General branches of Christianity

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

I would call the eastern Orthodox the lung with the cancer, not trying to insult, just trying to say that the Catholic Church looks at herself as the true church. Maybe God, will cure that cancer and bring her back to the truth.

I wonder just where you see the cancer? Our Churches are experiencing fresh growth after the persecution from Communism stopped. Our doctrines are still those of the early Church. Our traditions are strong. People observe the fasting days and periods as their ancestors have done for centuries. We have no shortage of clergy. Our monasteries are in a flush of expansion. The Russian Synod of bishops recently asked parish priests to disssuade married couples from separating and entering monasteries!!! The monasteries cannot cope with all the applicants.

I see that one of the links you gave calls us *A False Religious Denomination * and criticizes us for having married clergy.
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_48.htm

Well, the estimated sexual deviancy among our clergy is thought to run at less than 1%, but Catholic figures in the States suggest that sexual deviancy among Catholic priests runs at 10% and that 50% of Catholic clergy have sexual relations whether homosexual or heterosexual. I have to call a spade a spade: whose cancer is greater? Would it not be more honest to remove the cancer from your own Church before you call the Orthodox cancerous?

 

[gilliam]

Fr Ambrose:

I wonder just where you see the cancer?

you guys are off topic

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Asking:

Is the armenian church eastern orthodox?

there are many here

There is both an Armenian Orthodox Church and an Armenian Catholic Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[Almeria]

I don’t understand why you guys are laughing at Fr. Ambrose. Yeah, his timeline is from the Orthodox perspective, but it is accurate past that, is it not? It’s the visual representation of what I’ve been looking for, so thank you, Father.

I’ll use this as a basis, and add more textual info as well. I’ll post it here when I done.

And gilliam, I’m a she.

 

[Amadeus]

To be technical about it, the Armenian Churches are properly called Oriental Orthodox and its counterpart, Oriental Catholic.

As a group, the Eastern Orthodox sometimes refer to them as non-Chalcedonian, or, pejoratively,
“monophysites” or “miaphysites!”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Amadeus:

To be technical about it, the Armenian Churches are properly called Oriental Orthodox and its counterpart, Oriental Catholic.

As a group, the Eastern Orthodox sometimes refer to them as non-Chalcedonian, or, pejoratively,
“monophysites” or “miaphysites!”

Why is this considered perjorative?

Pope Shenouda is more than happy to describe himself as a monophysite and as a miaphysite.

In fact he has written an entire book “The Nature of Christ” where he uses the word ‘monophysite’ over and over again.

Please go to this thread and read Posts #12 and #13.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=25099

 

[GAssisi]

It is a fact, Father, that we chalcedonians have commonly seen Monophysitism as a heresy. If there is a politically correct movement to incorporate back into ecclesiastical jargon that has no connotations of heresy, that is fine. But you cannot deny that this is the historical way of it, and may be seen as pejorative by many, especially in and from the “old country.”

Greg

 

[Orthodoc]

Neither do I see what’s so funny. The timeline given by Father Ambrose is very accurate. Think of it as a piece of pie cut into five equal pieces. Each piece representing a Patriarchate of the undivided Church - Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch,and Alexandra.

Today you have four of the original pieces of the pie still together within the pie pan. While one (Rome) stands alone from the other four on a separate plate. Are we to assume that the four pieces that remain together in the original pan separated themselves from the one piece alone on the plate? I don’t think so.

Orthodoc*

 

[Maccabees]

Hesychios:

Cubby, I think that was pretty harsh.

218 million isn’t a bad number, especially after enduring 1300 years of Islamic dominance. There are a lot of ways to look at this.

The defiant stand of the Byzantine Empire probably did much to insulate Western Europe from the Arabs and Turks.

Think about Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. They still have small but devout communities of Christians who are rooted to those places since Roman times. By contrast North Africa (which was Roman Catholic) lost all traces of the original Christian communities that existed there, those Catholics living in North Africa today arrived as colonists from Europe in more recent times.

The story of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is so mixed with tragedy, intolerance and persecution that we can only marvel at their resilience. We should be so strong in Faith.

+T+

What are you talking about the west did a far better job of protecting itself from Islam than the East and that is a fact.
The west protected the christians in Syria and Lebanon heck almost all of Lebaneese christians are catholic and syria has a split community of orthodox and catholic, the catholic community there is just as solid as the orthodox. Turkey is a total disaster from all perspectives the Muslims attacked the christians, the later period crusaders sacked the area as well and the easter christians there didn’t do a good jog of defending themselves against Islam as far as Norhtern Africa it was attacked by Islam when the church was undivided if those churches surivived they might be Orthodox today as they might have been influenced by the Coptic Orthodox church which broke from us shortly after 451.
The churches in North Africa were sacrificed due to slow action by the West and the East. Heck the East never had a strategy to defend itself against Islam. If the West took up the Crusades earlier the northern african churches might have fared better but it was slow to act due to the reluctance to invlove religion with war but after a time it was deemed necessary It was a well intentioned plan that worked well for a while but eventually went amok and cause embarassment to the church but some good did come from it the churches in Lebannon, Syria, Jordon and Israel were saved and the Christian communities there were restored and reestablished. And many still stand there today thanks to the western crusade. Sadly the church in Turkey is a remnanat which in part is also due to a crusade gone bad.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

I see that one of the links you gave calls us *A False Religious Denomination *and criticizes us for having married clergy.
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_48.htm

I wouldn’t criticize you for the preistly marriage thing, but I would say that you are false. There is only one true church, that is the Catholic Church. Orthodox and Protestants are all wrong.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

If the West took up the Crusades earlier …a well intentioned plan that worked well for a while but eventually went amok and cause embarassment to the church but some good did come from it the churches in Lebannon, Syria, Jordon and Israel were saved and the Christian communities there were restored and reestablished. And many still stand there today thanks to the western crusade.

Good grief!!! What sort of history is this?

The only time when the Roman Church had any influence in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, Syria, Jordon and Israel, was the brief period of the “Latin Kingdom.”

This was established by the Crusaders in Jerusalem in 1099 after they massacred tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims and Orthodox. The Christians of the Holy Land enjoyed more toleration under the Muslims than under the Catholics. “Better the Muslim fez than the papal tiara.”

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted for a brief 90 years until 1187 when the Muslims again conquered Jerusalem and brought all Roman Catholic authority to an end. From 1187 (apart from the insignificant Catholic attempt to start a new kingdom at Saint-Jean d’Acre) the Christians were again under the Muslims. It wasn’t ideal but they thought it was easier for them than under Catholic rule.

 

[Maccabees]

Oh Gee what kind of history is that FR Ambrose!

Oh yeah those tolerant Muslims. Keep on beleiving that one. The Byzantines beleived that one to their utter destruction.

Put it this way we look at the world with a differnt chart your chart has the Orthodox church being the true church while the rest broke away. I on the other hand have the catholic church as being the true church while other churches broke away.

The same disrespect other gave to your chart you return to my view of history .
I did not critisize your chart as I know that is the Orthodox world view. WE catholics have a world view also and it is not absurd to us catholics to think the original crusades were on good thing.
IT is absurd to watch your entire Christian Kingdom crumble and do nothing but be slaves as many Orthodox did.
I am sure you see the same events as the ORthodox being noble and teh catholics being barbarians to defend herself but that is the differnce in the wrold view.
Look I don’t spend 7 days in a monastary on a computer like you and I don’t spend all my energies past church finger pointing as the Orthodox priests are trained to do. I am sure you could
slander the church to know end and you seem to do that quite
regularly.
But please keep in mind we have 2 very different world views and no its not a joke.that we catholics beleive such things nor do I think its a joke that orthodox think differntly I respect your point of view although I disagree with I don’t disparage it.
You can give us your chart and I won’t but in return don’t disparage our chart. I give you my take on history please don’t laugh. You give yours and I won’t laugh.
Let’s get more ecumeical here I know thats tough for a Russian Orthodox but try.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

All I can say about what you have written below is: READ the history of the Crusades and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the impact on the Christians of the Holy Land. It has nothing to do with any Orthodox or Catholic biased point of view. Nor does it have anything to do with differing world views. It has everything to do with the historical record.

As for all the ad hominems against me personally in your message below, I am not going to reply to them.

As for the “toleration” of Christians by the Muslims who ruled the Holy Land… In general, yes, it was benevolent and the Christians lived in peace… think of the Lives of the Christian saints of that period, such as Saint John of Damascus (8th century) who was secretary to the Caliph. Christians could rise to high civil and administrative positions. The Christians had been under Muslim rule for three centuries before the Crusaders came in; a modus vivendi had been in operation all the time. Provided the Christians lived quietly they were left in peace as a minority sector in the Islamic Empire. The Muslims were also benevolent towards the Jewish population under their control, partly in gratitude because the Jews had fought with the Muslims against the Persians in the 7th century.

The question of the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 is a different affair entirely. This was a war effort by the Muslims to expand their territory and it exhibited all the atrocities of the wars of that period. It is said though that the Crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was more horrific and cruel than the later Muslim one.

Maccabees:

Oh Gee what kind of history is that FR Ambrose!

Oh yeah those tolerant Muslims. Keep on beleiving that one. The Byzantines beleived that one to their utter destruction.

Put it this way we look at the world with a differnt chart your chart has the Orthodox church being the true church while the rest broke away. I on the other hand have the catholic church as being the true church while other churches broke away.

The same disrespect other gave to your chart you return to my view of history .
I did not critisize your chart as I know that is the Orthodox world view. WE catholics have a world view also and it is not absurd to us catholics to think the original crusades were on good thing.
IT is absurd to watch your entire Christian Kingdom crumble and do nothing but be slaves as many Orthodox did.
I am sure you see the same events as the ORthodox being noble and teh catholics being barbarians to defend herself but that is the differnce in the wrold view.
Look I don’t spend 7 days in a monastary on a computer like you and I don’t spend all my energies past church finger pointing as the Orthodox priests are trained to do. I am sure you could
slander the church to know end and you seem to do that quite
regularly.
But please keep in mind we have 2 very different world views and no its not a joke.that we catholics beleive such things nor do I think its a joke that orthodox think differntly I respect your point of view although I disagree with I don’t disparage it.
You can give us your chart and I won’t but in return don’t disparage our chart. I give you my take on history please don’t laugh. You give yours and I won’t laugh.
Let’s get more ecumeical here I know thats tough for a Russian Orthodox but try.

 

[Maccabees]

The question of the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 is a different affair entirely. This was a war effort by the Muslims to expand their territory and it exhibited all the atrocities of the wars of that period. It is said though that the Crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was more horrific and cruel than the later Muslim one.

No way do catholic historians agree with this conclusion like I said differing world views result in a differnet take on history.
We are never going to agree on this so let’s move on.
Oh Yes Fr. Ambrose you have never attacked anyone here. You make a habit of attacking.
The Muslims were so friendly that they took over the holy churches and did not allow church pilgramges to the holy land.
The Orthodox church was obvlivious to what was going with Islam and still is no wonder many of her churches are in lands dominated by Islam they failed to see the real enemy but rather rattle on the evil of her western brother.

 

[hlgomez]

The question of the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 is a different affair entirely. This was a war effort by the Muslims to expand their territory and it exhibited all the atrocities of the wars of that period. It is said though that the Crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was more horrific and cruel than the later Muslim one.

You’re a great twister.

Pio

 

[Erich]

Katholikos:

Here’s one timeline. There are many on the Internet. This one is more detailed and easier to read than most.

catholicapologetics.org/ap021200.htm

Yes, definitely more detailed and easier to read than most I’ve seen… but there’s at least one (potential) inaccuracy. This timeline seems to imply that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod merged into the Association of Evangelical Lutherans which in turn merged into the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. According to the ELCA web site’s timeline at elca.org/co/timeline/19.html, the AELC was “founded by ‘moderates’ who left the Missouri Synod.”

It’s not a timeline (rather, more like a “family tree” of western and eastern churches), but tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Links_Various_Churche.html is interesting (as is lots of other stuff on this site, by the way).

I also came across this site, by an ELCA Lutheran pastor, which nonetheless appears to be a very well researched “family tree” of sorts: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/przip/xianlinx.htm

 

[Joseph_Romero]

The original question in this thread has been answered. This thread is now closed.