Orthodox and Catholicism ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter NMHS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theistgal said:
My personal feeling is that I believe the Catholic Church is the “True Church”, but that many of the Protestant churches also contain substantial parts of the Truth. And their members should be treated with respect, as our fellow Christians.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church supports your personal feeling and belief you’ve listed is this post!
 
grampben said:
What about all the anti-protestantism?
Click to expand...
Grampben, forgive me if my question offended you. When I was young I had profound experience in a protestant church that led me to God so my post was not meant as a derogatory towards protestantism There is anti-protestantism out there, it just seems that there is more anti-Catholic than the anti-protestantism. 🙂 😃 NMHS
 
NMHS said:
Grampben, forgive me if my question offended you. When I was young I had profound experience in a protestant church that led me to God so my post was not meant as a derogatory towards protestantism There is anti-protestantism out there, it just seems that there is more anti-Catholic than the anti-protestantism. 🙂 😃 NMHS
Click to expand...
In some parts yes, but on NCR there is equal amounts I would say.
 
sambos671 said:
You can google the dude. Also I have a problem with the Orthodox turning on Romanian royalty but that’s another story.
Click to expand...
You Google Rasputin yourself. He wasn’t orthodox or Orthodox in any way - just took advantage of gullible peasants and worked his way up to the gullible nobles.
 
sambos671 said:
You can google the dude. Also I have a problem with the Orthodox turning on Romanian royalty but that’s another story.
Click to expand...
I know who he is… What does he have to do with Orthodoxy? That’s like saying, "My negative comment about Catholicism- Tomas de Torquemada. "
 
Patrick1982 said:
I know who he is… What does he have to do with Orthodoxy? That’s like saying, "My negative comment about Catholicism- Tomas de Torquemada. "
Click to expand...
here is my negative comment about Calvinism: Barack Obama.
 
spoiltvictorian said:
here is my negative comment about Calvinism: Barack Obama.
Click to expand...
Except the UCC is hardly calvinist. Even though it is a merger of presbyterian and congregationalist denominations (and congregationalists aren’t necessarily calvinist anyway) it isn’t exactly like the calvinist PCA. Also, the UCC doesn’t abide by presbyterian polity.
 
grampben said:
Except the UCC is hardly calvinist. Even though it is a merger of presbyterian and congregationalist denominations (and congregationalists aren’t necessarily calvinist anyway) it isn’t exactly like the calvinist PCA. Also, the UCC doesn’t abide by presbyterian polity.
Click to expand...
Well, that was kind of my point.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
I think it has a great deal to do with America’s English heritage. During the 16th and 17th centuries, England and Spain were enemies. England had recently become Protestant, while Spain was still very much Catholic. My understanding is that there was a great deal of anti-Catholic propaganda in England during this time. Plus, the Church of England became identified with England itself, and Catholics were viewed as a threat to the state, not simply to the Church of England. Spain was a serious threat at this time, and perhaps we would be living in a rather different world if their armada had been successful. However, Protestant England (with the help of the weather, I believe) defeated Catholic Spain. The fear of Catholicism was transmitted to the English colonies. The old conspiracy theories and exaggerated reports of Catholic atrocities (such as vastly overinflated reports about Inquisition-related deaths) became popular in America, as well. These beliefs about the Catholic Church have been passed down throughout the past centuries, and are particularly strong in certain Protestant denominations.

By contrast, there is no strong historical basis for English Protestants and their descendants to have any kind of fear of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Russia or the Orthodox Byzantine Empire were not threatening English sovereignty, so American Protestants don’t have an inherited bias against the Orthodox faith. So, while Orthodoxy holds to nearly all the doctrines of Rome, Protestants know very little about Orthodoxy, and so they have no incentive to strongly oppose it.

As Protestant missionaries move into historically Orthodoxy countries, they have begun to form arguments against Orthodox theology. Not long ago, I read a Baptist pamphlet about evangelizing Orthodox Christians, for example. However, even that was not full of the kind of hysteria that is often found in anti-Catholic literature.
Click to expand...
Forgive me Lambic pen; I love your summary, but I have reservations as to what they appear to imply, so I must protest here.

For one, your summary is based on two Secular Kingdoms Catholic Spain and Protestant England. You stated the Church of England became identified with the English Monarch. For Clarification Spain was not the Catholic church, Spain was Catholic in faith, not as the English for England along with her Protestant church joined politically, their is a fundamental difference here which I would like to clarify hopefully without derailing your point and thread.

What I hope to express here is that the English Monarch of England has usurped the Protestant Church into her loins making war with countries who proffessed the Catholic church. The Catholic church has never declared War on any nation. So why would protestants be prejudiced against Eastern or Western Catholic church?

Sometimes if this is not clarified people will mistake Catholic countries to be the Catholic church which therein is a fundamental difference.

Peace be with you, again loved your commentary.
 
spoiltvictorian said:
You Google Rasputin yourself. He wasn’t orthodox or Orthodox in any way - just took advantage of gullible peasants and worked his way up to the gullible nobles.
Click to expand...
Well…
When he was around the age of eighteen, he spent three months in the Verkhoturye Monastery, possibly a penance for theft. His experience there, combined with a reported vision of the Mother of God on his return, turned him towards the life of a religious mystic and wanderer.
Click to expand...
And the monestary I found there was Nickolai Monastery (established in 1604) and is an Orthodox. the article didn’t say he left the Orthodox church but
and he and the Russian Orthodox Church had a very tense relationship
Click to expand...
So there is some connection there. In this article it also points out
A number of influential churchmen fell for Rasputin early in his ‘career’ as a holy man.
Click to expand...
I don’tsure what Holy man means in an Orthodox setting, however, the connection seems to be there. Just some thoughts. Now you may be offended and people who are highly influenced by the east generally don’t taking Joking lightly. My initial post with Rasputin was to be funny because I was basically saying I don’t know much about Orthodox except a few excerpts in History like Rasputin and Their behavior in the middle ages with Romanian and Hungary which I find questionable but not any more so than Catholic behavior at the time. Yet, my humor was lost (I forget eastern influenced people take things seriously). For that I apologize. But If you wan’t to fight about it cool. I’m up for it. After all it was primarily the eastern churches that caused havoc with the first seven ecuminical councils. Hah! That should tweek your nose.
 
Gabriel of 12: Thank you for your post! Certainly, Spain was not the Catholic Church, and the conflicts between England and Spain were not a case of Catholicism declaring war on England. I think, though, that some in England found the Catholicism of Spain to be a convenient target. England was proud of its independent church, and I believe there are some who feared that a Spanish victory would return England to the “Roman yoke.” (Which, to be fair, is probably what would have happened)

Perhaps, out of an effort to demonize the Spanish enemy, some in England would attack the predominant Spanish religion, namely Catholicism. Some even went so far as to refer to the king of Spain as “His Satanic Majesty.” Anti-Catholic propaganda became quite popular, and English Catholics were persecuted and suspected of treason. So, while the conflict with Spain was largely a political one, the English propaganda established anti-Catholicism within the minds of its people. These ideas were carried to the colonies, where they still persist in some denominations.

None of this is meant to be anti-English propaganda, of course. Personally, I love England (and the British isles, in general), and I would love to visit someday.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Gabriel of 12: Thank you for your post! Certainly, Spain was not the Catholic Church, and the conflicts between England and Spain were not a case of Catholicism declaring war on England. I think, though, that some in England found the Catholicism of Spain to be a convenient target. England was proud of its independent church, and I believe there are some who feared that a Spanish victory would return England to the “Roman yoke.” (Which, to be fair, is probably what would have happened)

Perhaps, out of an effort to demonize the Spanish enemy, some in England would attack the predominant Spanish religion, namely Catholicism. Some even went so far as to refer to the king of Spain as “His Satanic Majesty.” Anti-Catholic propaganda became quite popular, and English Catholics were persecuted and suspected of treason. So, while the conflict with Spain was largely a political one, the English propaganda established anti-Catholicism within the minds of its people. These ideas were carried to the colonies, where they still persist in some denominations.

None of this is meant to be anti-English propaganda, of course. Personally, I love England (and the British isles, in general), and I would love to visit someday.
Click to expand...
Bless you for your clarification. I believe if one reads history, and is able to discern when and what the Catholic church sacrificed and did as compared to what Catholic Monarchs, or Catholic nations not the Catholic church acted maybe the Anti Catholic rhetoric can be accurately placed. I too love England especially the Britt’s. Some of my best friends are Catholic Priests from India and I love their British English.

Peace be with you
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
For one, your summary is based on two Secular Kingdoms Catholic Spain and Protestant England. You stated the Church of England became identified with the English Monarch. For Clarification Spain was not the Catholic church, Spain was Catholic in faith, not as the English for England along with her Protestant church joined politically, their is a fundamental difference here which I would like to clarify hopefully without derailing your point and thread.
Click to expand...
I would say that you need to rethink this comparison.

For in Spain, France and Portugal the Catholic church was indeed joined politically to the monarchy.

In fact, in those times the Papacy had very little influence in those countries. What vexed king Henry VIII so much was that the church in England had a special subordinate arrangement with the Papacy that did not exist in some other countries. This traces back to the missions begun by Augustine to the British Isles when England did not actually yet exist, the entire territory was divided into many smaller states and the church operated across state lines with less reference to the local monarchs.

Eventually the “English” state was unified, finally, in the reign of Alfred the Great of Wessex. The church retained it’s own independence of initiative as long as possible from that time forward.

William the Conqueror asked for the Pope’s blessing to take England, and received it. This contributed to problems for him later because he found the English church not as submissive as he had expected, prompting persecution of the church to an eventual compromise.

King Henry II received a franchise to take over Ireland through a Papal Bull from Pope Adrian IV (The only English Pope). The alleged reason was to make the Irish church conform to Papal discipline. This seems to have made a lot of sense to Pope Adrian, he gave the go-ahead.

Heny II’s son, king John (there apparently was only one king John) tried to take control of the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury (senior bishop of the English and Irish churches) away from the local synod. This would have been in line with the authority of other monarchs of the day. The bishop of Rome was able to capitalize on the dispute by rejecting both candidates and naming his own (Stephen Langton). This frustrated both the local synod and the monarchy while enhancing Papal authority over the English church.

Others may recall this episode sparked a whole string of consequences. First John’s adamant refusal of Langton as the head of the English church, then the interdict (a major catastrophe all around) and eventually John’s excommunication, followed at a later date with his submission to Rome.

The terms of this agreement made the entire kingdom a vassal of the Papacy. (This is a matter of historical record).
Interesting sidenote: Later, when king John signed the Magna Carta, the Pope disapproved. It was this condition as vassal which enabled John to break the Magna Carta agreement, with the Pope’s support.
Click to expand...
In summary, the weaker position of the kings of England with relation to the Pope over the English church was due to the accumulated effect of all of these different conflicts and compromises over time. The situation of the English church at the time frustrated every English monarch who could see how the Spanish, Portuguese and French churches were so much more accommodating to their kings and less subject to Papal oversight. It was a source of great resentment, which led to consequences we all are generally familiar with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top