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

[Bluegoat]

Great points, Josie. I always find it fascinating how easy it is to get a divorce and remarry in Orthodox circles. Also they allow contraception, like you said, with the approval of a spiritual father, a priest’s counsel. That fascinates me. I know the Catholic Church has too many loosey-goosey priests and bishops willing to do the same but from the tone of Orthodox I hear on this board, one would expect no heretical, sinful stuff like this at all? I notice that Orthodoxy is organized largely upon ethnic lines and they do seem to overlap boundaries like crazy. There is a Coptic Orthodox church in my town, small, and every single solitary member is Middle Eastern. There is an Armenian church about fifteen miles away, 90% Armenian where the 10% is the spouses of Armenians. About one hour away is a Greek Orthodox church and every parishoner’s name ends with -opolis. The Catholic Church in my town has Mexicans, Portuguese, Irish, Filipinos, Italians, Polish, Lahus from Thailand, Anglo muts like me, and other ethnic groups. I feel the Catholic Church has done a better job of being truly universal, catholic, and reaching many ethnic groups.

We have a Polish Catholic church in my town, full of Polish people. Also, Eastern Catholic churches tend to be ethnically separated, and it seems in the future there may be Anglican Catholics, presumably mostly of British descent. I think what you are talking about here are accidents of history more than anything else. The OCA tends to be mixed ethnically and include many converts.

You can’t show that another group is less true or moral than Catholicism because the differ on particular moral issues unless you can show those issues to be true without referring to Catholic teaching. Which you may be able to do, but you haven’t done so here.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Your history is a bit simplistic. You are assuming theat the Early Church is the same thing as what we consider the Catholic Church.

And what is “Catholic”? Why it’s “universal”–there were no other Christian Churches for at least 1000 years. Is it the same back then as now? The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, who gave authority to Peter as His steward (His vicar) here --in the Church, he was first a Bishop of the Church in Antioch and then Bishop of Rome (which we refer to as Pope, which is from “pappa”). All the subsequent other “Popes” (Bishops of Rome) succeed Peter’s office as Bishop of Rome and Christ’s vicar. What does “the Bride of Christ” believe? The Apostles’ Creed encompasses just about all the points. The Apostles’ Creed was a baptismal formula from about 202 A.D. (and it was also legend that it was named so because each of the Apostle’s was supposed to have each provided one line toward’s its formulation.) Let’s see, early on, there was the belief in seven Sacraments (our Eastern brethren call them “Mysteries”)–Baptism, Confession (also called Reconciliation), Communion (also called the Eucharist), Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of Annointing (also called the Sacrament of the Sick). Same now as then. Guess that view is simplistic even if it is accurate…

 

[Hesychios]

Moreover, in the first thousand years of church history the popes did a kick *** job of defeating heresy in the Church,

Actually no.

The Orthodox believers overturned every heresy and took the church back from the ‘development of doctrine’ thinkers. We are happy that most of the time in the first millenium the bishops of Rome saw it our way.

Unfortunately for the last 1000 years solid the bishops of Rome have succumbed to heterodox thinking and practices, more so as time goes on. The longest running case of heterodox thinking dominating a single high church office.

 

[dzheremi]

Since you’re bringing up “Catholic” again, AMDGtoo, and insisting that it means what you want it to mean, can you please address my point in post #372? Here it is again, in case you missed it:

With all due respect, that is a very simplistic view of things, ADMGtoo. The usage of the term “Catholic” in earlier centuries of Christianity was not what it is now, thanks to the association in the West of “Catholic” with “Roman” following the beginning of the Reformation. Many of the Eastern churches also call themselves “Catholic”, both formally/officially and informally, though they might not do so outside very specific circumstances if they are not among fellow eastern Christians, because of the need to maintain their distinct identity outside of the Roman communion. This even goes for those not in any major communion. The official name of the Assyrian Church of the East is ܥܕܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܫܠܝܚܝܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܕܐܬܘܪ̈ܝܐ, ‘Ittā Qaddishtā wa-Shlikhāitā Qattoliqi d-Madnĕkhā d-Āturāyē, meaning “Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East”. They are not, in fact, in union with Rome, or Constantinople, or Alexandria, or anybody! (though there are sections originally from that church that are Orthodox or Catholic, under names like “Syriac Orthodox”, “Syrian Catholic”, “Chaldean”, etc.)

This is easy to understand when we look at the literal meaning of “Catholic”. From the Online Etymology Dictionary found here (emphasis mine):

catholic (adj.)
mid-14c., “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” literally “universally accepted,”

This sense of “found everywhere” (geographically) that Roman Catholics seem to like to use didn’t come about until somewhat later, and only by analogy to the original meaning. “Whole”, “complete” (in the sense of doctrine), or more accurately “believed throughout the whole” is the most common definition I’ve found in use among Orthodox.

What makes the Roman Catholic use of the term correct when it is relatively recently (since the Reformation) that it has been taken to be understood as “in union with Rome”, or for that matter “universal” in the way that RC’s use it (e.g., ‘universal jurisdiction’)?

 

[AMDGtoo]

What makes the Roman Catholic use of the term correct when it is relatively recently (since the Reformation) that it has been taken to be understood as “in union with Rome”, or for that matter “universal” in the way that RC’s use it (e.g., ‘universal jurisdiction’)?

What? You are saying that in the early Church, the Bishop of Rome wasn’t in union with the Church at Rome? As you must know, the Catholic church in the early Church was comprised of four major Church communities, the fifth being the Church at Rome headed by the person Jesus chose to delegate His authority.

Seems that the present Catholic Church also includes both the Western Rite as well as the Eastern Rites (and those can trace their histories to those four major Church communities.)

Why do you think it’s important to emphasize the fact that unity that Jesus prayed for was shattered when the churches that became the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic in 1054 and 500 or so more years later during the Reformation, there was even more splintering. What has that got to do with the fundamentals of the Catholic Church?

BTW, the official name is Catholic Church. It is not RC (like you have used) or RCC. The word “Roman” was at first used as a perjorative term by some Protestants. The Catholic Church took all the “sting” out of the insult by simply embracing the word and saying yes, we are Roman Catholic because the Church is under the umbrella of the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Interesting rules of engagement. My question is…why?

We have a Polish Catholic church in my town, full of Polish people. Also, Eastern Catholic churches tend to be ethnically separated, and it seems in the future there may be Anglican Catholics, presumably mostly of British descent. I think what you are talking about here are accidents of history more than anything else. The OCA tends to be mixed ethnically and include many converts.

You can’t show that another group is less true or moral than Catholicism because the differ on particular moral issues unless you can show those issues to be true without referring to Catholic teaching. Which you may be able to do, but you haven’t done so here.

 

[dzheremi]

What? You are saying that in the early Church, the Bishop of Rome wasn’t in union with the Church at Rome?

Is this a serious objection? I am writing about modern usage versus historical usage of the term. The modern western, non-specialized usage as a noun is “in union with the Church at Rome”, yes. When someone says “Catholic”, without any sort of qualifier, I’m going to take a wild guess and say you don’t immediately think of Constantinople or Alexandria.

Why do you think it’s important to emphasize the fact that unity that Jesus prayed for was shattered when the churches that became the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic in 1054 and 500 or so more years later during the Reformation, there was even more splintering. What has that got to do with the fundamentals of the Catholic Church?

What does any of this have to do with what I posted?

BTW, the official name is Catholic Church. It is not RC (like you have used) or RCC. The word “Roman” was at first used as a perjorative term by some Protestants. The Catholic Church took all the “sting” out of the insult by simply embracing the word and saying yes, we are Roman Catholic because the Church is under the umbrella of the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.

When we are discussing the use of a term that is used more or less equally across all communions that recognize some sort of Apostolic tradition and succession, it makes sense to distinguish between the various churches that lay claim to the title, so the term “Roman” is entirely appropriate in this context. It is not in any way an insult. RC is merely an abbreviation, just as I also frequently ACoE when discussing the Assyrian Church of the East, EO when discussing the Eastern Orthodox, or OO when discussing the Oriental Orthodox. I’m sorry that you dislike abbreviations so much, but I find them quite handy and will continue to use them without bias or hatred for anyone.

 

[Nine_Two]

And what is “Catholic”? Why it’s “universal”–there were no other Christian Churches for at least 1000 years.

There were several organizations claiming to be the One true Church which arose before that date. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox to name two.

Is it the same back then as now? The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, who gave authority to Peter as His steward (His vicar) here --in the Church,

As well as all the other apostles, not that it matters because due to the rules of canon law that Bishops be ordained by the laying on of three other Bishops, every Bishop holds succession with every Apostle.

he was first a Bishop of the Church in Antioch and then Bishop of Rome (which we refer to as Pope, which is from “pappa”).

The Patriarch of Alexandria was the first to start using the title “Pope” actually. It wasn’t until much later that the Bishop of Rome began to use it. It is simply a title and carries no other privilages with it.

All the subsequent other “Popes” (Bishops of Rome) succeed Peter’s office as Bishop of Rome and Christ’s vicar.

Says who?

What does “the Bride of Christ” believe? The Apostles’ Creed encompasses just about all the points.

All points? That’s saying a lot. Even we doctrine loathing Orthodox think it only just touches on the most basic things.

The Apostles’ Creed was a baptismal formula from about 202 A.D. (and it was also legend that it was named so because each of the Apostle’s was supposed to have each provided one line toward’s its formulation.)

And that’s why the original version is in Latin, because as we all know the Apostles composed everything in Latin. It’s also why it never took hold in the East.

Let’s see, early on, there was the belief in seven Sacraments (our Eastern brethren call them “Mysteries”)–Baptism, Confession (also called Reconciliation), Communion (also called the Eucharist), Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of Annointing (also called the Sacrament of the Sick).

Incorrect, numbering the sacraments as Seven came later. Early sources often give a number between 2 and 11. The Orthodox Churches, and presumably the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t even officially recognise any number, although those seven are commonly held to be Holy Mysteries.

Same now as then. Guess that view is simplistic even if it is accurate…

Simplistic, yes. Accurate, no.

 

[Hesychios]

This article doesn’t seem very clear to me, and I am highly suspicious of what it implies. Saying the Indians never broke with Rome wouldn’t mean much if they didn’t interact with Rome in the first place, which is my understanding.

The article is deceptively worded on that point.

What they should have stated was that the Syro-Malabar Catholic church is either the fragment that returned to obedience to the Pope after the Coonan Cross incident or perhaps stated as the parishes that stuck with Rome during the conflict.

To state that they ‘never broke communion’ is rather strange, since they were not (in those days) considered a Sui Iuris church but a Rite of the same (Latin) church, and they did not name their own bishops. It takes bishops to formally break communion.

What actually happened was a general rebellion, which caused the Pope to sent Italian Carmelites to India in the hope of repairing the damage that the Portuguese Jesuits had done. They were partially successful, which had two results: -1- the Carmelites became very important in India (still are), and -2- the Syro-Malabar church continued on as the Papal portion of the former Thomist church in India. The ‘non’ Papal former Mar Thoma Catholics needed bishops to continue, and the Patriarch of Antioch consented to accept them into his fold.

 

[Bluegoat]

Interesting rules of engagement. My question is…why?

If the question is - which is the real, or true, or correct Church, the Catholic or the Orthodox?

and you argue that the Catholic Church is, because they teach thing X and the Orthodox don’t,

it can only be a valid argument if thing X is known to be true apart from Catholic teaching.

If you consider or know that it is true in some sense based on the teaching or authority of the Catholic Church, you have created a circular argument. You have assumed the authority or truth of the CC in order to create an argument for the authority of the CC.

So, you need to be able to show that the OC position on divorce and ABC are incorrect from either an OC perspective, showing that their doctrine is inconsistent; or that it is false from a philosophical/rational/scientific perspective, showing that it is not compatible with reality; or that it is false from a basic Christian perspective, showing that it is incompatible with any understanding of Christianity.

I think this could be difficult for two reasons - one is that I don’t think Orthodoxy has really finished dealing with how it views ABC as of yet, and opinions on it vary significantly. THe other is more serious - Orthodoxy has a different basic understanding of marriage and sexuality, which accounts for the difference in how it sees ABC, and a difference in how they understand Sacraments, which together with the first difference is related to why they allow divorce.

So then you would have to argue those issues, which would not be easy and would take up whole long threads of their own. It seems like a very complicated and difficult way to make the original argument about the organization and authority of the Church.

 

[Mickey]

and is thus given responsibility for the whole Church.

How odd that the Pope of Rome would claim he has responsibility for the whole Church.

You might want to read how Pope Benedict views the ecclesiology of the Church (by reading the book mentioned in the above paragraph) before you start taking him out of context.

I’ve read his views. Those two quotes are as close as he comes to recognizing the innovation of the 1870 doctrine of infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

**In your heart of hearts do you seriously think I’m trying to win an argument based on font color? **

I do not know. Suddenly, the font changed to loud blue!!!

 

[Mickey]

*I know he was anathemized. *

Good. Then we can move on.

*But just because the council found him an originator of an evil belief or guilty of being “hurtful to the soul” or even having diabolical influences, it still is NOT an ex cathedra statement. *

*Oh my—you’ve got to be kidding me. How many times can you hide behind this innovated ex-cathedra excuse. *

*How about you and I go over **this ***again:

Okay. Let’s try again.
*His letters were burned and called hurtful to the soul. Whose soul, gurney? Perhaps the people? Obviously, there were people who felt that since the Pope of Rome was “a confirmer of heresy” that this was a true teaching. Honorius did not have to climb on a pedestal or write an encyclical that begins with “I hereby proclaim…” He was condemned as a heretic. He was a confirmer of heresy. He was a tool for the originator of evil. If this is not enough….let’s delve a little further. *

The Council says: “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema*…” *

*There is an imperial decree that *speaks about the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and includes Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome.

The decree goes on to say that he “strengthened the heresy.”

Pope Leo II says, “Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition but by profane treachery tried to subvert its spotless faith".

There is much more that could be said gurney….but you are going to hide behind some sort of absence of an “ex-cathedra” statement.

You can stay in denial-----but history is history.

• We all have thorns in our sides, Mick. St. Paul tells us that, right? *

*Yes, gurn. *

the chiding stuff isn’t cool

Well gurn…I love these little emoticons and I have been using them on this forum for six years. I am sorry that you are injured by them. I will try to tone down my usage for your sake.

PS—Now I would like to ask a favor of you. Can you please respond to posts using the proper quotation boxes. It is very difficult when you respond to my post with only a color change within the same quotation box. Thank you.

 

[Mickey]

You use that word “innovation” very loosely,

No…I do not. I am very serious when I use it.

I’m starting to think you’re somewhat of a fundamentalist in your approach to (our) faith.

How funny! I was thinking the same thing of you.

And yet ironically you accept the fact that the Orthodox are allowed to remarry three times and/or are allowed to use artificial contraception

LOL! Every single time you start to get frustrated you throw in these red herrings. The differences in teaching between our Churches regarding marriage and contraception have been debated infinitely here. It goes something like this:
You allow remarrage.
So do you–via annulment–it’s the same thing.
No it’s not.
Yes it is–it’s a legalist vehicle for retroactively nullifying the sacrament of marriage.
But you allow contraception.
NFP is contraception.
No it’s not.

Stop your little games Josie. Or start yet another thread on these topics.

“take the log out your eye before I take the splinter out of mine”.

Good advice for everyone my dear.

 

[Mickey]

I always find it fascinating how easy it is to get a divorce and remarry in Orthodox circles.

It is not easy. There is much counseling with a spiritual father or priest before the dissolution of the marriage. However, I have always been fascinated how easy it is to get an annulment.

Also they allow contraception

So do you. Wait a minute–this sounds familiar.

 

[Mickey]

Moreover, in the first thousand years of church history the popes did a kick *** job

Watch your language.

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox believers overturned every heresy and took the church back from the ‘development of doctrine’ thinkers. We are happy that most of the time in the first millenium the bishops of Rome saw it our way.

Amen Michael. We must remember—at that time—the Popes of Rome were thoroughly Orthodox!

Unfortunately for the last 1000 years solid the bishops of Rome have succumbed to heterodox thinking and practices, more so as time goes on. The longest running case of heterodox thinking dominating a single high church office.

Sad indeed.

 

[crazzeto]

It is not easy. There is much counseling with a spiritual father or priest before the dissolution of the marriage. However, I have always been fascinated how easy it is to get an annulment.

So do you. Wait a minute–this sounds familiar.

The Catholic Church allows contraception? The closest thing we have is NFP, which I’m not sure quite qualifies, as the purpose of contraception is to allow for sexual activity and not have a child when otherwise this would be the natural ends. NFP on the otherhand, is the age old system of “if you don’t want to have a child, dont’ have sex”… There’s a important philisophical difference here.

So which does your church advocate

 

[Mickey]

The Catholic Church allows contraception?

Yes.

I am suggesting that you start the one millionth thread on this topic if you desire to discuss this again. Thank you.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes.

I am suggesting that you start the one millionth thread on this topic if you desire to discuss this again. Thank you.

Hey, your post seemed to suggest that you are making a statement that the CC endorses contraception, did you not expect a response Mickey?