Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter excaliber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry brother. The only thing sounding silly here is your inventions of terms such as “inadvertant promotion” and poltical conspiracy theories. :rotfl:

The historical facts undermine your position–and it shows. :whistle:

Honorius was condemned at the sixth Ecumenical Council. It condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome for promoting heretical teachings. It condemned him by name as a heretic. He embraced the heresy of the monotheletes.
No, Mickey the only thing being undermined is your “rational” approach to these discussions. It might help if you could actually say more than “he was a heretic” :hypno: “he was a heretic” :hypno: “he was a heretic” :hypno: like someone who can’t deviate from the partyline.
 
Yes. And the judgement was his after conciliar agreement. Hmmm, sounds like the seven great Ecumenical Councils. No supreme infallible ruling pontiff there. 👍
Sorry, Mickey but you forget that the revelation was given to St. Peter, who with his successors, the bishops of Rome are the supreme guardians of Christian tradition, i.e., without Peter’s revelation (and/or (name removed by moderator)ut) no judgement could have been rendered.
 
.

Mardukm, God love him, is a one man show. No one thinks like him.
What makes you think that no one else thinks like him (his perspective is orthodox, in fact, he never fails to support his position without benefit of tradition, scripture and history working in tandem)?
 
Well I went to divine liturgy.

When I walked into the church I noticed that there were plenty of ushers. So I was able to say that I didn’t know what to do, he gave me some information…and kept coming to my seat (in the back) to help me find where they were reading.

I am not trying to say that Roman Catholic churches are not friendly because there are nice people there. But its very interesting, how VERY orderly EVERYTHING is…plenty of ushers even the books in your pew are neat. And people I think are aware of eachother a little bit more. They will know if you are new and will try to explain what’s going on even if they are not ushers.

That church was PACKED full of people…mabey because of lent. It was full of incence…Orthodox don’t hold back on the incence 🙂

I did hear an organ playing and I thought Orthodox did not use music, now it was far from a protestant style…it was very nice…I just thought Orthodox did not use music at all.

Also they were all dressed very nice, all the men had on dress shirts and most had on suits.
All the women were dressed well…no flip flops and shorts.

As far as my mystical experience…the service gave me goose bumps it was very motivating

Can’t think of anything negative to say, other then the greek leaves opportunity for the mind to loose focuse because of not understanding what is being said.
 
Nothing in your description surprises me at all. The Orthodox are known for having done a fabulous job of preserving the dignity of the Liturgy and the ceremonial beauty that is a part of it. They are known for having lovely worship, a strong desire not to have it muddied-up by innovation, and it is always said to be a mystical, heavenly experience. The Catholic Church could definitely stand to learn a thing or two about getting back to the fundamentals of old-school from the Orthodox. When all is said and done, however, you have to look at the theology and beliefs and historical statements as well as what you believe to be the TRUTH, not just liturgy. If I went by just liturgy, I’d be back at my old Anglican parish right now where I feel they have a FAR more dignified, quiet, solemn, classy service than my Catholic parish. I’m Catholic because I believe it’s the truth, simply put. And I’m gratified that the Church is re-vamping the liturgical language coming down the road. It is far more dignified and better-written than the current state of affairs.

I’m glad you enjoyed the liturgy. The Orthodox have so much to offer; that’s why I wish East and West could re-unite and end this silly divorce.
Well I went to divine liturgy.

When I walked into the church I noticed that there were plenty of ushers. So I was able to say that I didn’t know what to do, he gave me some information…and kept coming to my seat (in the back) to help me find where they were reading.

I am not trying to say that Roman Catholic churches are not friendly because there are nice people there. But its very interesting, how VERY orderly EVERYTHING is…plenty of ushers even the books in your pew are neat. And people I think are aware of eachother a little bit more. They will know if you are new and will try to explain what’s going on even if they are not ushers.

That church was PACKED full of people…mabey because of lent. It was full of incence…Orthodox don’t hold back on the incence 🙂

I did hear an organ playing and I thought Orthodox did not use music, now it was far from a protestant style…it was very nice…I just thought Orthodox did not use music at all.

Also they were all dressed very nice, all the men had on dress shirts and most had on suits.
All the women were dressed well…no flip flops and shorts.

As far as my mystical experience…the service gave me goose bumps it was very motivating

Can’t think of anything negative to say, other then the greek leaves opportunity for the mind to loose focuse because of not understanding what is being said.
 
I did hear an organ playing and I thought Orthodox did not use music, now it was far from a protestant style…it was very nice…I just thought Orthodox did not use music at all.
Many Orthodox parishes do not have an organ although for some reason they are more popular in Greek parishes. We have five Orthodox parishes in my neck of the woods and only one of them has an organ. From what I understand they are almost unheard of in traditionally Orthodox countries.

Also many parishes do not have pews. That is more common in parishes with a Slavic background and most likely universal in monasteries, Slavic, Greek or otherwise.

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
Nothing in your description surprises me at all. The Orthodox are known for having done a fabulous job of preserving the dignity of the Liturgy and the ceremonial beauty that is a part of it. They are known for having lovely worship, a strong desire not to have it muddied-up by innovation, and it is always said to be a mystical, heavenly experience. The Catholic Church could definitely stand to learn a thing or two about getting back to the fundamentals of old-school from the Orthodox. When all is said and done, however, you have to look at the theology and beliefs and historical statements as well as what you believe to be the TRUTH, not just liturgy. If I went by just liturgy, I’d be back at my old Anglican parish right now where I feel they have a FAR more dignified, quiet, solemn, classy service than my Catholic parish. I’m Catholic because I believe it’s the truth, simply put. And I’m gratified that the Church is re-vamping the liturgical language coming down the road. It is far more dignified and better-written than the current state of affairs.

I’m glad you enjoyed the liturgy. The Orthodox have so much to offer; that’s why I wish East and West could re-unite and end this silly divorce.
Theology-- beliefs–history has been what we have been talking about in this thread.

History seems to depend on who is telling it.

So why not find me something in Orthodox theology that is not Christian?
 
Why are you asking me to prove the Orthodox to be un-Christian? That’s ridiculous? Sounds like you’re ready to join up anyway. I’m not going to change your mind; it’s made up. And I don’t believe my Orthodox brothers in Christ to be non-Christians?
Theology-- beliefs–history has been what we have been talking about in this thread.

History seems to depend on who is telling it.

So why not find me something in Orthodox theology that is not Christian?
 
The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.
  1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.
2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.
***So usinig your logic, the head of every Fortune 500 Company can run it by him [her] self?

Pope is not, nor has it ever “been the same” as Bishop; all though the Pope too is a Bishop.

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors living men 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all-biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
  1. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).
  1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.
  1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
  2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
  3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
  4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
  5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
  6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
  7. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
  8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
  9. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm
    .
  10. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
  11. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22)
  12. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
  13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
  14. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
  15. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
  16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
  17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
  18. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
  19. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
  20. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
  21. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
  22. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
  23. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
  24. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
  25. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
  26. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).
‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

It’s not our sense of duty to obedience only, but our personal relationship with Christ that encourages and directs us to choose to hear and obey the Pope, and the magisterium, the ordinary teaching body of the Church, consisting of all Bishops in communion with him. It is out of a desire to love and be loved, that we are able to draw comfort from the revealed truths, knowing that obedience not only assures our spiritual health, but often our mental heath as well. It is critically important to clearly understand that the Church does NOT MAKE UP doctrine, and dogma, She simply announces them, defines them, teaches them and defends them, BECAUSE that is Her God given role. Christ is the Architect, of His Church, and His Church leaders are just translating and sharing God’s “Blueprints”, as is there DUTY.***
 
What makes you think that no one else thinks like him (his perspective is orthodox, in fact, he never fails to support his position without benefit of tradition, scripture and history working in tandem)?
Peace be with you josie; upon reading these posts it appears that the Orthodox in opposition to the authority of the Pope, try and create a casm between “Mardukm” an Orthodox in communion with the Pope and Latin Rite, by using an ancient war tactic called “divide and conquer”.

Let it be known our brother Mardukm carries a much larger sword than most Catholics anywhere, for those Orthodox in communion with Peter and his successors in the Popes, ride with the greatest of Apostolic succession, One with his Patriarch, and One in communion with the Pope. The Orthodox Church’s in communion with the Pope have no boundaries and should be the most feared, because they have the backing of two living Apostolic successors.
 
Talk about the best of two great worlds: The Papacy and the beauty and richness of Orthodox liturgy. Sign me up! 😃
Peace be with you josie; upon reading these posts it appears that the Orthodox in opposition to the authority of the Pope, try and create a casm between “Mardukm” an Orthodox in communion with the Pope and Latin Rite, by using an ancient war tactic called “divide and conquer”.

Let it be known our brother Mardukm carries a much larger sword than most Catholics anywhere, for those Orthodox in communion with Peter and his successors in the Popes, ride with the greatest of Apostolic succession, One with his Patriarch, and One in communion with the Pope. The Orthodox Church’s in communion with the Pope have no boundaries and should be the most feared, because they have the backing of two living Apostolic successors.
 
Eastern Orthodoxy has an internally inconsistent flaw in its doctrine. Here is an article by a priest who chose the Catholic Church and why he didn’t choose Orthodoxy. It has a lot about his personal journey, but the key part is where he in order evaluates the four propositions in bold.

rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
 
Eastern Orthodoxy has an internally inconsistent flaw in its doctrine. Here is an article by a priest who chose the Catholic Church and why he didn’t choose Orthodoxy. It has a lot about his personal journey, but the key part is where he in order evaluates the four propositions in bold.

rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
How about instead of making a statement and then leaving a long essay to leave, you state what that flaw is and leave the essay so for further reading, if any so desire.
 
I’m not particularly Catholic or Orthodox at the moment, but I have to say that the posted article did not impress me one bit. Take, for instance, this point:
Proposition 4: Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those Councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.
The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity – the tautology – that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, therefore destroying its rational credibility. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty; but the proffered answer to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover! We are being told, “To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed to the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine”!
This same tautology can also be easily leveled at those in the Roman communion. If you accept its premises, it is fairly easy to fill in the details with what seem at the time to be logical arguments and even to bolster those with quotes from the Councils and Early Church Fathers. That’s part of the reason why I joined the RC, I’m sure. It seemed so neatly wrapped up and logical.

If his point is that it is not possible to know who is adhering to true Christian doctrine in a vacuum, then fine, but then I don’t see how aligning oneself with Rome or Constantinople (or Alexandria!) would solve his problem. He has merely chosen to follow Rome because he feels it to be the most logical, historically-consistent communion. Others have looked at the same evidence from both sides and made other choices (and, in fact, there are many more that could be made: Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, some other form of Protestantism, etc). I don’t see how this makes Rome “right” and everyone else wrong.
 
We are very blessed in the information age to all be arm-chair theologians and patristics experts and whatever, but that was not always the case.

Generally, when one is a member of the Church and a controversy in doctrine arises, those desirous to be faithful can find the definitive resolution from an externally verifiable source and there can be a unity of faith (obviously, those not desiring to be faithful will do as they wish).

Under the current Orthodox system, some Council may propose an answer, but it must be judged by each and every individual Christian since it is not binding until accepted by the entire Church over some undefined time period. If this principle is actually applied, unity breaks down such as happened as a result of private judgment in Protestantism.

In practice Orthodoxy has not broken down like Protestantism because this principle has not actually been applied. Historically, those who chose not to accept the Councils’ definitions were excommunicated and anathematized forthwith–they were not given the choice to accept it or reject it. They were accepted by the whole Church because those who disagreed were booted. But now it is the doctrine they use to explain their repudiation after-the-fact of the reunion Councils and the pan-Orthodox Councils that taught what they now claim to be Latin corruptions (Original Sin, Indulgences, etc.).

Point being, it’s a major historical inconsistency and a principle that if adhered to in sincerity results in not one voice, but many.
 
have you always been in the Orthodox Catholic traditions?
I was born and bred Roman Catholic/Byzantine for many decades. After a thorough study of Church history and patristics, I realized that I had to convert to the One, holy, catholic and apostolic church----the Holy Orthodox Church. 😃
 
They’ve produced a steady stream of heretics for centuries yet all we hear about is one pope
As you know, all heresy is to be condemned. But when a Pope falls under the condemnation of heresy, it is very easy to see that the 1870 doctrine of supremacy/infallibility was an innovation. 🤷

Remember, Honorius was our Pope too. 😉
 
It’s obvious in the council’s condemnation of Honorius that it was a censure and big blast against him because of his inaction, not his outward teachings of any heresy. So for the Orthodox to say, “he was condemned as a heretic,” some context would be nice.
His two letters were ordered to be burned and were labeled as** “hurtful to the soul”. **

There is some context for you.** :D**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top