In the spirit of Christian brotherhood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orthodox4Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Michael57, I think your bolding of my statement “Come home”, might be directed at me. If it is, you are right, and thanks. I have always had a problem with my protestant view of the symbols of baptism and communion. I didn’t see the benefit of symbology, symbology was an OT thing pointing to NT reality.

I remember 20 years ago reading John 6 and thinking that it really does sound like the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, which would change my symbol understanding into reality. At the time I said “no, I can’t believe that, I would probably be the only person on the planet to believe that and I don’t want to be a heretic” (I was young and not very educated in anything outside protestantism). I am so embarrassed because I did not pursue that further.😊

The Catholic Church has made my problem with my protestant understanding of symbols, into a reality.
 
What Islam is, is a Johnny come lately religion, your still a baby compared to the Catholic faith, you have alot to learn about wisdom and the essence of God which your religion does not dare touch because it remains in slavery; The crucifixion removed the enmity between man and God. When we are no longer slaves but son’s in the Son of the living God, where there is no more slave, free person, Jew, Gentile, man or woman. Do you understand this? That is what the crucifixion accomplished. This is said in the spirit of Christian brotherhood.
Relax. My comment was addressed to the topic creator. The idea that Christ’s death was not for atonement of sin, which he did say in his/her initial post, is altogether unbiblical. That’s what I was getting at. I just found it ironic that he/she was calling catholics to the Orthodox Church whilst presenting a grossly unbiblical view.
 
Relax. My comment was addressed to the topic creator. The idea that Christ’s death was not for atonement of sin, which he did say in his/her initial post, is altogether unbiblical. That’s what I was getting at. I just found it ironic that he/she was calling catholics to the Orthodox Church whilst presenting a grossly unbiblical view.
Glad you cleared that up drac. 👍

Cheers!

MJ
 
Glad you cleared that up drac. 👍

Cheers!

MJ
No problem; I felt like I had to. I apologize to Gabriel and to anyone else if my initial comment came across as rude. That wasn’t my intention, but I can see how it could’ve be interpreted that way. Sorry for that.
 
No problem; I felt like I had to. I apologize to Gabriel and to anyone else if my initial comment came across as rude. That wasn’t my intention, but I can see how it could’ve be interpreted that way. Sorry for that.
Hi drac16, I am curious about your understanding of Jesus Christ and his work. Do you recognize his work on the cross, and if so what is your barrier preventing you becoming Catholic?
 
No problem; I felt like I had to. I apologize to Gabriel and to anyone else if my initial comment came across as rude. That wasn’t my intention, but I can see how it could’ve be interpreted that way. Sorry for that.
Thanks drac16, boy do I feel sheepish and am humbled by your maturity. Your post came out of knowwhere and appeared to attack the fundamental faith of Christianity in the crucifixion, without any reference to whom it was addressing.

Peace be with you drac16:)
 
Thanks drac16, boy do I feel sheepish and am humbled by your maturity. Your post came out of knowwhere and appeared to attack the fundamental faith of Christianity in the crucifixion, without any reference to whom it was addressing.

Peace be with you drac16:)
👍

MJ
 
Ok now apply all of your demands of "post-Nicea (post Constantinople) faith to the first 30 + popes before Nicea ever counciled, who never heard of the Nicene Creed.

Then make your demands of your Post Constantinople faith Emperor period to all the Catholic Saints and Martyrs who looked to the Church of Rome “Peter” as pre-eminent and for all other Church’s to follow long before your Post constantinople ever existed, which is the Catholic Faith the Roman Catholic church still holds to today.

When Post-Constantinople returns to it’s apostolic root of Orthodoxy from which she came, she will enter the full unity with the chair of Peter just as it was for the first 400 years before Constantinople began making demands on the chair of Peter’s authority.

Return back with your brother Peter who calls you back to these pre-Constantinople times when all were united with his eminence the Pope’s.

When Orthodoxy leaves their Emperor’s influences over their church’s then let’s talk about re-union.

Peace be with you
What Emperor? There has been no Emperor for nearly a millenium now.
 
What Emperor? There has been no Emperor for nearly a millenium now.
So your saying no secular power, no longer, ever have to approve their Patriarchs in their provinces anywhere? For example; Instanbul (Constantinople)?
 
the Catholic church never claims that the Pope is Christ’s sole “vicar on earth”.
The Pope is the visible head of the Church just as St. Peter as the head of the Apostles
I’m Eastern Orthodox, or at least a catechumen. I’m not trying to engage in apologetic, arguments, debates, etc. This is a friendly discussion in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. I wish and pray that all non-Orthodox will be united to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church.
Holy Mother, full of grace, pray for everyone to be united to the Orthodox Church. :gopray2::signofcross:

Nor am I trying to convert Protestants or Roman Catholics, nor any other to Orthodox Catholicism.

First, I’ll list some primary issues that Roman Catholics would have to abandon if we ever want to be united.

RC:
He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply “subsistent relations” within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable “modalism.” He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus’ Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God’s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary’s conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply “the merits of Christ” to Joachim and Anna’s sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from “the stain of original sin.” And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.
The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the “days” of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others.
The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was to trample down death by death, not to atone for our sins. Nor to bear our sins, guilt, or replace us.
The pope would also assure all Christians that the bishop of Rome will never do or teach anything on his own authority, “from himself and not from the consensus of the church (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae).” He would promise to serve in his presidency solely as the spokesperson for all the bishops in apostolic succession who govern communities of believers who have chosen them to serve, and whose validity and legitimacy as bishops depend solely on their fidelity to the Gospel in communion with their predecessors in the episcopal office, and with each other.
On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his presidential authority to insure that everyone - clergyman or layperson - would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church’s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.
The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sole “vicar on earth”, may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus)
 
And lastly, not even all orthodox Christians are united, so who would we unite with? Eastern or Oriental? Dissension needs to be fixed in their own church first.
Eastern and Oriental are two completely churches who don’t claim to be from the same tradition. Accusing either of division because of the word Orthodox is like accusing Catholics of division because of the Polish national Catholic Church or the Old Catholics. It is worse than this because the division between eastern and oriental goes back 1500 years, which is long before the great schism. So any division between eastern and oriental is also shared just as much with Catholicism, because they were involved as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top