Impossible to find the true church

[mikerandells]

So I guess the so-called “Orthodox Church” doesn’t cut the test for being the ONE true Church, because it isn’t one at all.

---

texas investment properties Auto Transport

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So I guess the so-called “Orthodox Church” doesn’t cut the test for being the ONE true Church, because it isn’t one at all.

Only if you believe so-called description. See the link

All those Churches on the Diptychs say ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

And so we are.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Your wish is my command.

I’ve been around the various churches under the Vatican, East and West. If you don’t think they’re ethnic, well…

In Antioch, the Vatican has three patriarchs, all based on ethnicity, all claiming to be successors of St. Peter at Antioch.

A common complaint of the Ukrainians, Ruthenians etc. about the Russian empire was that when religious toleration first came, it was the stipulation that those who submitted to the Vatican had to be Latin rite by law. Their descendents under the Vatican said that their forebares could not bear being lumped with the Poles in a Latin church (“hated Pole” is what I heard a lot).

Of course, we all know how the unversality of the Vatican led Archbishop Ireland to become the Father of American Orthodoxy.

At least in Chicago, you can tell which is the German, Polish, Italian, Spanish, etc. “Cathiolic” church (I’m led to be it was the same during the Latin mass).

As for Scott Hahn’s analogy, the Vatican is like an overbearing, bossy elder sister. Jerusalem is the mother church, Antioch the oldest sister, Constantinople the youngest sister who did well for herself. Only Alexandria can be called the daughter of Rome, yet Alexandria’s patriarch was the first to be GIVEN the title “Pope,” long before Rome TOOK the title.

Lost our father? No, only those family problems that happen in every family.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The Creed was composed by the Fathers and sealed by them in Ecumenical Council.

Centuries later it was changed in a local council.

Rome for centuries forbade the addition.

Then she added it.

The EP struck Rome from the diptychs for doing what the Fathers had forbidden.

Then the Vatican insisted that the East add the interpolation too.

Who fell into schism?

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 Divine Liturgy is celebrated on every continent, including Antarctica. Every nation, maybe not San Marino, Liechtenstein and of course Vatican City rolleyes: ), but pretty much every country, pretty close.

Case of repression? Hmmm. St. Herman went all the way from Finland to Alaska to Evangelize the Americas. One of his converts was St. Peter the Aleut, our first martyr: he was tortured to death by the “Holy Office” in San Francisco (the Russian Orthodox evangelized down to there: I was just at Fort Ross north of the city, and was impressed by the evidence the museum gave of the depth of Orthodoxy there) because he refused to recant and persisted in his “schism.”

The Holy Spirit unites. The demon divides. It is that simple.

I you speculating on the author of the filioque?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

LOL. The Bible itself tells us that St. Peter was married.

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.

You are fudging the quote: St. Ignatius (himself the successor of St. Peter) never mentions the bishop of Rome (not even in his letter to Rome), and he says “Wherever the bishop [NOT the “bishop sent/approved by the Vatican”] shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”

All past kingdoms and nations until today recognize this.

Like the Donation of Constantine?

If the world powers recognize the Pope as the successor of Peter of whom Jesus built his church, why cant all religious circles?

Peace

Having the Truth, we know better.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What objections do you have to his statements? Much of what he say is true.

Dealt with below.

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.’

Because the Czar was martyred? Actually he was canonized by the Russian Church as a Passion Bearer.

If you look at your Vatican calendar of saints, there are plenty of canonized emperors, kings, etc…e.g. St. Olaf the martyr, who constitutionally is the eternal king of Norway. Someone here has a sig advocating the canonization of Kaiser Karl I
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria#Beatification

So Hahn’s statement about Orthodox Caesaropapism would seem to be on the mark.

Ah, yes, selective condemnation of Caesaropapism rears its head.

All the talk about Lyons II and Florence, but little on the fact that the bishops there had to be dragged by the emperor, who was always the driving force behind the unification schemes, never the chruch. But I guess that’s “good” Caesaropapism.

Pope Hormisdas told the emperor to use force to make all the bishops of the East sign the Formula of Hormisdas. The bishops refused.

And not to mention the creation, spread and insertion of the filioque at Rome was entirely the work of monarchs.

I could go on, but I’ve made my point.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

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,

Hopelessly divided? Yet the same Holy Mysteries, clergy etc. FAR more united than the post Vatican II Vatican.

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.

All in communionn with each other. Is it a problem that Orthodoxy sinks into the blood?

They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

I would say that the Vatican is like a mother who refuses to see that her children have grown, but since Rome is the mother of none of us except Alexandria, who was called Pope “Father” long before Rome, the analogy would be off. Like I said, bossy older sister.

I can say anything about my brother, but God help the person who comes out against him. Is my family unique in that?

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Stagnant, yes we don’t have any time for Modernism. We’ll stick to the Fathers.
Lossky, Meyendorff, Schmemann, even Bulgakov, and that’s just a few just from the last century.

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

,
how so, when the emperors were the ones trying to force the Orthodox bishops into “union.”

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).

answered above.

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

And Franco’s Spain was doing what?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

A reference or citation to this?
He used the term “throne” in reference to Jerusalem alone. Not Rome.
He is also the one who tells us how the whole Church “rebuked” Pope Victor.

The Orthodox, rejecting that authority,

You mean supremacy?
We reject all innovations that depart from the Fathers.
Proverbs 22:28: Do not move an ancient boundary marker that your ancestors set in place

departed from communion with the Bishop of Rome

The Ecumenical Councils stated the penalty for composing another Creed was depositon, Constantinople IV stated the filioque was a diffferent Creed, and when, at the emperor’s insistence, Rome inserted the interpolation in the Creed, the EP applying the canons struck him from the diptychs.

and went their own way.

We stayed put. The Church eminated from the EAST.

This occurred after the canon of the NT was closed. I do not know what their OT canon is,

We still hold to the Septuaging which the Apostles used. You and the Protestants follow Jerome is walking in the footsteps of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes in taking the OT from them.

but we can only pray they are reunited with the one Church.

Your prayers are answered.

Rejecting the chair of Peter

Rejecting the chair of Peter? Patriarch Ignatius IV is in the diptychs.

is an indication that they separated themselves and the Catholic remains the One True Church.

one patriarch changes the Creed. Four didn’t. Who remained in the One True Catholic (meaning at all times: Rome forbade the filiqoue at one time. Who was right Leo III or Leo IX?)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Actually, it was not the fourth century. it’s as early as the late 1st Century:

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Corinth was in his patriarchate, and would be until the end of the ninth century. Not unusual.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, …; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

No mention of the bishop of Rome at all (unlike his other letters, which constantly talk of the bishops). And presides in the region of the Romans, what Rufinus would call the “suburban Churches,” ie. Italy.

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church…’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

Just before the Victor bebacle.

“Since, however,** it would be very tedious**, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the **two **most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

The section it is in is emphasizing the mutli-center witness of the Truth of the Church,
St. Iranaeus himself wrote a letter rebuking Pope Victor.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

"…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

You left out the part where the whole Church “rebuked” Victor.

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ …Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian’s letter for Rome shows that:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…
2. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

A council not accepted.
Details available on request.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The first mention of it is in The Acts of the Apostles.

People say a lot of things about the Church, so one must investigate all claims.

We’ve dealt with all of this post before.

Christ Himself made Simon (Peter/Kepha/Cephas/Kepa) the foundation of His earthly Church in Matthew 16. He gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. He gave Peter and the Apostles power over sin, as well as “whatever” they held bound. They bound Peter’s authority to his successors.

Documentation?

That’s history.

That’s interpretation.

Never before had man received such power. Moses did not have that power.

Also consider:

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, “the beloved disciple” at 29 times. Peter is always listed first among the Apostles (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-17, Acts 1:13)

Deatl with: the lion share of the 195 are on his denial of Christ.
James is listed first in Gal. 2:9.

Also, you read “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing his position amongst them

Also, Peter was the only Apostle who:

Walked on water (Matthew 14:30) Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus…

and sank.

He also:

Raised the dead: (Acts 9:36-42) In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas),

.
St. Paul rasied Eutyches.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

These posts are very good.

I always wanted to know about the bibles.

The Orthodox have MORE books then the Catholics.

do we have any proof that there books are not inspierd?

Dose anyone know much about the Orthodox Holy fire?
Dose it actualy come from Jesus tomb and light only Orthodox torches? Im sure there is video of this.

There is a thread on this somewhere, with links.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many lines of scripture ripped completely out of context in one post before. As refreshing as that was, I don’t think he’s even considering the man-made Mormon community.

I’m not sure the Mormonism is man made.

If you know what I mean.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No it’s not!

For one thing, satan doesn’t get that option.

For another:

Where is the “Orthodox” Magisterium?

“He who hears you, hears me.”

Who is the “me” in that if there is no Magisterium?

Christ.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I know a little about it.

I’ve never heard that it lights only Orthodox torches. I think whoever told you that was just confused.

Whenever anyone but the Orthodox patriarch has tried to receive the miracle, it has not come, but instead came to the Orthodox praying outside the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OK. Just answer this question, if you can:

Where do “Orthodox” go, if not the Magisterium of the Church, for infallible pronouncements of dogma?

Bible.

Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do the Orthodox have a Governing body?

A group of bishops that rank higher then the others, alowing that Governing body to make decisions effecting the whole church?

Ecunemical or Pan-Orthodox Councils.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree. the Church is to be a “city on a hill” (Matthew 5;14), not some secret society squirreled away somewhere. The Church’s mission is to evangelize and save souls- how can it do that if no one is aware of it’s existence?

Pssst.

The Secret is Out.

 

[RNRobert]

I’d say that if anyone can lay claim to such a title it’d be the LDS church, or perhaps a small denomination with unsound extreme beliefs. While one should expect that a church speaking truth should find itself coming into conflict with elements of a fallen world, simply looking at how much they’re hated is certainly not something I’d consider a primary criteria in discerning what is true.

When was the last time you heard the LDS church referred to as the Whore of Babylon (a term commonly used by Protestants to describe the Catholic Church)? Jesus said a servant is not greater than his master, so if He was accused of being in league with the devil, then it shouldn’t surprise us when His Church is accused of the same thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

When was the last time you heard the LDS church referred to as the Whore of Babylon (a term commonly used by Protestants to describe the Catholic Church)?

Probably heard it aimed at Catholicism in a LDS Sunday school class. The LDS church has canonized this belief, with scriptures that call our creeds an abomination and those who profess them (us) corrupt.