never been hidden. If one wishes to be called Catholic then they must live in obedience to Catholic teaching. The degree to which one rejects Catholic teaching is the degree to which they are separated from the Catholic Church. This includes even those who call themselves “Catholic” and attend Mass every Sunday and then make a donation to Planned Parenthood or wait for the day when the Church will finally attain their level of enlightenment and ordain women, or do not believe confession is necessary or that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a matter of authenticity, both individually and corporately.

If one wishes to call themselves Catholic then they cannot very well choose to be a part of a faith community that rejects Catholic teaching. Personally, I have been a little surprised at the number of posters who wish to identify themselves with the name “Catholic” while remaining outside of the very Church that has borne the name, unchanged, since the first century.

If one chooses to be Lutheran then call yourself Lutheran. If one chooses to be Anglican then call yourself Anglican. There is a reason they did not claim the name “Catholic” when they originated. I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe that it is different today.

Actually, Steve, the Lutherans did claim the name Catholic - Evangelical Catholic.
The name Lutheran was originally a slur meant to marginalize the Reformers, not unlike “Roman Catholic”. And they never saw themselves as “originating” , but intending to reform and continue.

Jon

 

[dronald]

Yes, they probably would say this about ALL Catholics (you keep forgetting that we are comprised of more than one rite). Moreover, their view would be even “harsher” than ours, i.e., there are some Orthodox bishops who don’t even recognize that Catholics are validly baptized or are unsure of its validity. So, if a Catholic should convert to Orthodoxy there is a possibility of being baptized (again). The Catholic Church does view all Orthodox sacraments as valid (there are no variations).

This I did know, which is interesting because it would make one safer to be Eastern Orthodox. Assuming the RCC accepts them and the EO does not accept the RCC.

Doesn’t make either one right though.

Actually, Steve, the Lutherans did claim the name Catholic - Evangelical Catholic.
The name Lutheran was originally a slur meant to marginalize the Reformers, not unlike “Roman Catholic”. And they never saw themselves as “originating” , but intending to reform and continue.

Jon

It does seem silly to me that they decided to adopt the name, “Lutheran.” It’s so unappealing to me now that they have.

 

[JonNC]

This I did know, which is interesting because it would make one safer to be Eastern Orthodox. Assuming the RCC accepts them and the EO does not accept the RCC.

Doesn’t make either one right though.

It does seem silly to me that they decided to adopt the name, “Lutheran.” It’s so unappealing to me now that they have.

Luther was thoroughly opposed to it. He said he never hung on a cross for anyone. He preferred the name Christian.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

This I did know, which is interesting because it would make one safer to be Eastern Orthodox. Assuming the RCC accepts them and the EO does not accept the RCC.

Actually, it gives me comfort because there is mass of confusion when it comes down to the EO’s acceptance of our sacraments for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. There is no uniformity, i.e., some Orthodox bishops will baptize Catholics when they convert, others won’t. This doesn’t sound like cohesive teaching/practice.

 

[josie_L]

Luther was thoroughly opposed to it. He said he never hung on a cross for anyone. He preferred the name Christian.

Jon

As opposed to the other Christians living at that time.

 

[SteveVH]

IClearly, there are a number of differences, some of which are rather significant. However, there is nothing you have offered to demonstrate that your previous statement “The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part,** rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years**, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible” is anything other than a gross exaggeration. Clearly, there is quite a lot of Catholic teaching that most Protestants retained.

I think I have made the point that not everything I cited applies to all. I am certainly willing to stipulate that certain Protestant faith traditions have retained much of what the Catholic Church taught, even in their liturgies, some of which can scarcely be distinguished from Catholic. That is why I speak of "varying degrees".

But as I have pointed out, many, if not most Protestant faith communities have gutted the Catholic faith, its Sacred Tradition, its liturgies and its teaching in favor of their own judgment. When the word “sacrament” becomes foreign to the members of a faith community, that is a pretty good indication of the extent to which one has strayed from the Apostolic faith.

 

[JonNC]

As opposed to the other Christians living at that time.

I don’t think I said anything about being opposed to other Christians. He said he preferred the name as opposed to Lutheran.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I was saying its how you define unity of the Church and see yourself in it.

“Eastern Church’s are genuine particular Church’s though they are not in communion with the Pope, In this sense unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church. Nevertheless, the lack of unity is also a intrinsic lack in the particular church. For the particular church is ordered to membership with the whole. In this respect non-communion with the Pope is defective in the living cell of the church. It remains a cell and is legitimately called a church, but the cell is lacking something, namely, its connection with the organism as a whole” Pope Benedict, Light of the World. pg 89.

To Rome unity of the Church is not a conceptual idea, but a physical reality.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think I said anything about being opposed to other Christians. He said he preferred the name as opposed to Lutheran.

Jon

I understood that part Jon, I’m just stating the obvious by admitting that there were other Christians, so I can’t imagine all these groups calling themselves Christians without there being confusion, i.e., there had to a be a qualifier to differentiate.

p.s. I am still going to respond to your post in the Protestants why aren’t you Catholic thread. Be prepared to have your mind blown.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, Steve, the Lutherans did claim the name Catholic - Evangelical Catholic.
The name Lutheran was originally a slur meant to marginalize the Reformers, not unlike “Roman Catholic”. And they never saw themselves as “originating” , but intending to reform and continue.

Jon

Jon, when did the Lutherans claim the name “Evangelical Catholic”? I did a very quick search and couldn’t come up with anything. I did read where they claimed “Evangelical Christians” in order to distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church but that was about it.
Like I said, I didn’t dig very far but thought it would be easier just to ask you.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[dronald]

Luther was thoroughly opposed to it. He said he never hung on a cross for anyone. He preferred the name Christian.

Jon

Yes, I know. Such was my point that Lutherans have now adopted this name even though Luther was against it. It’s even under your denomination title.

I would hate to have to explain to anyone that I’m “Lutheran” as Lutherans do now, even though Luther said not to.

 

[andrewstx]

Honestly I do not trust the people who call themselves “Christian” only without qualifiers. I was raised in a denomination that will not admit that they are a denomination, just “Christians” only. They quietly claim to be the world’s only Christians, even though they never existed before 1906. According to this sect that has many, many followers in the Southwest and South and barely exists anywhere else you must agree with them on every part of theology and the scriptures or you just aren’t Christian.
They use “Christian” as a brand name. Every one else is a Catholic or Protestant in a “denominational church”.

I feel the same about Christians that call themselves “non-denominational”. These individuals are uniformly Protestant usually practicing Calvinist theology and a few Arminians mixed in. They usually have Baptist ideas about baptism, the sacraments that they call “ordinances”. This to me is as denominational as you can get. Far from the “only Christians” or “non-denominational”.

Basically I just don’t trust modern denominations that claim you must agree with them or you are not Christian.

Orthodox and Catholics never claim to be the only Christians. But people who believe in getting saved do think if you haven’t gotten saved are not Christians and are fair game for proselytizing. They call it “evangelism” since they claim to be the only Christians.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But I think it would be reasonable for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith to say the same thing about other members, including Roman Catholics. Correct?

We do not adhere to degrees of communion ecclesiology, which was accepted by the Roman Church during the Second Vatican Council. We do not believe that baptisms performed by those who are outside of the Church can join one to the Catholic Church of Christ, for the reason that some fathers called the baptisms of heretics “polution” rather than baptism, while others still (like St. Augustine), taught that the sacraments of heretics cannot save, for salvation is in the Catholic Church alone (implying then that sacraments performed by those outside of the Church do not join one to the Church, since that would make such sacraments salvific). We do not deny that God by some special means may save those outside of the Church and join them to the Church, but we do deny that sacraments performed by those outside of the Church can accomplish this.

But otherwise, yes, we could agree with the general thinking behind the statement which you quoted.

 

[Peter_J]

This I did know, which is interesting because it would make one safer to be Eastern Orthodox. Assuming the RCC accepts them and the EO does not accept the RCC.

:bighanky:

Well, I guess we’re still safer than the Anglicans, since they recognize our sacraments but not we theirs.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the Russian ambassador, de Sadesky, explained it best when he told the then-U.S. President “We were afraid of a quote-mine gap.”

No Kubrick fans here?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We do not believe that baptisms performed by those who are outside of the Church can join one to the Catholic Church of Christ.

You mean the EO, where there is literally no salvation outside the Church. So in other words the EO re-baptizes Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants. In other words they are considered heretics?

So you follow St Cyprian here?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Canon 7 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council

“Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Catharia or Aristeri, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians…, Montanists, Phrygians, and Sabellians, and other heresies…all these…we receive as heathen…”

Canon 8 Council of Arles in 314.

“If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he shall have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.”

Considered ecumenical by Augustine, since I am sure cherry picked quotes by him will follow.

De Baptismo contra Donatistas, where he says : “The question relating to re-baptism was decided against Cyprian, in a full council of the whole Church” (plenarium concilium, concilium universae Ecclesiae).