N
Nicholas82
Guest
The Copts belong to the Oriental communion.
- Status
E
excaliber
Guest
How is denial of the athority of the Pope,and calling the latin Church a fallen Church not a matter of heresy.
The Orthodox believe differently about Mary, The Holy Trinity,What books should be in the bible,The Pope,The Creed…must I go on?
The Orthodox is basicly a different church.
They also don’t think it was Mary that appeared at fatima…so if not Mary who else do you think they are implying???
This dose not sound like a church with small disaggrements.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Because they accept that the Pope is first among equals. They deny infallability because it was not defined at a council that incuded the entire church. In other words, they were not invited to discuss it. They only acknowledge the first few councils, not those that came later
You need to look at each of those separately. Some are more problematic than others.
Rome does not agree.
Did you know that Catholics are not required to beleive it either? We can choose to accept it or we can ignore it altogether.
You are looking at it 1,000 years later. Years of issues and other things have made it seem bigger than it is.
I
imroc
Guest
So the gates of hell have prevailed against the church? Satan is equal? hmmm… Sounds like your forgetting that simple theological virtue called HOPE and have fallen into anxiety over this. Pray my brother, repent, walk in faith and remove the hardened uncircumcision off your heart for the sake of your brethern.
E
excaliber
Guest
The issue is which one is correct.
do you have any info That I could use?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, first I must say that I don’t see the question of whether or not Mary appeared at Fatima as being a problem.
But aside from that, I think you raise a very good question – one which I am interested in as well (see the thread Cardinal Newman vindicated (re Vatican I)?).
E
excaliber
Guest
I am going to rcia today.
However…mabey the information Im getting is incorect…but it sounds like the Orthodox have the same Apostolic line as the Catholic Church…minus the inquisition…minus the wich hunts…
minus the crusades…minus the coruption that led to the rebellion of thousands of denominations, all trying to clean up christianity.
Its possible Im wrong, but now you know why the Orthodox give some doubts.
However…mabey the information Im getting is incorect…but it sounds like the Orthodox have the same Apostolic line as the Catholic Church…minus the inquisition…minus the wich hunts…
minus the crusades…minus the coruption that led to the rebellion of thousands of denominations, all trying to clean up christianity.
Its possible Im wrong, but now you know why the Orthodox give some doubts.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Unless I’m very much mistaken, witch hunts were something that Protestants did, not Catholics. (I suppose we could start a debate about which was worse, the Inquisition or the witch hunts.
)
R
RNRobert
Guest
If you were to disqualify every Christian group out of hand because of the peccadilloes of some of its members, you’d probably end up an athiest or agnostic.
A few points
- As PeterJ said, it was the Protestant sects that had witch hunts. There were two Inquisitions: the Spanish one (which was run by the government) that was used to root out Moslems and Jews who had joined the Church not out of genuine belief, but in an attempt to gain political power. Then there was an Inquisition in France to suppress the Albigensian heresy. The Albigensians were Gnostic/Manichean retreads who thought marriage and having children a sin, but considered suicide by starvation a virtue (not unlike today’s culture of death).
- The Crusades were defensive wars attempting to free the Holy Land and curb Moslem expansion. Because of the failure of the crusades, the Orthodox Byzantine Empire was eventually overrun.
- Were there corrupt leaders in the Church at times? yes, but you can find similar problems in the Orthodox and Protestant churches. “Let he without sin cast the first stone.” There will always be problems in the church, but running off to start our own little sect is not the answer.
I have a great respect for the Orthodox Churches. It was learning about them that led me away from Protestantism and into Catholicism. They do have Apostolic succession and have produced a number of holy men and women. But I do not believe they are what the Lord intended for His Church. They are fractured along national lines (Russian, Greek, Serbian,etc) I suppose that’s fine if you’re Russian, or Greek, but the Church is supposed to witness to the whole world, not just a particular ethnic group. The Orthodox churches are too caught up in their various national identities to really universal. Scott Hahn compares the Orthodox to “a group of brothers who have lost their father.”
E
excaliber
Guest
what was the title of scott hahns book that discussed the Orthodox?
How did a study of the Orthodox lead you to Catholosism???
its to bad Isa and other Orthodox aren’t here to discuss these things.
R
RNRobert
Guest
The quote came from Scott Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home” which tells how he went from being a diehard anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister to entering the Catholic Church. During his journey he considered becoming Orthodox but declined for pretty much the reasons I gave above.
When I first became a Christian, I attended a Baptist church, then a non-denominational church started by the Baptist pastor when he left (that’s a story in itself). I had a pretty fundamentalist outlook, and believed that things like prayers to Mary and the Saints, prayers for the dead, religious art, liturgy, hierarchical priesthood, etc. as seen in the Catholic Church were unbiblical. However, I came across someone who was Orthodox (a convert) who loaned me her books on the Orthodox Church. I realized here was an ancient church that believed and taught pretty much the same thing as the Catholic Church, and I realized it was Protestantism which departed from historical Christianity.
po18guy
Well-known member
First, Tsuzuki, decide whether you are Mormon or Catholic. Then come back and render an opinion. More Mormon deception will not assist in determining truth.
As to the topic, Christ founded One Church. Christ’s use of the word “church” is its first appearance in scripture. There was One Church for over 1,000 years. The Catholic Church went nowhere, staying where it was planted. It continues unchanged, as Christ promised. The East fell into schism, out of sheer human disagreement.
As evidence of the universal church, let’s look at how they have evangelized the world. There is Catholic mass in virtually every nation on earth either open, or in cases of repression, in secret for the faithful. How has the East done in comparison? A study of that issue will provide light.
The Holy Spirit unites. The demon divides. It is that simple.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I would suggest taking “with a grain of salt” the things that Scott Hahn says about the Orthodox in Rome Sweet Home.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Why would you say that?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think the best way to answer that is to present his actual statements:
So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.
- Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I dont see solving the posters dilema. All I can say is the unbroken succesion of Peter in the Roman Catholic church has always been the Orthodox church not by selfclaim but by her unchanging longevity from the apostles, not to mention the Magesterium still hold to the disciplines of Paul and Peter by remaining celebate priests and bishops, you cant get more orthodoxy than that.
I cant speak for the Orthodox because truthfully I dont have a clue to which Orthodox church is being referred to. When one states the Pope or Roman Catholic church the world knows where that church is today, just as the enemies of the Church from the first centuries always new where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic church of Jesus Christ. All past kingdoms and nations until today recognize this. If the world powers recognize the Pope as the successor of Peter of whom Jesus built his church, why cant all religious circles?
Peace
I cant speak for the Orthodox because truthfully I dont have a clue to which Orthodox church is being referred to. When one states the Pope or Roman Catholic church the world knows where that church is today, just as the enemies of the Church from the first centuries always new where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic church of Jesus Christ. All past kingdoms and nations until today recognize this. If the world powers recognize the Pope as the successor of Peter of whom Jesus built his church, why cant all religious circles?
Peace
R
RNRobert
Guest
What objections do you have to his statements? Much of what he say is true. My Orthodox acquaintance had given me some bulletins from the Orthodox church she had attended, and one of them had a lengthy section about Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, titling him a ‘Tsar-Martyr.’ So Hahn’s statement about Orthodox Caesaropapism would seem to be on the mark.
N
Nickkname
Guest
Well, the New Testament is very Catholic, so by Scripture alone, the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. Of course there is also the line of sucession of Popes which date all the way back to Saint Peter, so by historical evidence, the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. And you can’t forget about the Church Fathers, all of whom were Catholic in their writings, so by the evidence of the Fathers, the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ.
I’ve studied a lot of the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and the historicity of the Popes, wanting to see if they really matched up with what the Church taught or if the Church was lying to all the faithful (I was in a period of doubt), and after my suspscisons against the Catholic Church’s autheticity were relieved, I now know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ.
E
excaliber
Guest
It seems as though the Orthodox can quote early church fathers also.
But what scriptures are Catholic and not Orthodox?
po18guy
Well-known member
Eusebius wrote the history of the Church in the fourth century. He noted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome that had existed since the first day. The Orthodox, rejecting that authority, departed from communion with the Bishop of Rome and went their own way. This occurred after the canon of the NT was closed. I do not know what their OT canon is, but we can only pray they are reunited with the one Church.
Rejecting the chair of Peter is an indication that they separated themselves and the Catholic remains the One True Church.
- Status