But my admission also accepted that the Holy Spirit was in the Protestant Churches. I don’t believe they have legitimate authority. I don’t see having the Holy Spirit as the same thing as having legitimate authority.
Because if there is no authority ordained by God, how can we say that texts such as “On the Origins of the World” are heretical?
The authority I’m talking about belongs to the church as a whole, which is where individual bishops derive their authority. When they break with the teachings of the church they break with that authority,
I partially bowed-out of this thread (I’m still skimming it, but no longer reading every single post) yesterday morning, because it seemed like the conversation was becoming garbage. Possibly if I hadn’t, I would be feeling depressed now too.
Well said. Indeed one of the things I like about being Catholic is that we are ecumenical-minded, even toward Protestants (bad as they are
).Many Catholic saints have done many wonderful things. We may disagree with a select few, in many cases we’ll agree those canonized by the Catholic Church presented an excellent model for how we should live.
That’s the difficulty with the Orthodox autocephalous independent thinking of one another. The Orthodox I have consulted on this matter make the false claim that they the Orthodox Church defeated the Arian heresy without the help of the bishop of Rome, thus making the Arian heresy from the early councils “their own heresy”. If you read my statements without pre-judgement’s, I nevre make the claim that the Arian heresy came from the Orthodox church herself.
Do you have any idea what “autocephalous” means in the context of Orthodox Church governance, Gabriel? Sentences like this make it seem like you’re using terms without understanding them.
Just because the Roman bishop did not beat Arianism by himself (no single bishop did, though HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic is probably the one best remembered for fighting against Arianism) doesn’t mean that he did not do anything. The Latins, after all, accepted the Council of Nicaea, and as far as I know Pope Sylvester (who did not attend the council, but was bishop of Rome at the time) is venerated in the EO church.
Arianism was defeated in the East largely due to the 1st Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople. I would say that history quite clearly shows that the lion’s share, so to speak, of the work in defeating the Arianism in the East goes to Eastern bishops (especially St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocian Fathers), with very, very little involvement from Rome, with respect to Arianism in the East. Given that some Roman Catholic triumphalists love to make absurd assertions along the lines of “the Eastern Church was the source of all kinds of heresy, and constantly had to have the Pope come in and set them straight,” when the actual historical facts are that the West gave to a rise of a number of its own heresies, Arianism continued to fester in the West for centuries after it was crushed in the East, and that the eastern heresies were actually refuted by councils held in the East, attended and directed mainly by eastern bishops, who did most of the work in refuting these heresies, it’s understandable that some Orthodox react by minimizing the role of the Pope in defeating these heresies.That’s the difficulty with the Orthodox autocephalous independent thinking of one another. The Orthodox I have consulted on this matter make the false claim that they the Orthodox Church defeated the Arian heresy without the help of the bishop of Rome, thus making the Arian heresy from the early councils “their own heresy”. If you read my statements without pre-judgement’s, I nevre make the claim that the Arian heresy came from the Orthodox church herself.
Before jumping to judgements of inflammatory statements, wouldn’t you have allowed the courteousy to ask for clarification first? Which I now submit.
Could you clarify what it is that you believe is a “Lie”? Because without support of such a statement deserves some clarification? Thanks
Peace be with you
Yes …
It seems the RCC and the OC disagree on the exact/correct interpretation…which you quote in a manner favorable towards the former.
What if the Orthodox don’t wish to rejoin?
Perhaps. Maybe it is in the context that people use it here that I see a dichotomy between the truth and authority. Because people seem to be looking to an authority to figure out what the truth is. But if I’m getting what you are saying, we see ourselves (the Orthodox) as authoritative because we have the truth. This is opposed to figuring out who is authoritative so they can decide what is the truth.
There is a reason why the Church is the body of Christ and not just merely Christ. Church after all comes from Eklesia, which means “a gathering”. That is why Jesus came as the Good Shepherd to gather His flock. Jesus is not the Church alone, He is God. St. Ignatius of Antioch has already put it beautifully, the Catholic (meaning “whole”) Church is where the bishop is, and the people gathered around him and Christ is present among them (in the Eucharist). That is the Church.
Good point. /// CTG … you are usually ‘right on point’.
But clericalism is rampant in the CC, and is one of the things that led to the Reformation. The clerical state is mystified in the CC.Good point. /// CTG … you are usually ‘right on point’.
Don’t we have more saints in the Church from the laity [non-religious] ranks … than from the Bishopric ‘religious’ ? Seems so to me …
And, Christ seemed to prefer to spend his quality time with the ‘commoners’ — rather than with the ‘royals’ Scribes & Pharisees] … Peter and the others-fishermen /// excepting Paul the ‘scholarly one’.
And, our CC teaches Christianity is mainly a brother-sisterhood of the poor, the down-trodden, the tired & poor. The ‘huddled’ masses of commoners …
I also struggled with what you are thinking right now. But, I came to realize that the Catholic Church is the True Church.
No they are not. I suggest people who have never been Eastern Catholic to never, ever make this claim. Ever. Because there is a world of difference between ECs and EOs.
I agree the Vatican is very ‘top heavy’. This disturbs me too. I think to myself how the Vatican resembles the Church Christ started. Can we seriously think Christ would of desired/built such extravagances as the Vatican ? Yes it is impressive, but … very material too, not what Christ told us to focus on.