Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter addictedkoala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
these are great:thumbsup:

Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian II, 867 A.D., upon being restored to his See by Basil I in the conflict with Photios:

“Art has provided many physicians for the wounds in the limbs of men…but of wounds in the members of Christ our God and Savior, the Head of us all, and of His Spouse, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word, Orderer, Healer and Master, the God of all, has produced one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician, that is, your fraternal and fatherly goodness. Wherefore He said to Peter, the great and chief Apostle: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ And again, ‘I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him He transmitted them to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome. This is why, since the most ancient times, each occasion that heresy and prevarication have come to light, your predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, and imitators of his zeal for the Christian Faith, have torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected.”

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed,** unto the end,** are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

Pope St. Zosimus (417 a.d.):

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an authority to the Apostolic See , that no one should dare to dispute about a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has kept to this; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or discipline) descends, the reverence due, - **for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who, by His will, should be found worthy to inherit his See, for he has charge both of all the Churches, and especially of the One wherein he sat: **nor does he allow any storm to shake one particle of the Privilege, or any part of the Sentence of that See to which he has given his name as a foundation firm and not to be weakened by any violence whatever, and which no one can rashly attack but at his peril; - seeing then, that Peter is a Head of such great authority, and that he has confirmed the subsequent decrees (or statutes)of the Fathers; that, by all laws and regulations, both human and divine, the Roman Church is strengthened: and you are not ignorant, you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you are not ignorant, that we rule over his Place, and are in possession also of the Authority of his name, nevertheless, though so great be our Authority that none may refuse (or reconsider) our Sentence, we have not done anything, which we have not, of our will referred by letter to your knowledge, conceding this to the Brotherhood.” (Zosimus Ep. xi. Ad Africanos, Galland T. ix. pp. 15,16)
 
The fact of the matter is Promodos that the approval of the Pope with respect to synods and/or ecumenical councils was not a mere formality but a necessity.
All you’ve demonstrated is that bishops often spoke of each other in lofty terms. History demonstrates that the Pope’s approval was not necessary. It was sought because it was proper for there to be agreement throughout the Church, but if it was not received then the Church moved on regardless and Rome eventually caught up, until the schism where Rome willfully struck out on its own.
 
Hello Monica,
these are great:thumbsup:

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)
It is highly doubtful that the letter of “Methodius the Slav” is genuine.

In fact, the original does not appear to exist and the copy this letter is supposedly published from is not extant anywhere that I am aware of. No museum nor library seems to have it.

There is no indication as to whom it may have been addressed to, nor the original language it was written in.

It was not heard from until the very late 19th century, and was not quoted at all throughout all of the conflicts one finds between the churches in Slavic eastern Europe for one thousand years.

If it was genuine, the Poles would certainly have used it against the Russians for propaganda purposes, and the Popes could have quoted it at any time for their own reasons, especially during the desperate crises when the Chelm diocese went over to Holy Orthodoxy.

Even Mr. Likoudis (the internet source of your quote) does not attribute this to Saint Methodios, he doesn’t know and says -or possibly one of his followers- or something to that effect. So not only is the actual artifact unaccounted for, but the authorship is actually in question.

This has very strong similar overtones to the Pseudo-Isadorean decretals.
 
Your struggle is my struggle. As Clinton might say, “I feel your pain.” I truly do. I reverted to Catholicism in 2002 and for several reasons moral and theological I have struggled greatly do believe the catechism and Catholic agenda. For a couple of months now I have been back at my old Anglican parish as I just can’t be hypocritical. I have also thought of Orthodoxy but their views on Original Sin trouble me. I do not see how development doctrine a la Newman makes any sense. Indulgences, purgatory, infallibility, innovation, and other ideas trouble me greatly. post 1054 changed dramatically from its previous form whereas Orthodoxy stayed status quo for the most part. Orthodoxy has not undergone the watering-down of its liturgy with folk musicky songs, the removal of incense, people holding hands during the Our Father, and so many other abuses.
Poor Gurney, still struggling…back and forth, back and forth!
It is time you told the evil one:eek:to go back where he belongs and leave you alone.
You know where you belong! God grant you the peace you seek, Carlan
 
Carlan, kindly don’t poke fun at my journey in the wildnerness. It hasn’t been a fun experience. I don’t need my pains and confusion or back and forths chided in here. I come into CAF for inspiration, good debate, growth, learning, and hearing the opinions of others. Listening to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, it is very helpful and edifying to me. I’m not worried about Old Nick bugging me. As Luther said, Jesus Christ is on my side and loves me. He paid the ultimate price for my sins—the Atonement. I’ll find my way. And I do need that peace you mentioned. But your post sounds like a tsk tsk joke. I talk with a lot of people in here in the same situation I’m in. They’re not sold on the theology you’re buying. I’m happy you’re happy. But please don’t poke fun. God bless.
Poor Gurney, still struggling…back and forth, back and forth!
It is time you told the evil one:eek:to go back where he belongs and leave you alone.
You know where you belong! God grant you the peace you seek, Carlan
 
I’m not arguing against anything you’ve said here. I am simply saying that the Pope can, if he wishes, proclaim dogma/doctrine unilaterally without a commission, synod, or (name removed by moderator)ut from others. He has that ‘ability’ if he so wishes to use it according to Catholic law. I’m not saying he’s abused it, will abuse it, or that he’s not a godly man. I’m simply saying that it’s a fact that he CAN proclaim from the Chair in a vacuum if he wishes. No commentary on whether he was or is inspired by the H.S. at all here, just looking at the legal side of things.

Blessings…
Thank you; I am at a crossroads here? What I see from the Pope from what you are driving at, If the Pope is the only one standing to defend the Catholic Faith, His authority to speak ex-cathedra (proclaim dogma/doctrine) will be on faith and morals. IF? we ever see a Pope proclaim a dogma or doctrine without the college of Bishops, it will be because the Pope has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit to support and defend a defined/clarified dogma/doctrine to a new language, nation of peoples and new cultures in order to comprehend the Apostolic teaching from antiquity.

The legal side of things guarantee that the Popes infallibility on faith and morals spoken ex-cathedra speaks from all ages of the Catholic Church for all ages of the Catholic church. The Pope is never alone in proclaiming a doctrine or dogma, if the Pope is led by the Holy Spirit to do so, **the Pope is confined to sacred scripture, sacred Tradition protected by the Holy Spirit. **

Legally there is nothing to fear here from a Pope defining or defending an Apostolic Faith from a dogmatic or doctrinal proclamation. Because we have the guarantee that it will never conflict with the 3 fold ministry as stated above.

Peace be with you
 
I understand that. My point was that you dismissed the idea that Clement might be relating to the Corinthians in any way other than a jurisdictional one by saying that in that case they would have been “wasting their time” to consult Rome.

If you weren’t “reducing everything to power and jurisdiction” you would have no reason to see jurisdiction in 1 Clement. Perhaps it would be more charitable to say that you are just desperate to find early evidence for the late-developing view of the Papacy you are defending, but I thought that would be even more insulting.

Again, you are “reducing everything to power and jurisdiction.”

Authority, sure.

Here’s the bottom line: being a teacher doesn’t give you the authority to depose bishops and put in new ones. That’s a different kind of authority.

And again, you haven’t shown that Chrysostom was talking about Rome in this context. You simply assume that any language about Peter is any language about Rome.

Edwin
Edwin, you really haven’t paid much attention to a single thing I’ve written. I never said that Clemet went on at any length about power and jurisdiction, that isn’t why he was writing .His power nor jusidiction were in question, at issue was certain heresy in Corenth.
 
Hi Gabriel,

Again, I’m not arguing with ya. I never said the pope is not inspired or doesn’t have the Holy Spirit on his side. When I say “alone” I don’t mean spiritually. I mean physically. He is allowed to decree dogma without a council, without a synod of bishops and without (name removed by moderator)ut, should he so desire. I’m NOT saying he’s spiritually alone in doing so, alone without the company of corporeal humans. I’m not casting doubt on his judgment or morality either. No need to quote Matthew 16:18 or the litany of guarantees the Holy See has in the way of morals and infallibility. I know all that. You misunderstand my post. Blessings to you as well.
Thank you; I am at a crossroads here? What I see from the Pope from what you are driving at, If the Pope is the only one standing to defend the Catholic Faith, His authority to speak ex-cathedra (proclaim dogma/doctrine) will be on faith and morals. IF? we ever see a Pope proclaim a dogma or doctrine without the college of Bishops, it will be because the Pope has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit to support and defend a defined/clarified dogma/doctrine to a new language, nation of peoples and new cultures in order to comprehend the Apostolic teaching from antiquity.

The legal side of things guarantee that the Popes infallibility on faith and morals spoken ex-cathedra speaks from all ages of the Catholic Church for all ages of the Catholic church. The Pope is never alone in proclaiming a doctrine or dogma, if the Pope is led by the Holy Spirit to do so, **the Pope is confined to sacred scripture, sacred Tradition protected by the Holy Spirit. **

Legally there is nothing to fear here from a Pope defining or defending an Apostolic Faith from a dogmatic or doctrinal proclamation. Because we have the guarantee that it will never conflict with the 3 fold ministry as stated above.

Peace be with you
 
Hi Gabriel,

Again, I’m not arguing with ya. I never said the pope is not inspired or doesn’t have the Holy Spirit on his side. When I say “alone” I don’t mean spiritually. I mean physically. He is allowed to decree dogma without a council, without a synod of bishops and without (name removed by moderator)ut, should he so desire. I’m NOT saying he’s spiritually alone in doing so, alone without the company of corporeal humans. I’m not casting doubt on his judgment or morality either. No need to quote Matthew 16:18 or the litany of guarantees the Holy See has in the way of morals and infallibility. I know all that. You misunderstand my post. Blessings to you as well.
You are quite correct, the pontiff has power to do this in him self, corperally speaking of course
 
QUOTE=prodromos;6671956]Quote mines, the recourse of those who have exhausted their arguments 👍
And yet the Early church Fathers Quotes are too numerous in support of Peter and his successors in the Popes, that exhaust’s ones protests.
 
While I’m not in love with people posting 1,000 pages of quotes as some posters do in here, quotes ARE important. If we read several statements by an ECF saying his interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and it is in line with modern Catholic interpretation, why isn’t that significant? When people (on both sides) in here don’t like what they hear in the quotes, they merely resort to “context, context!” Usually it’s the “context” people who don’t know the context themselves and are worming their way out of the truth of the quote. There are some very compelling ECF quotes as well as statements by other titans in the Church that have supported the Catholic position on the papacy. I don’t ignore them but rather read all of them holistically and try to help them inform my views. But quotes need to be taken holistically. Some anti-Rome folks in here like to quote Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard ad nauseum about the fact that these two great men didn’t believe Mary was Immaculate. Somehow they infer from these quotes that Mary’s being Immaculate is not impossible, which is in itself really goofy.

I would tend to favor, however, not just quotes, but actual instances. I have read a plethora of instances in which the popes unilaterally made decisions and led in crucial situations against heresies, etc. and showed their universal jurisdiction. Instances like those are more compelling than some quote IMO. But quotes cannot simply be dismissed as the last resort of a goober who has no gas left in the tank.
Quote mines, the recourse of those who have exhausted their arguments 👍
 
Again, I’m not arguing with ya. I never said the pope is not inspired or doesn’t have the Holy Spirit on his side. When I say “alone” I don’t mean spiritually. I mean physically. He is allowed to decree dogma without a council, without a synod of bishops and without (name removed by moderator)ut, should he so desire.
 
While I’m not in love with people posting 1,000 pages of quotes as some posters do in here, quotes ARE important. If we read several statements by an ECF saying his interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and it is in line with modern Catholic interpretation, why isn’t that significant? When people (on both sides) in here don’t like what they hear in the quotes, they merely resort to “context, context!” Usually it’s the “context” people who don’t know the context themselves and are worming their way out of the truth of the quote. There are some very compelling ECF quotes as well as statements by other titans in the Church that have supported the Catholic position on the papacy. I don’t ignore them but rather read all of them holistically and try to help them inform my views. But quotes need to be taken holistically. Some anti-Rome folks in here like to quote Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard ad nauseum about the fact that these two great men didn’t believe Mary was Immaculate. Somehow they infer from these quotes that Mary’s being Immaculate is not impossible, which is in itself really goofy.

I would tend to favor, however, not just quotes, but actual instances. I have read a plethora of instances in which the popes unilaterally made decisions and led in crucial situations against heresies, etc. and showed their universal jurisdiction. Instances like those are more compelling than some quote IMO. But quotes cannot simply be dismissed as the last resort of a goober who has no gas left in the tank.
Context is of most importance, IMHO, not just of the work itself, but the historical, political, ecclesial, and socio-economic contexts are as well.

Anyone can copy and paste a quote from an armchair apologist who more than likely cherry picked the quotes himself (I’m not just saying this about Catholics, but Orthodox and Protestants are guilty as well). Or anyone can take a snippet of something that seemingly justifies their position. For example, you can take a piece of Psalm 14:1 and make it say “there is no God.” However, you are not showing the entire verse, or reading it in the context of the whole chapter at the very least or reading it within the context of the whole Psalter.

Sadly, research and reading the Fathers is not of great import to many of us on here. We all are guilty of taking quotes from them and building up a wall to prove our correctness. Often times, this gets us nowhere. :o

In Christ,
ANdrew
 
Because I’m the OP and I’m cool like that, here’s where I am on this issue after much deliberation.
  1. The biblical case for supreme jurisdiction (and infallibility, but the debate right now is jurisdiction) I feel is strong
  2. Out of the ECF’s we can infer at least the primacy accepted by the Orthodox
  3. The historical examples seem to be all over the place (by this I don’t mean there’s a lot, but that depending on the case they support all kinds of opinions). Additionally most people don’t even agree in what happened during these cases.
  4. I was reading a thread where someone pointed out (to someone like me), “You believe the Church is infallible in everything except when it says the Pope is infallible?”
So, based on point four I am currently going with, yes, the Catholic understanding of the Papacy is correct. Based on the Biblical/ECF and historical points, the Papacy was definitely not fully understood for a long time, but everyone had some vague sense of it all.

Also, I found a really awesome video about Catholicism on youtube, and if I didn’t accept the Church how could I watch it anymore? 😛
 
But I think some anti-Catholics or Orthodox are guilty of wholeheartedly rejecting many quotes from the ECF’s that do indeed add compelling proof to the validity of Catholic claims. It is also not intellectually honest or a good thing to constantly accuse a person of “cherry-picking” in every single case either. You’re correct that any goober can pluck something out of context. But sometimes the quote speaks for itself and the context is evident. You’re also correct that the Early Fathers are easy to quote from both Orthodox and Catholic vantage points. I’ve seen both. But I don’t quickly dismiss either.

For example, take Tertullian. He says this:
“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
From a Catholic point of view, why is this not a valid aid in seeing how “some” of the early fathers viewed the papacy? I don’t really need much context here. It’s pretty obvious how Tertullian felt?

And suppose a Catholic follows up and finds Origen saying:
f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens**” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Now why do I need more context with Origen’s analysis? He seems pretty convicted as to the preeminence and superiority of Peter’s See to the rest.

And then say, finally, said Catholic quotes Cyprian, who tangled with Pope Stephen himself…

“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 [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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 [the apostles] 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So, do I convert to Roman Catholicism after reading these three quotes? Of course not. But they are perfectly legitimate in pointing to a very very reasonable belief proposed by Catholics that Peter was considered the leader of the Church, supreme in jurisdiction and holiness and instruction from day one. Context isn’t needed as it’s painfully obvious what is being said in these quotes. It is unreasonable, IMO, to expect a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant each and every time to have to quote the ENTIRE long, nauseating text just to be free of context, cherrypicking accusations.

I’m merely playing devil’s advocate and wanting to be fair to all. I’m at a point in my faith life where I’m quite unsure how to go with this issue. But I do find quotes compelling, from both sides.

God bless
Context is of most importance, IMHO, not just of the work itself, but the historical, political, ecclesial, and socio-economic contexts are as well.

Anyone can copy and paste a quote from an armchair apologist who more than likely cherry picked the quotes himself (I’m not just saying this about Catholics, but Orthodox and Protestants are guilty as well). Or anyone can take a snippet of something that seemingly justifies their position. For example, you can take a piece of Psalm 14:1 and make it say “there is no God.” However, you are not showing the entire verse, or reading it in the context of the whole chapter at the very least or reading it within the context of the whole Psalter.

Sadly, research and reading the Fathers is not of great import to many of us on here. We all are guilty of taking quotes from them and building up a wall to prove our correctness. Often times, this gets us nowhere. :o

In Christ,
ANdrew
 
Josie, Monica, do you have any quote mines which can explain the following?
Your Church labelled the council of 879 as Ecumenical for 200 years and it was believed by 50 of your Popes to be Ecumenical until the reforms of Pope Gregory VII.
So for 200 years, both Rome and Constantinople accepted the council of 879 as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople”. This council, accepted by both Rome and Constantinople, not only healed the schism which had seperated Rome and Constantinople, but also repudiated the earlier council of 869 as a false council.
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates: **"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."In a letter he wrote to Patriarch Photius, he states:“As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it…”**Apparently Pope Adrian II had not even signed the procedings of the 869 council, thus it cannot be listed among the Ecumenical Councils according to Latin standards since it had not been ratified by the Pope.

So for the reign of 50 Popes the Latin records listed the 879 council as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, however at the end of the 11th century, Rome suddenly did an about face, and without fanfare or explanation, shelved the 879 council and reinstated the false council of 869, calling it the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and “Eighth Ecumenical Council”. How do Catholics explain this reversal and what reason do they give for the removal of the 879 council from the records?
 
Because I’m the OP and I’m cool like that, here’s where I am on this issue after much deliberation.
  1. The biblical case for supreme jurisdiction (and infallibility, but the debate right now is jurisdiction) I feel is strong
  2. Out of the ECF’s we can infer at least the primacy accepted by the Orthodox
  3. The historical examples seem to be all over the place (by this I don’t mean there’s a lot, but that depending on the case they support all kinds of opinions). Additionally most people don’t even agree in what happened during these cases.
  4. I was reading a thread where someone pointed out (to someone like me), “You believe the Church is infallible in everything except when it says the Pope is infallible?”
So, based on point four I am currently going with, yes, the Catholic understanding of the Papacy is correct. Based on the Biblical/ECF and historical points, the Papacy was definitely not fully understood for a long time, but everyone had some vague sense of it all.

Also, I found a really awesome video about Catholicism on youtube, and if I didn’t accept the Church how could I watch it anymore? 😛
So change your religion

Catholic-], I think/-]

Catholic, Because it’s awesome
Catholic, Because it owns
Catholic, And Loving it

Are some good alternatives 👍

😉
 
Carlan, kindly don’t poke fun at my journey in the wildnerness. It hasn’t been a fun experience. I don’t need my pains and confusion or back and forths chided in here. I come into CAF for inspiration, good debate, growth, learning, and hearing the opinions of others. Listening to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, it is very helpful and edifying to me. I’m not worried about Old Nick bugging me. As Luther said, Jesus Christ is on my side and loves me. He paid the ultimate price for my sins—the Atonement. I’ll find my way. And I do need that peace you mentioned. But your post sounds like a tsk tsk joke. I talk with a lot of people in here in the same situation I’m in. They’re not sold on the theology you’re buying. I’m happy you’re happy. But please don’t poke fun. God bless.
I am sorry Gurney , my comments were uncalled for.
I pray for unity amongst Christ’s Flock ,along with the Church, everyday. Even so, it is still o,k for you all to debate this if you are so inclined.
Actually in recent years, I understand that the recent Popes have made great progress toward unity with our Orthodox Brothers and others.

I am not educated in the early history of the Church, so I am not really qualified to comment one way or the other, at this stage in life,and always really, I have looked to the teaching authority of the Church and prayer.

Again forgive me for offending, you are a fine debater, and contribute a good deal to answers. Sincerely, and Peace to us all. Carlan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top