EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[JonNC]

This is really interesting reasoning, since the OP is a Protestant and the sale of indulgences, which funded St. Peter’s was a major objection which drove Luther to post his 95 theses against the RCC. Hmmm.

:sad_yes:

Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

This is really interesting reasoning, since the OP is a Protestant and the sale of indulgences, which funded St. Peter’s was a major objection which drove Luther to post his 95 theses against the RCC. Hmmm.

Well, we do have Kickstarter - it probably wouldn’t require the sale of indulgences at all

 

[Arizona_Samson]

This became one of the many discussions which sort of derailed a thread and I’m really interested in understanding this. I’m an Evangelical Christian, I belong to no Apostolic Faith

The first thing to understand is that you’re presenting a false pretense.

If you’re a Evangelical Christian who holds to that which was breathed out by God as the only *infallible *rule of faith then you do indeed belong to the Apostolic faith, since every verifiable *θεόπνευστος *Apostolic teaching is found only in the inscripturated word.

whether it be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican or whoever else claims to be #1 among the oldest Christian groups.

Absolute truth is not predicated on the antiquity of any religious organization. It flows from that which God, who is Truth Personified, has spoken (Psalm 18:30, Prov 30:5, John 17:17).

Wishing a blessed Merry Christmas to all!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Does everyone in Orthodoxy claim that Roman Catholics are heretics, outside the Church and therefore their Baptisms aren’t valid? Sorry if I read that wrong.

Valid for the Orthodox means something different. For Roman Catholics, they understand that valid baptisms outside of the Church join one to the Catholic Church in a degree of impeded communion. For us, we understand that valid baptisms are ones performed with proper form and therefore while they do not in any sense join one to the Catholic Church, they are capable of being received by the (Orthodox) Catholic Church through oikonomia, which is to say that such baptisms are incomplete, and can be completed by receiving Chrismation (that is, Confirmation) and the Eucharist, or (controversially for Western Christians) through the true baptism of the Church.

 

[system]

This became one of the many discussions which sort of derailed a thread and I’m really interested in understanding this.

I’m an Evangelical Christian, I belong to no Apostolic Faith, whether it be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican or whoever else claims to be #1 among the oldest Christian groups.

I often see the argument posed here that I have no true authority to interpret Scripture, nor does my Pastor. The argument is as follows; “If your Pastor has one interpretation and another Pastor has a different interpretation how can the Holy Spirit guide you to your Pastor’s interpretation and lead another to believe the other interpretation is truth?” I often reply that among Evangelicals our interpretations are extremely close but not always the exact same.

Some differences among Evangelicals are, eternal security, contraception, old earth/new earth and there could be more but most of them are small. But the question remains, “who’s Holy Spirit is right?” I trust God to guide me, I pray, keep an open mind and try to do His will, as does someone who is in another Church with another interpretation.

Now, this seems like a tough argument to address until we look at the tradition of the Catholic Church. There is the RC with its many, many members. The EO in second place, the Copts who believe that Mark personally founded their Church, and many Orthodox branches that are similar to the RC but still not the one true Church.

So for someone like myself, how can I be sure which Church to join? Perhaps it’s the persecuted Copts that I shall join, or perhaps the EO, perhaps the RC? I can pray and trust the Holy Spirit and I may be led to the RC while another is led to the EO. So what’s the difference? One of them is wrong, so how is this argument any different?

I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that you are supposed to join a specific religious group to find the truth. Jesus said that He is the way, the TRUTH and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Him. Paul too says that there’s one mediator between God and man, one High Priest who intercedes for you, one who dwells in an inaccessible glory, Jesus Christ, no other you should trust, go to in faith to find favor in God’s sight or even pray. Jesus is the door, and by His blood we can freely and confidently approach God’s throne.
Do you want the truth? Go to Him. How? The 12 apostles have a role here. You want to find Jesus? Then go to those who eyewitnessed to the things he said, did, his death, burial and resurrection. See 1John 1:1 (‘we proclaim’ definitely refers to those who personally saw Jesus, the apostles).
They were entrusted with the truth, the gospel (Paul always speaks this way about the apostles).
I know there may be different interpretations out there, but if you go directly to the source there’s a lesser chance to be polluted by one 's distorted view.
When you seek God you have to have this confidence. The Bible says that, when you go to God, you have to believe that He is and that he rewards all who seek Him. What greater reward could we receive but to find Him? Have faith that if you seek Him you’ll find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart. God Himself will make sure that He’s found by you. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Read His word and humbly ask Him to help you understand it the way all should. I’m a protestant, but I have to admit that many in protestant churches have gone astray from the truth.
God gives the Holy Spirit to all who ask Him. The Holy Spirit came as a substitute for Christ’s ministry and he reminds us of all the things Jesus said and will take the truth from the Father and give it to us. The words written by those who heard Jesus’ teachings in person will help you discern the truth.
Then go and find those who preach and put God’s Word into practice. Have fellowship with the body of believers. There may be different views on less important matters, say, eschatology which are not a salvation issue, so you should not break your head over it. Gods grace, Sanctification, sin, separation from the world, brotherly love, helping the poor, visiting the sick should be your main focus and your yardstick

God bless all and Merry Christmas.

 

[sennincatholic]

I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that you are supposed to join a specific religious group to find the truth. Jesus said that He is the way, the TRUTH and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Him. Paul too says that there’s one mediator between God and man, one High Priest who intercedes for you, one who dwells in an inaccessible glory, Jesus Christ, no other you should trust, go to in faith to find favor in God’s sight or even pray. Jesus is the door, and by His blood we can freely and confidently approach God’s throne.
Do you want the truth? Go to Him. How? The 12 apostles have a role here. You want to find Jesus? Then go to those who eyewitnessed to the things he said, did, his death, burial and resurrection. See 1John 1:1 (‘we proclaim’ definitely refers to those who personally saw Jesus, the apostles).
They were entrusted with the truth, the gospel (Paul always speaks this way about the apostles).
I know there may be different interpretations out there, but if you go directly to the source there’s a lesser chance to be polluted by one 's distorted view.
When you seek God you have to have this confidence. The Bible says that, when you go to God, you have to believe that He is and that he rewards all who seek Him. What greater reward could we receive but to find Him? Have faith that if you seek Him you’ll find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart. God Himself will make sure that He’s found by you. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Read His word and humbly ask Him to help you understand it the way all should. I’m a protestant, but I have to admit that many in protestant churches have gone astray from the truth.
God gives the Holy Spirit to all who ask Him. The Holy Spirit came as a substitute for Christ’s ministry and he reminds us of all the things Jesus said and will take the truth from the Father and give it to us. The words written by those who heard Jesus’ teachings in person will help you discern the truth.
Then go and find those who preach and put God’s Word into practice. Have fellowship with the body of believers. There may be different views on less important matters, say, eschatology which are not a salvation issue, so you should not break your head over it. Gods grace, Sanctification, sin, separation from the world, brotherly love, helping the poor, visiting the sick should be your main focus and your yardstick

God bless all and Merry Christmas.

It seems you are contradicting yourself. While you seem not to believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, you advice Dronald to look for the first eye witnesses of the gospel…Its only in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches(i think, correct me if i am wrong) that apostolic succession has been maintained.

 

[system]

It seems you are contradicting yourself. While you seem not to believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, you advice Dronald to look for the first eye witnesses of the gospel…Its only in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches(i think, correct me if i am wrong) that apostolic succession has been maintained.

Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
I was actually referring to the apostles’ teachings, which are trustworthy as they give an account of what they saw and heard. I don’t know how apostolic succession fits into it.
The only thing that has been preserved through the ages is indeed the apostles’ teachings, hence the NT. Of course, it is through direct divine intervention that the Holy Writs came to us intact. Well, I can’t say this about any religion (I’m not implying the one is better than the other). History is full of mistakes, because of man. Divisions, denominations, confessions…
Jesus never established a religion but showed the Way and entrusted the Church to be a beacon in the darkness, to be the light of the world.
Now since the Word came to us unaltered, it is our guidance.

 

[GKC]

It seems you are contradicting yourself. While you seem not to believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, you advice Dronald to look for the first eye witnesses of the gospel…Its only in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches(i think, correct me if i am wrong) that apostolic succession has been maintained.

In general, and subject to some technical possibilities in some specific cases, the RCC has stated (Apostolicae Curae) that the Anglicans have lost apostolic succession.

Anglicans, generally, disagree.

GKC

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP please, and observe the forum rules on charity.

 

[Darryl1958]

It seems to me that it has been a rather ungodly set of affairs that have led all of us to a point where we have to make these kinds of decisions in the first place. Some would disagree, and would see disunity and difference as the essential element in God’s relationship with us being kept on the most personal level, but the fact that it has been political interferences that have led to the greatest schisms does not lend itself well to such interpretations.
For some, the idea that God is not the source of disunity, and that God would never allow Satan to prevail against his Church, have led them to a situation where they make a choice and state with absolute conviction that their choice of the One, True Church is the correct one. Reason itself, and/or the Spirit himself is believed to have been the source of such an infallible conviction.

In terms of either EO or RC or Coptic, the rites are very ancient. Historical ties play a large role in the selling points for either of the two sides.Development of doctrine and dogma over the first councils and the many controversies make any argument based on changelessness unreasonable, but a chief selling point of the EO is that they have not changed, which is to say that they see themselves as having changed less. The centrality and the esteem of the papacy in the early years of Christianity is the distinctive selling point of the Roman Catholic affiliated churches as being the correct churches, and for various Protestant churches and their derivatives, they search for the original church before it became changed by the many Emperor-led councils and developments of the faith. This too is a venture wrought with peril, for so much of the faith, from the Trinity to the nature of Christ is based more on the Council rulings than on the original beliefs of even the early Fathers, which tended to be very heterodox on many matters. That of course was the reason behind the perceived need of the councils in the first place, to enable a decision to be made on who the real Jesus really is.

I think ultimately any decision we make to become EO or RC, or to remain EO or RC or Protestant has to be made with the humbling understanding that such a decision is by its very nature arbitrary, and tells us as much about our own prejudices as it does about which Church is the One True Faith

There is something ungodly about being in a position to have to make such a choice, which in the end is an impossible choice to make with anything approaching certainty based in reason. It is a roulette spin, where we bet on our own ability and the Spirit convicting us correctly and not others who do not place their money on the same colors as we have.

But because we are Christian, we all choose anyway, and pretend either with complete blind conviction, or with a sardonic sense of irony that the choice that we have made is the right one.

It is such a joyful message though, this tiding of Christ Incarnate in the world, that he came while we are still sinners and opened up the gates of paradise to us. After all these centuries we still find a common joy in sharing that message with the world.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Does everyone in Orthodoxy claim that Roman Catholics are heretics, outside the Church and therefore their Baptisms aren’t valid? Sorry if I read that wrong.

"For us, we understand that valid baptisms are ones performed with proper form and therefore while they do not in any sense join one to the Catholic Church,

You are joined to the Catholic Church Universal, perhaps not the EO. How you are joined we do not know. We can not and do not deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

“they are capable of being received by the (Orthodox) Catholic Church through oikonomia, which is to say that such baptisms are incomplete.”

Your baptism is incomplete? Is Gods supernaturally imposed virtue of Grace lacking anything?

EO does not see you in any sense joined to the Church. The Catholic Church doesn’t deny your indwelling of the Holy Spirit., and we place our sacrament above the possible misapplication of form with yours, which its a bit preposterous to suggest the form precedes the grace anyway.

The economy again contends with form, and has the sequence out of order. As far as Gods economy it seems to me the EO doesn’t allow His will to exist out their church. Perhaps that’s where the term came from “No Salvation outside the Church”

Perhaps another thread as I’m not here to belabor the points of St Cyprian from EO to CC views. Think about what is being said to you though. Perhaps I am understanding wrong. Not hard to tell what I would argue from your position.

Paul and Apollos planted the seed and did the watering, God supplied the Grace!

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.- Jeremiah.

 

[dzheremi]

In terms of either EO or RC or Coptic, the rites are very ancient. Historical ties play a large role in the selling points for either of the two sides.

You just listed three “sides”…

I think ultimately any decision we make to become EO or RC, or to remain EO or RC or Protestant has to be made with the humbling understanding that such a decision is by its very nature arbitrary

How is it in any way arbitrary?

 

[josie_L]

The Roman Catholic Church is nice now, but let’s not pretend that it became the biggest Church and the only Church for the longest time by the nicest means.

Why do you keep referring to us as the Roman Catholic Church, we are the Catholic Church, furthermore, every Church has had a past that was less than stellar, i.e., I could bring up many things that Protestants and Orthodox did that were not so nice. Moreover, the majority of her (CC) adherents were not forced into the Church so the largess of our Church cannot be accounted for by malicious means, i.e., “let’s not pretend that it became the biggest Church and the only Church for the longest time by the nicest means”.

I don’t accept the argument that the RCC is big therefore it’s right, because I know the Orthodox went through (and still go through) much harder times and yet they’ve lasted to this day as a massive Church.

I’m not sure what you mean by massive (there about 300 000 000 million Orthodox most of whom are from Russia), but you seem to think that the Orthodox are this one unified entity, they are not, i.e., OO are not in communion with the EO (the OO reject Chalcedon and the EO don’t).

 

[josie_L]

:sad_yes:

Jon

95 theses is more than just a problem with the sale of indulgences (which was an issue which existed even before Luther).

 

[Novocastrian]

Why do you keep referring to us as the Roman Catholic Church, we are the Catholic Church, furthermore, every Church h

Presumably to distinguish you from those who claim to be/are Catholic outside the communion of the Roman Church.

 

[josie_L]

Does everyone in Orthodoxy claim that Roman Catholics are heretics, outside the Church and therefore their Baptisms aren’t valid? Sorry if I read that wrong.

You can go to this website to get some answers:

goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/faq/baptism-faq#subject-which-faith-group

According to the Greek Orthodox archdiocese of America they do recognize our baptism, but again this does not represent all of Orthodoxy. However, this article may help elucidate what is acceptable so to speak:

There have been two promising steps forward resulting from the North American Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues:

the Eastern Orthodox signatories to a detailed study and “Consultation Statement” on the Filioque (October 25, 2003) are in agreement that the Filioque doctrine (i.e., the affirmation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque]) should no longer be stigmatized as “heretical”;

and as a result of the Agreed Statement on “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” issued by the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation (June 3, 1999), the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has been formally asked to withdraw the 1755 [patriarchal] decree denying the validity of Catholic baptisms!

In that “Agreed Statement” the Orthodox signatories joined in clearly repudiating the influential teaching of the Athonite monk Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain whose work, the Pedalion (1783), had reinforced the erroneous doctrine that had spread among many Orthodox that Catholic baptisms were invalid. As the “Agreed Statement” observed:

“In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the recognition of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to ‘pastoral discretion’. In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).

The Orthodox world owes an immense debt to this Athonite monk, who edited and published the Philokalia (1783), as well as numerous other works of a patristic, pastoral and liturgical nature. In the Pedalion (1800), his enormously influential edition of -and commentary on- canonical texts. Nicodemus gave form and substance to the requirement of rebaptism decreed by Cyril V. Thoroughly in sympathy with the decree of 1755, and moved by his attachment to a perceived golden age in the patristic past, he underscored the antiquity and hence priority of the African Councils and Apostolic Canons, and argued strenuously, in fact, for the first-century provenance of the latter. Nicodemus held up these documents, with their exclusivist ecclesiology, as the universal voice of the ancient Church. In so doing, he systematically reversed what had been the normative practice of the Eastern Church since at least the 4th century… [As a result of Nicodemus’ understanding of ‘sacramental economy’], much of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy [has justified] the rebaptism of Western Christians, or for their reception by chrismation or profession of faith, without in either case attributing to their baptism any reality in its own right”.

Those Orthodox who have denied the validity of baptism in non-Orthodox Churches (whose sacraments outside Eastern Orthodoxy are regarded as devoid of grace) are sharply taken to task in the “Agreed Statement”:

“The Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted in important theological and monastic circles. Although these voices in the Orthodox world are significant ones, we do not believe that they represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism… It is rather an eighteenth century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of Scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today”.

Regardless of the above “Agreed Statement” acknowledging the validity of Catholic baptisms (which Catholics can only welcome), the fact remains that significant numbers of Eastern Orthodox, including the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) and those of the “uncanonical” Old Calendarist Churches in Greece, Bulgaria, and Rumania are at odds with the official Orthodox establishments in their countries. Numbering millions, they adhere strictly to the Nicodemean understanding of the sacraments as exclusively “orthodox”. The “Agreed Statement” fails to mention that such “Orthodox” groups (adhering to an heretical Donatist view of the sacraments) not only reject the validity of Catholic baptisms but also the other sacraments of the Catholic Church!

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

 

[josie_L]

Presumably to distinguish you from those who claim to be/are Catholic outside the communion of the Roman Church.

We have 23 rites in our Church, i.e., we are referred to as the Catholic Church (always have). There is no “Roman” Catholic Church per se.

 

[RyanBlack]

We have 23 rites in our Church, i.e., we are referred to as the Catholic Church (always have). There is no “Roman” Catholic Church per se.

23 particular churches, not 23 rites.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

 

[RyanBlack]

Why do you keep referring to us as the Roman Catholic Church, we are the Catholic Church, furthermore, every Church has had a past that was less than stellar, i.e., I could bring up many things that Protestants and Orthodox did that were not so nice. Moreover, the majority of her (CC) adherents were not forced into the Church so the largess of our Church cannot be accounted for by malicious means, i.e., “let’s not pretend that it became the biggest Church and the only Church for the longest time by the nicest means”.

I’m not sure what you mean by massive (there about 300 000 000 million Orthodox most of whom are from Russia), but you seem to think that the Orthodox are this one unified entity, they are not, i.e., OO are not in communion with the EO (the OO reject Chalcedon and the EO don’t).

Kind of like how Catholics aren’t one unified entity. You know, with the PNCC and the Old Catholics not being in communion with Rome.