C
Cinette
Guest
Yes, we could enter the response in the GUINESS BOOK OF RECORDS!I’de like to hear the “denominations” as well.
That would be a new one!
Yes, we could enter the response in the GUINESS BOOK OF RECORDS!I’de like to hear the “denominations” as well.
Thank You for your brilliant documentation from Springtime Melbourne Australia, Benedictus 2. :tanning: The Papal visit was awesome, like the Maori Book of Gospels presented Traditionally.I’ve done a quick look through the posts and I thought that while you’re at it you might want to check out Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating.
Excellent book and discusses much of the cons that protestants in this thread have brought up.
Also, Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. Kimberley talks about contraception and how the Catholic position is the only position faithful to the Bible. This issue actually started their journey into the Catholic Church.
David McDonald’s (Catholic Bridge) website is excellent and so is Dave armstrongs.
I believe he’s referring to groups like the Gnostics and so forth. Later, the Cathars and so forth.I’de like to hear the “denominations” as well.
Still, let us see what he comes up with - it will be very interesting.I believe he’s referring to groups like the Gnostics and so forth. Later, the Cathars and so forth.
Please check this website on the history of the east - west schism.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Here’s one
From the article.
When one considers the name of the Church one must place it within its historical context. From the beginning Christians referred to their Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. While today, a number of other Churches also lay claim to this title (The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and others), the Eastern Orthodox Church sees these other Churches as break-away groups, with the Assyrians and Orientals breaking away from the church after the first few centuries and the Roman Catholics in the 11th century (see: East-West Schism).
Because of their theological and spiritual unity and their devotion to the original teachings and traditions of the Christian faith (as understood by the Orthodox), the Orthodox consider themselves to be the only valid continuation of the original One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
[SIGN]At least five different denominations trace their history back to the first century. At least three other groups were exterminated, courtesy of the Roman Church, prior to the end of the third century. [/SIGN]
still kinda waiting to hear these.At least five different denominations trace their history back to the first century. At least three other groups were exterminated, courtesy of the Roman Church, prior to the end of the third century.
At least two of those denominations would not only disagree with you, but cite scripture that demonstrates that your statement is flat out wrong.
jonathon
Do you think the Church puts a higher standard on Catholics than non Catholics receiving in the Catholic Church? Have you read the canons pertaining to what is required for receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church? Do you think those go away for non Catholics wishing to partake in the Eucharist?It seems to me that you are confusing a lot of things there. You say that 844.3 doesn’t undo 844.2 which is true, but 844.2 is requirements for CATHOLICS receiving from NON-CATHOLIC ministers. 844.3 is about NON-CATHOLICS receiving from CATHOLIC ministers. See what I mean?
It refers to Christians with valid sacraments, i.e. a valid priesthood. That greatly limits who even qualifies.And 844.4 is speaking of other Christians, i.e. Christians OTHER than the ones accounted for in 844.3
What’s stopping you from naming these denominations?
Why don’t you start citing denomination and scripture passages now?
How about the Eastern Orthodox. I think they claim to have come directly from apostles.
Sorry Ag_Not. I know I am not suppose to be in this thread but couldn’t help myself![]()
The Eastern Orthodox find fault with the Oriental Orthodox claiming this title?!!! One cannot be serious. This seems like nit-picking to an outsider.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Here’s one
From the article.
When one considers the name of the Church one must place it within its historical context. From the beginning Christians referred to their Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. While today, a number of other Churches also lay claim to this title (The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and others), the Eastern Orthodox Church sees these other Churches as break-away groups, with the Assyrians and Orientals breaking away from the church after the first few centuries and the Roman Catholics in the 11th century (see: East-West Schism).
Because of their theological and spiritual unity and their devotion to the original teachings and traditions of the Christian faith (as understood by the Orthodox), the Orthodox consider themselves to be the only valid continuation of the original One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Yes, and the Catholic Church does acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox to have valid apostolic succession. But, until around the year 1054 the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church were one.How about the Eastern Orthodox. I think they claim to have come directly from apostles.
Yes but you forgot one church. The Coptic Church.Yes, and the Catholic Church does acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox to have valid apostolic succession. But, until around the year 1054 the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church were one.
The only other Church that can nearly claim to be as ancient as the Catholic Church is the Eastern Orthodox. And even that, some would say, was forfeited when they separated from the unity facilitated by the Bishop of Rome.
Of course, the Eastern Orthodox on the forum will see it differently.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in Full Commumnion with the Vatican. Full communion. And have been for years.Yes, and the Catholic Church does acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox to have valid apostolic succession. But, until around the year 1054 the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church were one.
The only other Church that can nearly claim to be as ancient as the Catholic Church is the Eastern Orthodox. And even that, some would say, was forfeited when they separated from the unity facilitated by the Bishop of Rome.
Of course, the Eastern Orthodox on the forum will see it differently.
These are ones in communion with Rome
- The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in Full Commumnion with the Vatican. Full communion. And have been for years.
Why is everyone treating the Coptic church like a redheaded step-child.The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in Full Commumnion with the Vatican. Full communion. And have been for years.
There has been bo question of the valid apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox 22 Sects.
And the Orthodox Churches also have Recognized Apostolic succession. And they are pending Full Communion with the Vatican in a few years, as the Eastern Orthodox have.
All authentic Roman, Eastern and Orthodox Catholic Churches devolved from the Apostles. And we constitute over 70% of all Christiand, in numbers now.
Some technical differences caused the seperations, in overview.
No one said they were. Also the Copts are back in communion with Rome.As I had understood Orthodox and Coptic Churches have very similar beliefs to the RCC - they just have their own “Authority”, like for example a Patriarch instead of the Pope. They are not Protestants.
![]()
Excellent article, but Very tricky. Each sect needs to be read in detail to see if in Communion with the Holy See. Most “Byzantine Orthodox” are.These are ones in communion with Rome
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
If they aren’t on this list they aren’t in communion.