Help choosing between orthodox catholic and lutheran

[Contarini]

Union with all of the apostles, including St. Peter, is necessary. You can’t seriously contest that point.

Of course not. The question is whether union with Peter in particular is being established as significant in a way that provides adequate basis for insistence on union with the Pope as Peter’s successor. If those Fathers who interpreted the Rock as Peter’s faith were correct, then that’s not true. I think that Peter is being singled out and that union with Peter is being held up as important. But there’s enough doubt here to weaken the force of the claim that if Catholicism isn’t true then “Jesus lied,” even before we get to the question of Peter’s successors.

Again, all of my Anglican acquaintances admit that Rome is an apostolic See of St. Peter. So do many of the Orthodox Churches. For those that do, union with the See of Rome is necessary. For those that don’t - well - they disagree with every Episcopalian I have ever met.

You’re fudging. Anyone with any respect for tradition recognizes that Rome has historically been regarded as the See of St. Peter and St. Paul. It does not follow from this that “union with the See of Rome is necessary.” There are very few Episcopalians or Orthodox who think this–quite naturally, since one would expect people who think this to cease to be Episcopalians or Orthodox. I have a much stronger view of Roman primacy than most Episcopalians I know. My priest and the people I go to church with think I have a weird obsession with Rome. (The priest who catechized me in Anglicanism was much closer to my view–and in fact he is now part of the TAC–but I have discovered that he’s in even more of a minority than I had believed.) You are leaping from the recognition that Rome is historically associated with St. Peter to the strictly theological claim that all Jesus’ promises in this passage apply to Peter specifically and to the bishops of Rome uniquely as his successors.

Many of the Fathers believed that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. Again, whether or not this is true, it has enough weight behind it that you can’t simply assert that if Rome’s claims are false then Jesus lied.

As far as I’m concerned, the only way Jesus would have lied would be if at some point there are no Christians left at all. Period.

All Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, believe that union with the See of St. Peter is necessary; even if you take the view that Petrine primacy simply means “first among equals.”

The Orthodox do not believe that union with Rome is necessary.

Ask them.

They think it’s desirable for historical reasons, but more or less optional. In fact, one of the reasons I’m not Orthodox is that they don’t regard union with Rome as being important in the way that I do.

Now you may blame the See of Rome for causing the problem of division, but that doesn’t mean that unity of the apostolic Churches isn’t required by Christ

I don’t think the Orthodox share your view of “apostolic Churches.” Ask Hesychios.

I do share it, when I don’t go beyond it to say that the unity of all the *baptized *is required by Christ! Which is why I can’t be either Catholic or Orthodox, much as I’d like to be one or the other. Both of them claim already to possess unity within themselves, and I can’t see this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To Orthodox, when a diocese separates from the church it is just an institution. Much the same as when the Church of England separated from your church, the institution survived but is no longer ‘the church’ to you. The Pope is still very polite when he meets Rowan Williams, and very nice things are said when they stand together but the reality is Rowan Williams is nothing to the Latin Catholic church until he converts.

If Rowan Williams did convert, the Pope might not even let him be a priest, or if a priest probably not a bishop.

That’s the reality behind all of the flowery talk.

Actually you misrepresent the RC position. The validity of ++Williams’ consecration does not for RC’s depend on his union with Rome. They recognize your bishops as real bishops without any qualifications. They question Anglican orders for specific (and at least somewhat well-grounded) reasons.

And the reality behind all the claims about the invalidity of Anglican orders is that if Rowan Williams converted as an individual, they would almost certainly find a way for him to be a priest, and very likely a bishop. And if he was leading the corporate reunion of much or all of the Church of England and/or the Anglican Communion, they would certainly find a way to let him go on being Archbishop. They don’t call it economia, but that’s what it would be.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

Actually you misrepresent the RC position. The validity of ++Williams’ consecration does not for RC’s depend on his union with Rome. They recognize your bishops as real bishops without any qualifications. They question Anglican orders for specific (and at least somewhat well-grounded) reasons.

And the reality behind all the claims about the invalidity of Anglican orders is that if Rowan Williams converted as an individual, they would almost certainly find a way for him to be a priest, and very likely a bishop. And if he was leading the corporate reunion of much or all of the Church of England and/or the Anglican Communion, they would certainly find a way to let him go on being Archbishop. They don’t call it economia, but that’s what it would be.

Edwin

Perhaps you are right.

My point is (I shouldn’t simplify this so much) he is recognized and treated respectfully for his potential, not for his present position within his own sphere. This is roughly the case with the Pope vis a vis Holy Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy’s mainly Cyprianic view of orders does not permit it to authorize or recognize even the Pope’s consecration (or Rowan William’s) in the same way the Catholic church currently recognizes Orthodox orders. His office as the absolute head of a very big institution cannot be denied. There are a lot of very big institutions and we have to deal with them in this world, and that requires some sort of recognition.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Perhaps you are right.

My point is (I shouldn’t simplify this so much) he is recognized and treated respectfully for his potential, not for his present position within his own sphere. This is roughly the case with the Pope vis a vis Holy Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy’s mainly Cyprianic view of orders does not permit it to authorize or recognize even the Pope’s consecration (or Rowan William’s) in the same way the Catholic church currently recognizes Orthodox orders. His office as the absolute head of a very big institution cannot be denied. There are a lot of very big institutions and we have to deal with them in this world, and that requires some sort of recognition.

This raises an interesting point. Were some basis found for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions to reunite, would there be any precedent within Orthodoxy for the estblishment of an “Episcopal provision” similar to the pastoral provision established by Catholics for the reception of Anglican churches? The key difference being that instead of only individual pastors, bishops would also be accepted and maintain their office.

Or would a whole series of clerics suddenly be looking for work?

 

[Hesychios]

This raises an interesting point. Were some basis found for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions to reunite, would there be any precedent within Orthodoxy for the estblishment of an “Episcopal provision” similar to the pastoral provision established by Catholics for the reception of Anglican churches? The key difference being that instead of only individual pastors, bishops would also be accepted and maintain their office.

Or would a whole series of clerics suddenly be looking for work?

If we take the healing of the great Western Schism as a model we can see it as possible. What happened at the time was three churches came together (probably all of the bishops and Cardinals were post-schism) and mutually recognized each other as legitimate expressions of the church. What is so telling about this incident is that most of the participants in the reconciliation Council of Constance were appointed by men who are now listed as ‘anti-Popes’ (and these were the men who elected the next Pope Martin). So we have a strange historical anomaly of anti-Popes appointing authoritative bishops and the electoral Cardinals!

How did the church survive through that? Obviously some accommodation to reality was necessary. Many similar (and not so similar) incidents in the eastern church tell us that this sort of thing can always be worked out.

I have no doubt whatsoever that our two communions could in the future recognize one another as as perfectly authentic examples of the original Apostolic church, but I must stress that this has to be a mutual declaration, not one sided. And I personally feel it must be based upon the solid foundations of a common set of beliefs and common understanding of what constitutes ‘church’.That would be the purpose of the dialogs. From this, even if we do not come to significant lasting agreements at least we will understand each other ‘loud and clear’ and there will be no mistaking what divides us.

We are not there yet.

 

[Filioque]

This raises an interesting point. Were some basis found for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions to reunite, would there be any precedent within Orthodoxy for the estblishment of an “Episcopal provision” similar to the pastoral provision established by Catholics for the reception of Anglican churches? The key difference being that instead of only individual pastors, bishops would also be accepted and maintain their office.

Or would a whole series of clerics suddenly be looking for work?

The OCA (Orthodox Church in America) an Antiochian body does have a Western Rite, they use a version of the Missale Romanum that the High Church Anglicans used prior to Vatican II, when the Anglo-Catholic Contingent changed to a Missal nearly identical to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy. They are in fact publishing an Altar Missal that is basically the Knott Missal, with a few Orthodox feasts, and a few Orthodox additions to the Canon to bring it into conformity with Orthodox liturgical practice. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) which was considered Non-Canonical by most Orthodox until recently also has a few Western Rite Priests, but their Liturgics are all over the Map, each individual priest in that group seems to have some liberty in developing a “Missal” based on their own ideas of what the old Sarum Missal was like before Henry VIII or even earlier. Most of their Western Rite priests are former Anglican, TAC or Episcopalians. They are for the most a very small group of parishes, but growing.

There are a larger group of Old Catholics, who call themselves “Western Rite Orthodox” who vary from untrained men (and a few women) who like to dress up and “play church” They tend to run from those who have a “Ministry” to the Gay and Lesbian community, with openly Gay and Lesbian Clergy, and New Age Liturgies, to those who stumble through the old Latin Mass in English and some Latin, and a very few who can work through the Latin Mass properly. These should not be confused with the Authentic Western Rite Orthodox groups.

 

[searn77]

The OCA (Orthodox Church in America) an Antiochian body does have a Western Rite, they use a version of the Missale Romanum that the High Church Anglicans used prior to Vatican II, when the Anglo-Catholic Contingent changed to a Missal nearly identical to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy. They are in fact publishing an Altar Missal that is basically the Knott Missal, with a few Orthodox feasts, and a few Orthodox additions to the Canon to bring it into conformity with Orthodox liturgical practice. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) which was considered Non-Canonical by most Orthodox until recently also has a few Western Rite Priests, but their Liturgics are all over the Map, each individual priest in that group seems to have some liberty in developing a “Missal” based on their own ideas of what the old Sarum Missal was like before Henry VIII or even earlier. Most of their Western Rite priests are former Anglican, TAC or Episcopalians. They are for the most a very small group of parishes, but growing.

There are a larger group of Old Catholics, who call themselves “Western Rite Orthodox” who vary from untrained men (and a few women) who like to dress up and “play church” They tend to run from those who have a “Ministry” to the Gay and Lesbian community, with openly Gay and Lesbian Clergy, and New Age Liturgies, to those who stumble through the old Latin Mass in English and some Latin, and a very few who can work through the Latin Mass properly. These should not be confused with the Authentic Western Rite Orthodox groups.

OCA actually doesn’t have a western rite yet. Just the Antiochians, ROCOR, and I have read somewhere that the Serbians have one too but I’m not sure if that’s actually true. And the Antiochians actually have 2 rites that they use: One that resembles more of the Anglican liturgy called the rite of St. Tikhon, and one that resembles the Tridentine mass called the rite of St. Gregory.

 

[Hesychios]

…
I do share it, when I don’t go beyond it to say that the unity of all the *baptized *is required by Christ! Which is why I can’t be either Catholic or Orthodox, much as I’d like to be one or the other. Both of them claim already to possess unity within themselves, and I can’t see this.

Edwin

You make interesting points and though we may not always agree I always enjoy reading your perspective.

I think that we need to really ask ourselves ‘what is unity?’.

Is the United Nations united? The World Trade Organization? Is a franchise network unified because they all pay the same company for the same basic contract and serve the same basic products?

When we think of a unified organization do we think automatically of something like General Electric or Unilever?

Are the Benedictine houses and congregations sufficiently united to serve as a model? How about the AFL-CIO?

Each of us has an ideal model of unity pre-loaded into our heads, and so terms like ‘unity’ or ‘re-unity’ are pregnant with meaning we bring into them. When you and I say ‘united with Rome’ we could both easily be meaning different things. What does ‘united with Canterbury’ mean? What does ‘united with Orthodoxy’ mean?

If we view the early church as a closely knit corporate body with branch offices in major cities then that is going to affect how we view the church of the present age. If we think of it as a series of independent strategic partners we will have a different view entirely.

A study in early church ecclesiology is helpful, but there is still much we simply do not know about how the early church was structured. Some of the best authors on the subject happen to be Catholic (which is where I gained most of my information long ago) and they seem to suggest that the early church did not have a highly centralized organizational model, yet it ultimately proved to be very effective.

They did care, as Paul’s life shows us, to preach the same message as accurately as possible. They abhorred divisions in the community and strife, but couldn’t always avoid it. Most of these problems revolved around the teachings given to the new Christians, and a disturbing of the community through preaching a different message.

To Orthodox today, the See at Rome is very important for historical reasons. It was a bulwark of Orthodoxy in the early centuries and the relics of Saints Peter and Paul are at rest there.

But no See is so important that Orthodox will follow it into error. They are all dispensable. Orthodox are literally not to follow bishops who preach a different message, and they customarily will not. If any See in Orthodoxy falls into error it is cut off, that will be the case in the future with any present or future Orthodox See, we cannot and will not follow it as it embraces or teaches error, not even if it were Constantinople or Moscow. It would go necessarily it’s own way.

We can (and have) accepted Sees back into the church. In the early years of the church there have been too many incidences of error preached by important bishops. We have been able to reconcile them back into the church once corrections were made, historically such flexibility is one of Orthodoxy’s inner strengths.

 

[Hesychios]

… The Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) which was considered Non-Canonical by most Orthodox until recently also has a few Western Rite Priests, but their Liturgics are all over the Map, each individual priest in that group seems to have some liberty in developing a “Missal” based on their own ideas of what the old Sarum Missal was like before Henry VIII or even earlier. Most of their Western Rite priests are former Anglican, TAC or Episcopalians. They are for the most a very small group of parishes, but growing.

Can I ask where you received this information?

A link or two would be helpful.

I should mention that the OCA is not Antiochian. It is autocephalic in the Russian tradition, first established by the missions to Alaska and later known as the Russian Metropolia. It has several sub-synods (for lack of a better term) but no western rite, as pointed out by Searn77 above. There are no plans to set one up.

 

[Filioque]

Can I ask where you received this information?

A link or two would be helpful.

I should mention that the OCA is not Antiochian. It is autocephalic in the Russian tradition, first established by the missions to Alaska and later known as the Russian Metropolia. It has several sub-synods (for lack of a better term) but no western rite, as pointed out by Searn77 above. There are no plans to set one up.

One of my former Classmates from the Seminary was being activly recruited by an OCA priest four years ago, They were looking for priests who knew the TLM, while he was not functioning as a priest at the time, and the Orthodox priest assumed it was because of some conflict between my friend and the RCC, it was not. I guess I should have chatted with him and checked my facts, as the last time we spoke the OCA priest he knew was insistant that there was strong support to open a couple OCA Western Rite parishes within months, if they could organize quickly.

As to the ROCOR, and Antiochians, I know priests in both WRO groups, the Antiochians, seem well organized, and willing to enter into polite conversation. The ROCOR WR, I just stand back and watch them bicker and tell others how the other does not know Sarum. The two made a rukus on another Forum and ended up setting up their own Forae, because they just could not play nice. I don’t mean to imply that this applies to all ROCOR Clergy, those of the Russian Rite that I have met seem congenial enough, and the new near, or real unity with Moscow seems promising.

Both the Antioch and ROCOR WR can be found all over the internet. A simple Google search will turn up dozens of sites.

 

[Hesychios]

as the last time we spoke the OCA priest he knew was insistant that there was strong support to open a couple OCA Western Rite parishes within months, if they could organize quickly.

I think perhaps a few Evangelical Orthodox Church parishes may have wanted to come in to the OCA as WR then, based upon your info. As far as I know the only ones accepted came into the OCA as ‘eastern’ rite.

 

[a_priori]

the only three bodies in christianity that seem likely to be truth is catholicism orthodoxy and lutheranism. how do i find out wich is true?

You don’t. “Truth” within different historical manifestations of Christendom is amorphous. If one assents to the Creeds of Christianity, one is pretty much there with respect to “Truth”. Once inside Christendom, if hermeneutics and dogmatics are your thing, put your helmet on and get ready to rock. The Truth is here but one size doesn’t fit all. We’re all brothers and sisters. We love each other but we tend to be a little clannish and prickly.

It isn’t a case of the prize being behind door #1 and a lump of coal behind doors #2 and #3. People will “pitch you” from each camp. They will fire canned “proofs” at you from their respective arsenals. Pray, seek and spend a lot of boots-on-the-ground time in more than one parish of each of all three Churches. See how you resonate with the experience in each place and go where you feel the most spiritually and intellectually integrated…and pray some more. God is good. It’s worth the effort.

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

That’s a fair point. I certainly hope you haven’t read through all my posts on this subject (I’d never want to do so myself), but I think if you did you would see that I have fairly consistently maintained:

1. That “petros” and “petra” are being related to each other in a positive manner rather than contrasted (contrary to what some Protestants claim), so that Jesus did in some manner promise to build the Church on Peter;
2. That there are good reasons to believe that this promise has something to do with the See of Rome, given the consistent way that See has been associated with Peter; but also that
3. One cannot reasonably claim that the only possible interpretation of this passage is that the See of Rome is infallible or that communion with that See is necessary for membership in the true Church.

Infallibility is one issue. I’ll leave that for another time. Communion with the successor of Peter is essential. Think of your points #s 1 & 2. And think of Jesus prayer
C:

It seems to me that folks in these discussions frequently conflate probable reasons with demonstrative proof. When Catholics start saying things like “if Rome has ever erred then Jesus lied” they are straying this passage way beyond what it will bear.

If you mean by “folks”, you include Non Catholics too who conflate when opposing the Catholic view, I agree.

regarding errors on matters of faith and morals however, one needs to prove error was taught to the Church from the chair of Peter to make the criticism stick. Honorius is usually brought up as the example, but Honorius didn’t teach error. He and Sergius agreed to keep quiet about their conversations. Sergius didn’t keep quiet. 40 years after Honorius death we know what he and Sergius talked about. Honorius didn’t teach error but he didn’t stop Sergius either from teaching error. Honorius was condemned, but not for teaching error. Therefore while bad, it didn’t violate the doctrine of infallibility for the papacy. You and I and everone on the planet knows, that as soon as the doctrine was defined by the CC, everyone on the planet with an axe to grind against the CC went into overdrive licking their chops to find the ONE case where the pope taught error. And they thought this should be a slam dunk. We gotm NOW they thought!!! History shows and this has been investigated to death, that using the Churchs definition of infallibility, after 2000 years of history the opponants can’t find the smoking gun. IMO, THAT’s when you employ the summary statement.
C:

Furthermore, the fact is that many of the Fathers interpreted this passage as referring to Peter’s faith and/or applying the promise to all bishops, and this introduces a further element of uncertainty into the picture.

I’m aware of that. But I don’t believe they were seperating Peter’s faith from Peter as if they are disjointed entities.
C:

I believe strongly, as you have noted in my other posts, that this passage should make us take the claims of Rome very seriously. But it’s not enough to establish them beyond doubt.

I agree. That’s why when one reviews scripture, Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church all together, one sees the unity of understanding.
C:

It’s not enough to outweigh other factors that might make us think that Rome has in fact erred. There are plenty of ways to interpret this passage as leaving open the possibility that Rome might err.

The point is, one who opposes the teaching, needs to oppose the teaching based on the doctrine and how the doctrine is defined by the CC. Not how opponants to the doctrine define the doctrine on THEIR terms then attack on their definition. That’s a strawman.
C:

It’s precisely because I have engaged in these debates for so long that I get frustrated when Catholics think they can take certain things for granted. We go round and round, and the flaws and ambiguities in the Catholic arguments get pointed out over and over, and yet some of you keep coming back with these untenable claims like “if Catholicism isn’t true then Jesus lied.” Sorry, but it just isn’t that simple.

Edwin

The GOOD thing that comes of this is that the CC after 2000 years of existence, even if some don’t express it well, has the story that keeps getting stronger and stronger. The truth is, the CC is the MOST studied institution on earth. All one has to do is apply reason with the avalanche of materials available on the subject. The case is clear for the CC. I don’t apologize for that, I’m stunned by it. And for the one who isn’t quite convinced but is diligent, they too will see it. I would also suggest It is JUST as clear applying the same scrutiny, who fails the litmus test.

 

[Contarini]

Infallibility is one issue. I’ll leave that for another time. Communion with the successor of Peter is essential.

After Vatican I, communion with the successor of Peter requires belief in infallibility.

And this is the problem. Make communion with any one See essential, and you short-circuit discussion of any of the specific things taught by that See.

I have mixed feelings about this. In the past I have justified this by saying that personal communion is more important than abstract doctrine. But however often I come back to this issue, and however much longing for union with Rome I feel, I can’t accept the idea that all the problematic developments of second-millennium Western Christianity have to be swallowed on faith just because of Matt. 16 and similar passages.

I think that Catholic apologists are going for an “easy out” when they use this argument, and I think it actually makes their position appear weak.

regarding errors on matters of faith and morals however, one needs to prove error was taught to the Church from the chair of Peter to make the criticism stick. Honorius is usually brought up as the example, but Honorius didn’t teach error. He and Sergius agreed to keep quiet about their conversations. Sergius didn’t keep quiet. 40 years after Honorius death we know what he and Sergius talked about. Honorius didn’t teach error but he didn’t stop Sergius either from teaching error. Honorius was condemned, but not for teaching error. Therefore while bad, it didn’t violate the doctrine of infallibility for the papacy. You and I and everone on the planet knows, that as soon as the doctrine was defined by the CC, everyone on the planet with an axe to grind against the CC went into overdrive licking their chops to find the ONE case where the pope taught error. And they thought this should be a slam dunk. We gotm NOW they thought!!! History shows and this has been investigated to death, that using the Churchs definition of infallibility, after 2000 years of history the opponants can’t find the smoking gun. IMO, THAT’s when you employ the summary statement.

Because every “smoking gun” can be explained away, given that naturally you guys get to define what is “infallibility” and what sort of error would “count.”

The Pope has taught a number of things that are pretty hard to defend theologically, like the doctrine of indulgences (not talking about the corruptions here but about the basic teaching regarding the treasury of merit, and the whole idea of a judicial “temporal punishment” that can be remitted by the Church, as opposed to purgation as an extension of the sanctification process). Of course one can’t “prove” that they are errors. But their fruit doesn’t look good, and they don’t seem well justified by Scripture and Tradition. What more can one say?

And if you look more broadly at the Pope’s role in “strengthening the brethren,” it seems clear that Popes have often failed.

My point is that Orthodox and Protestants have no obligation to examine this on your own terms. That’s why I’m happy, with you, to set aside the infallibility issue. Of course it can’t be disproven. But when considering whether the history of the Church bears out the idea that communion with Rome is the one essential mark of the true Church, I think there are plenty of reasons to doubt.

I’m aware of that. But I don’t believe they were seperating Peter’s faith from Peter as if they are disjointed entities.

That isn’t needed to make my case, which is simply that *if *Rome has in fact erred, it does not follow that Jesus lied.

The point is, one who opposes the teaching, needs to oppose the teaching based on the doctrine and how the doctrine is defined by the CC. Not how opponants to the doctrine define the doctrine on THEIR terms then attack on their definition. That’s a strawman.

It is if they are claiming that the teaching can be clearly refuted. But that isn’t necessary. There are plenty of claims that I can’t easily prove wrong. If Elwood P. Dowd tells me that a six-foot invisible rabbit (who is also intangible and inaudible, etc.) who follows him everywhere, then I can’t prove him wrong. But that’s no reason to believe him. He doesn’t get to define the criteria himself–I have to decide whether the rabbit exists based on the criteria that seem reasonable to *me. *

The GOOD thing that comes of this is that the CC after 2000 years of existence, even if some don’t express it well, has the story that keeps getting stronger and stronger. The truth is, the CC is the MOST studied institution on earth. All one has to do is apply reason with the avalanche of materials available on the subject. The case is clear for the CC. I don’t apologize for that, I’m stunned by it. And for the one who isn’t quite convinced but is diligent, they too will see it. I would also suggest It is JUST as clear applying the same scrutiny, who fails the litmus test.

I agree that all forms of Protestantism fail. The problem is that I see your Communion and the Orthodox as each having a pretty good case, depending on whose criteria you accept.

I’m an Anglican by default, not because I think that Anglicanism is the true Church (actually no one thinks that) or a fully functional branch of the Church. At best, Anglicanism may not be qualitatively more defective than any other church, but I find even that hard to maintain.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

[QUOTEOriginally Posted by Alveus Lacuna
I actually know him from another forum, and I read about the great purge of the Orthodox on this forum over there. Did not this particular sub-forum used to be for all Eastern Christians, and not just ones that submit to the Vatican?
[/QUOTE]

The reply

I was posting here at the time of what you trollingly call the "great"purge. I also read the other forum that you allude to. I will tell you that much of what was written there on this subject was a self-serving and emotional, rather than rational, response that gives a false impression of what actually happened. Please don’t consider yourself informed on the basis of things that you have read over there.

My comments:

**Consider the historical proveable facts:

Jesus, God himself, desires One Church, One Faith, One Bible.

There are nearly 100 references to BUT a single Church and a single Faith in the NT**

If one is seeking the ONE TRUE and COMPLETE Faith it can only be found in the One Church actually founded by Jesus Chrsit, His Catholic Church.

**Acts.20:28 **“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church SINGULAR] of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. “

Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

**Eph. 4: 4 **“There is one body One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, One Triune God] one faith, One set of doctrine and dogma and Tradition] one baptism, [By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 5: 23 Christ is the head of the church [singular] , his body, singular]

**1 Cor. 14: 12 **“ So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. [singular]

Eph. 3: 9 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. **This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, **

God’s Continued Blessing for Wisdom and Understanding,
Pat

 

[Hesychios]

It sounds more like conspiracy theory and paranoia than anything else. “Oh, so and so got banned, it’s because all the Catholics are afraid of being converted”

It may sound like that to you, but apparently you were not here then.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Regarding Lutheranisms, I have been quite curious about many of their historical doctrines, their councils, et cetera. Because of this, I purchased a handsomely made book printed by the Missouri Synod, a more conservative form of Lutheranism in the USA. The book is here:

amazon.com/Concordia-Lutheran-Confessions-Readers-Concord/dp/0758613431/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274315114&sr=8-3

This contains the Book of Concord, the small and large catechism of Luther, and many of his personal correspondences. I have always assumed that I had some affinity for Luther, thinking about stories regarding his love for beer and his fiery disposition. But when I read his writings, especially compared with the Church Fathers and the monastics I have read, he just seemed so…angry. I detected not too many hints of saintliness in his tone and approach. What I encountered were the ravings of an egotistical figure who saw his own theological opinions as the most exalted.

Anyway, for the original poster wanting to investigate Lutheranisms, I recommend this book. I think that you will find it helpful in the process of discerning the validity of Luther and his followers, and whether or not their gospel is that of the apostles.

 

[Madaglan]

Regarding Lutheranisms, I have been quite curious about many of their historical doctrines, their councils, et cetera. Because of this, I purchased a handsomely made book printed by the Missouri Synod, a more conservative form of Lutheranism in the USA. The book is here:

amazon.com/Concordia-Lutheran-Confessions-Readers-Concord/dp/0758613431/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274315114&sr=8-3

This contains the Book of Concord, the small and large catechism of Luther, and many of his personal correspondences. I have always assumed that I had some affinity for Luther, thinking about stories regarding his love for beer and his fiery disposition. But when I read his writings, especially compared with the Church Fathers and the monastics I have read, he just seemed so…angry. I detected not too many hints of saintliness in his tone and approach. What I encountered were the ravings of an egotistical figure who saw his own theological opinions as the most exalted.

Anyway, for the original poster wanting to investigate Lutheranisms, I recommend this book. I think that you will find it helpful in the process of discerning the validity of Luther and his followers, and whether or not their gospel is that of the apostles.

I bought the same book about 2-3 years ago. Watch the binding!

The Book of Concord definitely is a good place to learn what confessional Lutherans believe. I also found helpful the website Luther Quest, which had a forum where you could ask the Lutherans there (mostly pastors for some reason) what they believe (as LCMS Lutherans).

 

[anode]

Regarding Lutheranisms, I have been quite curious about many of their historical doctrines, their councils, et cetera. Because of this, I purchased a handsomely made book printed by the Missouri Synod, a more conservative form of Lutheranism in the USA. The book is here:

amazon.com/Concordia-Lutheran-Confessions-Readers-Concord/dp/0758613431/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274315114&sr=8-3

This contains the Book of Concord, the small and large catechism of Luther, and many of his personal correspondences. I have always assumed that I had some affinity for Luther, thinking about stories regarding his love for beer and his fiery disposition. But when I read his writings, especially compared with the Church Fathers and the monastics I have read, he just seemed so…angry. I detected not too many hints of saintliness in his tone and approach. What I encountered were the ravings of an egotistical figure who saw his own theological opinions as the most exalted.

Anyway, for the original poster wanting to investigate Lutheranisms, I recommend this book. I think that you will find it helpful in the process of discerning the validity of Luther and his followers, and whether or not their gospel is that of the apostles.

Protestants don’t generally make their founders into saints. Their founders and other heroes are–heroes, and revered as such. Their flaws are acknowledged. I personally think that this is very wise. Many ‘saints’ appear in the light of modern medicine to be mentally deranged, or appear as products of their time. One avoids this in the ‘hero’ approach.

 

[steve_b]

I actually know him from another forum, and I read about the great purge of the Orthodox on this forum over there. Did not this particular sub-forum used to be for all Eastern Christians, and not just ones that submit to the Vatican?

Eastern Christians needs clarification

Eastern Christians in communion with the pope are Eastern Catholics. Eastern Christians NOT in communion with the pope are non Catholics.