Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Isn’t ecumenism a form of putting the world on trial?

How is that? As I see it, ecumenism, as the term is commonly understood, is a very worldly effort. It has little do with truth, and a lot with men compromising in order to “get along”.

I would call that false ecumenism. I didn’t invent the term. I’m merely using it as it is used by people I respect.

True ecumenism should bring those who are outside the Church, to bring back, bring inside the Catholic Church.

• http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/8-modern-errors-every-catholic-should-know-and-avoid particularly #'s 4 & 6
• True And False Ecumenism | The Wanderer Newspaper
• True Unity Rejects False Ecumenism | liturgy guy
• etc etc

 

[Vonsalza]

True ecumenism should bring those who are outside the Church, to bring back, bring inside the Catholic Church.

No, True Ecumenism should bring those outside the Church back into the Orthodox Church.

Again - round and round it goes, Steve

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

True ecumenism should bring those who are outside the Church, to bring back, bring inside the Catholic Church.

No, True Ecumenism should bring those outside the Church back into the Orthodox Church.

Again - round and round it goes, Steve

in YOUR mind.

BTW where is your proof? Show me when the first time, in history, “Orthodox Church” appears in writing, properly referenced of course.

 

[Vonsalza]

Steve, which currently extant Christian group doesn’t claim to be the Catholic Church?

 

[steve-b]

Steve, which currently extant Christian group doesn’t claim to be the Catholic Church?

you dodge the answer…AGAIN. What’s the count now? A dozen times? Point being, You can’t prove your point anymore than they can prove their point.

Again

where is your proof? Show me when the first time, in history, “Orthodox Church” appears in writing, properly referenced of course.

 

[Vonsalza]

you dodge the answer…AGAIN. What’s the count now? A dozen times?

No, I’ve answered this silly argument every single time. You just don’t like the answer.

Best I can tell, Steve, the oldest surviving occurrence of “Roman Catholic Church” is found in a letter to the Armenian Church dating to 1208.

So by your logic the Roman Catholic Church didn’t begin until right around the schism.

Now, I can predict that your answer will be:

But the “Roman Catholic Church” and the “Catholic Church” are the very same thing!

To which I’ll reply, “Yeah. everyone in apostolic Christianity makes a very similar claim.”

where is your proof? Show me when the first time, in history, “Orthodox Church” appears in writing, properly referenced of course.

For the umpteenth time, why would you expect it to exist in near-ancient texts that were written before the various divisions of Christianity?

Demanding to see ancient texts citing “Eastern Orthodox Church” is as stupid as demanding to see ancient texts that cite “Roman Catholic Church”.

 

[AlNg]

where is your proof?

The proof is in the name. For some time in the past and even for today the Roman Catholic Church calls many Eastern Churches by the name “Orthodox”. By calling the Eastern Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic church acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox Church is ORTHODOX, which means, having sound and correct theological doctrine. A Church is ORTHODOX when its beliefs have no defects and its theology is flawless.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

where is your proof?

The proof is in the name. For some time in the past and even for today the Roman Catholic Church calls many Eastern Churches by the name “Orthodox”. By calling the Eastern Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic church acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox Church is ORTHODOX, which means, having sound and correct theological doctrine. A Church is ORTHODOX when its beliefs have no defects and its theology is flawless.

1. The Orthodox called themselves Orthodox.
2. RE: correct doctrine, schism from Peter and those in union with Peter, isn’t correct doctrine.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

you dodge the answer…AGAIN. What’s the count now? A dozen times?

No, I’ve answered this silly argument every single time. You just don’t like the answer.

IOW that’s a big NO, You haven’t answered my question

Vonsalza:

Best I can tell, Steve, the oldest surviving occurrence of “Roman Catholic Church” is found in a letter to the Armenian Church dating to 1208.

And you’re still oblivious to properly referencing a point.

SO

Are you trying to distinguish “Roman” from Catholic Church? You must be new .

Roman/Latin is a “rite”. Like “Melkite” or “Ruthenian” etc etc

Each rite in the Catholic Church is 100% Catholic.

It just so happens the Roman/Latin rite is ~98% of the population of the Catholic Church. That doesn’t take anything away from the other rites being 100% Catholic.

Here’s some history "properly referenced"

You’ve seen this before. So I repeat Here

Vonsalza:

So by your logic the Roman Catholic Church didn’t begin until right around the schism.

Now, I can predict that your answer will be:

But the “Roman Catholic Church” and the “Catholic Church” are the very same thing!

To which I’ll reply, “Yeah. everyone in apostolic Christianity makes a very similar claim.”

where is your proof? Show me when the first time, in history, “Orthodox Church” appears in writing, properly referenced of course.

For the umpteenth time, why would you expect it to exist in near-ancient texts that were written before the various divisions of Christianity?

Demanding to see ancient texts citing “Eastern Orthodox Church” is as stupid as demanding to see ancient texts that cite “Roman Catholic Church”.

The old saying goes

When you are deep in a hole of your own making, stop digging. We know you don’t open links. That’s YOUR problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

IOW that’s a big NO, You haven’t answered my question

Sure I have, Steve. Repeatedly.

Problem is that my answers don’t use the same set of assumptions you make in the question.
Because they’re wrong.

And you’re still oblivious to properly referencing a point.

If I’m wrong, show me where I’m wrong.

Are you trying to distinguish “Roman” from Catholic Church? You must be new .

Hopefully at this point you join everyone else in finally realizing what an utterly stupid argument it is.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

IOW that’s a big NO, You haven’t answered my question

Sure I have, Steve. Repeatedly.

Problem is that my answers don’t use the same set of assumptions you make in the question.
Because they’re wrong.

And you’re still oblivious to properly referencing a point.

If I’m wrong, show me where I’m wrong.

Are you trying to distinguish “Roman” from Catholic Church? You must be new .

Hopefully at this point you join everyone else in finally realizing what an utterly stupid argument it is.

Anyone can see how corrupt you are in your response here.

You completely dodged every point. here

Everybody can see what you did.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sure they can, Steve. That’s part of the appeal of a public forum.

Per usual, I stand by my remarks. shrug

 

[AlNg]

You’re an inmate at a prison hospital yet you have internet access to a forum?!?

Probably not USA ?

 

[ChristMyLife]

I was just wondering if that indeed was the case.

The jail and prison system in the US is draconian and needs to look to nations like Norway about humane treatment of inmates in the system.

 

[steve-b]

Sure they can, Steve. That’s part of the appeal of a public forum.

Per usual, I stand by my remarks. shrug

per usual, your references are your opinions backed up by your opinions.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh, you mean like everyone else here?

Every faith has PhDs willing to defend it, Steve. When posting, I’m going to assume that the reader knows that and accepts what I have to say in good faith.

If they choose not to, that’s fine too. Public forum.

 

[steve-b]

Oh, you mean like everyone else here?

Every faith has PhDs willing to defend it, Steve. When posting, I’m going to assume that the reader knows that and accepts what I have to say in good faith.

Really? Even when someone asks you for your references properly referenced? That shows they don’t buy your answer.

I have no idea who you are personally other than what you write here. And based on THAT, Why should I think you say anything in good faith? What I know is that you WERE Catholic but left the Church. And you choose to attack your previous affiliation. You think you have answers in your new reality? Meaning you think it’s okay for your soul to be in schism? Then prove it with evidence properly referenced. Not your personal opinions

Vonsalza:

If they choose not to, that’s fine too. Public forum.

Let’s not dismiss, the results and consequences of schism and one who goes into it.

From the CCC
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable.

 

[Vonsalza]

Really? Even when someone asks you for your references properly referenced? That shows they don’t buy your answer.

Steve, you’re the only guy that ever asks. And since your devotion to Catholicism is as emotional as it is rational, I have deep, deep doubts that any reference I made to better flesh-out something like “the first instance of ‘Roman Catholic Church’ being in 1208” would do much to persuade you.

In brief: I don’t really care all that much if one guy doesn’t believe me.

I have no idea who you are personally other than what you write here. And based on THAT, Why should I think you say anything in good faith?

Because that’s the tacit agreement everyone makes in using a public forum.
If something seems questionable, call it out.

And you choose to attack your previous [Catholic] affiliation.

No I don’t. I just defend Orthodoxy from attacks made by Catholics. I actually defend Catholicism quite often, Steve.

I’m playing the defensive side of the ball, pal.

Then prove it with evidence properly referenced.

This might be the rub, Steve. You can’t prove faith.

Case in point - prove to me that the pope is capable of infalliblity.

[Let me save you a ton of time - You can’t, particularly from the 1st 1000 years of Church history where eastern bishops defied Rome pretty regularly on matters both large and small before being swallowed by Islam]

You accept it as a tenet of faith. I do not. There’s nothing to “prove”, Steve.

Let’s not dismiss, the results and consequences of schism and one who goes into it.

From the CCC
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable.

The Orthodox hardliners at Athos make very similar claims. For your soul’s sake, Steve, turn to Orthodoxy!

 

[steve-b]

Vonsalza:

Steve, you’re the only guy that ever asks. And since your devotion to Catholicism is as emotional as it is rational, I have deep, deep doubts that any reference I made to better flesh-out something like “the first instance of ‘Roman Catholic Church’ being in 1208” would do much to persuade you.

I gave you properly referenced the 1st 4 centuries of history. You have nothing to back up anything you say.

Vonsalza:

In brief: I don’t really care all that much if one guy doesn’t believe me.

that shows you have nothing to back up what you say or believe.

Vonsalza:

If something seems questionable, call it out.

I’m calling out your answers when I ask for your proof properly referenced

Vonsalza:

This might be the rub, Steve. You can’t prove faith.

Show me where I have to prove faith in this definition? Hebrews 11:1-3 RSVCE - The Meaning of Faith - Now faith is the - Bible Gateway

Vonsalza:

Case in point - prove to me that the pope is capable of infalliblity.

EVERYBODY is capable of infallibility. Your problem is, you don’t accept the definition of Papal infallibility.

Vonsalza:

[Let me save you a ton of time - You can’t, particularly from the 1st 1000 years of Church history where eastern bishops defied Rome pretty regularly on matters both large and small before being swallowed by Islam]

Why did the East get swallowed by Islam?

steve-b:

Let’s not dismiss, the results and consequences of schism and one who goes into it.
From the CCC 817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable.

Vonsalza:

The Orthodox hardliners at Athos make very similar claims, Steve. For your soul’s sake, turn to Orthodoxy!

Schismatic hardliners?
Your indifferentism and latitudinarianism is duly recognized.

 

[Vonsalza]

I gave you properly referenced the 1st 4 centuries of history. You have nothing to back up anything you say.

You mentioned Clement, which references “the Church at Rome” rather than the papacy.
You mentioned Irenaeus, who rejects your pro-papal view by identifying Rome as being founded by both Peter and Paul and identifies the church there as an arbiter.
I mentioned the failure of Victor and you somehow interpret that as proof of papal supremacy.

The issue here isn’t access to facts and their citation. Is the zealotry through which you interpret them - sometimes oddly.

I’m calling out your answers when I ask for your proof properly referenced

You need to be more specific. You’ve never asked me once for a reference on anything specific, to my recollection. You just bleat about references in general, which most of the posters in the thread, Catholic and otherwise, are usually happy to ignore.

Show me where I have to prove faith in this definition? Hebrews 11:1-3 RSVCE - The Meaning of Faith - Now faith is the - Bible Gateway

Amen brother. Now stop your resistance and come to Orthodoxy. Or Anglicanism. Or Methodism. ect. ect.

EVERYBODY is capable of infallibility. Your problem is, you don’t accept the definition of Papal infallibility.

I don’t think you’re capable of infallibility, Steve. That goes for me, too.

Why did the East get swallowed by Islam?

Same reason Peter and Paul suffered awful deaths.
Because Satan hates goodness and truth?

Schismatic hardliners?
Your indifferentism and latitudinarianism is duly recognized.

I’m not indifferent. I’m just willing to concede that I can be wrong sometimes.