C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
I don’t understand; In what way is the Orthodox “together”?
What does the Pope need to do - or give up - to be “together” with the Orthodox?
- Status
What does the Pope need to do - or give up - to be “together” with the Orthodox?
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
What kind of UNITY was that we lived in, Political? Europe was the only bastion where the nations under kings and Queens were subject to the Papacy. If a King or Queen strayed away from that they were hounded by the Church, or had to hide in secret to voice the opposition.Nevertheless the people were subject to local churches,priests and the overall Bishops. The only form of religion was practiced openly, and any other observance was kept in secret.There were rebels against the political SEE of Rome, there is history documentation to such.Even Freemasons fall under that category.It was bound to happen, the Reformation was basically an outrage against abuses lived out in the RCC, and courageous men and women stood up to the Church to confront the abuse.Sin in the Camp was not dealt with, politics played too important a role in Church History.
P
Peter_J
Guest
“Never” is a strong word.
If you believe that the Orthodox are right and Catholics are wrong (which I don’t, but presumably you do), then why wouldn’t you also believe that it’s possible for Catholics to realize their errors and come to the truth?
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
You are bringing out a very good point indeed! The whole of Western Europe is plagued with Islamization by sheer numbers. Muslim families are sometimes as large as a dozen strong, but for the most part 10 children.The European families are painfully Nuclear, with barely two in a given family. A documentary was made about Italian men about a year ago. The horrible fact of that documentary was: so many Italian men were not seeking wives, would rather live with their mothers. Italian women are courted and slept with, but committment to marriage is almost null and void.Bridget Bardot is being sued for liable against the Islamic populace in France. She is outspoken about Islam and the lack thereof of Chrisitanity. She loves her Catholic faith and was depressed over the amount of churches being bought by the Muslims and made into Mosques. It is a modern day tragedy. But here is a question for you,do you really believe that the Muslims have any more of a tolerance for Orthodoxy than Western Christianity?
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
I find it a problem as to why any church on this planet would feel so strong as to want to embrace under its roof a political geographical region of people who have strong roots to the same LORD as they have. It is one thing to have the opportunity to share the RC expression of faith in a region to win souls and give people an option of choice. The Evangelicals know from common sense that if they go to an area and evangelize, that there will be some converts, and a church is established, the right of choice and observance should not be imperiled. However the large monolith churches feel intimidated by the Evangelicals, as if they were going to covert the whole country. The Orthodox are acting that way with the Roman Catholics(uniates,Maronites and so on). The reality of mass conversion of a predominately Orthodox country to RCatholism is unlikely. The same applies to any given Christian group that goes to the country where a large Church system exists. Roman Catholics in many countries where they are the main Church have persecuted others, maybe not so much this day and time, but very much so in the past. Protestants in the South of our country USA were very much upset by the presence of Jews and Catholics as well.Shame on all who cannot tolerate the presence of another. Human Beings are free will agents we all have the right to choose where we attend for worship, and we have the full right to leave a Church, to go to another if so desired without persecution and intimidation.Sorry but it all boils down to Choice, and a human being has that God given right.There is nothing written in Scripture especially that states one born an Orthodox, or Roman Catholic or anything else must remain that way until death or incur the wrath of God. If we depart from the Faith as in Scripture to sin and depart from the Living God and His Son Jesus than we have a problem with God Himself!
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
Roman Catholics and Orthodox are disgusted when other Christian groups camp their dominated areas, but yet in countries where Protestant chruches are the majority, Catholic churches are springing up everywhere. What is the difference? It all boils down to the choice of the people in those areas to choose which church they will ultimately attend. What is more important than what church you attend, is salvation in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Depends. If they are camping there in order to proselytize, then that’s a problem.
Absolutely.
Yes, but it seems to me you’re working off a false dichotomy there.
F
Frank_J
Guest
Hi
Never is a strong word and I stand by it.
someone asked if Muslims have any more of a tolerance for Orthodoxy than Western Christianity?
No! But remember that the Latins left the Orthodox to be taken over in the year of 1453… That was the responce of the pope at that time in history.
They say no good deed goes undone with the incress of Muslims the future Europe is danger of falling. I can’t use the word I like to say in proper text that would best discribe sentence. The word is band on this chatroom.
The power that I was talking about was the pope have the last word on what is decided on Church views and policy an faith belief.
Never is a strong word and I stand by it.
someone asked if Muslims have any more of a tolerance for Orthodoxy than Western Christianity?
No! But remember that the Latins left the Orthodox to be taken over in the year of 1453… That was the responce of the pope at that time in history.
They say no good deed goes undone with the incress of Muslims the future Europe is danger of falling. I can’t use the word I like to say in proper text that would best discribe sentence. The word is band on this chatroom.
The power that I was talking about was the pope have the last word on what is decided on Church views and policy an faith belief.
P
Peter_J
Guest
“Never is a long word, even for an ent”
I agree that there will probably always be divisions among Christians.
But I don’t see any reason that the particular divisions that we have now, especially the division between Catholics and Orthodox, should continue forever. It almost seems like you’re proposing a kind of reverse-infallibility: that the Catholics are not only in error, but they can never come to the truth.
?
F
Frank_J
Guest
Hi Peter,
Do you see the pope ever giving up his power???
If your answer is yes then I would say that we could see a sea change in Rome. That would be a great move by the pope to heal the riff in the Christian faith.
A Roman Catholic has to see the pope infallibility as faith how would the RC change that???
You would need to get around that first.
It was under Vatican I in 1870 that stated pope infallibility am I not correct??
Do you see the pope ever giving up his power???
If your answer is yes then I would say that we could see a sea change in Rome. That would be a great move by the pope to heal the riff in the Christian faith.
A Roman Catholic has to see the pope infallibility as faith how would the RC change that???
You would need to get around that first.
It was under Vatican I in 1870 that stated pope infallibility am I not correct??
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
No that is not entirely correct before the schism some 900 or so years ago there was only one Church the split of the Eastern and western churches brought about what is known as the Orthodox Churches. and the Reformation was more about Individuals that thought they new more about what was right than about the sale of indulgences. or political power (though it quickly became that by many secular leaders that saw it as a way to more power). So by looking at history we do see that for the majority of the last 2000 years there was only one church and for the vast majority there at the most was only the Catholic and Orthodox. it is only in the last 400 plus years that the protestants have been with us and only in the last 150 give or take that those that are the most removed from Catholicism have been with us. So yes I do see that if the 2 that first split can come back together that bringing the other slowly back into the fold is possible.
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
What makes anyone for a surety think that the first 1000 years of an evolving Church, was what is termed as the Roman Catholic Church?The Jewish Apostles do not in any way resemble the Popes, and as for Peter the Apostle, his role as a shepherd does not look at all like the Papacy. The Jewishness of the Scriptures do not resemble the Sophisticated Liturgical Church of this time period. Since the Church of Rome has a monopoly on early Church History, there is undeniably a gulf between the time of the Apostles, including Peter and Paul in Rome, and the political establishment of the Roman Catholic Church System, which dominated Europe for centuries. Peter was not crowned with a mitre as seen in murals and pictures, and statues of him in Rome.It is hardly likey that the Jewish believers in Yeshua, were in any way similar to the Roman Catholics of early church history!
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
Europe has been heading for a collision course with its own history for centuries.The Bible prophesies in the Book of Daniel the reemergence of the Roman Empire.We have yet to see that come to this fruition of time. An Islamic take over of this world is definitely possible, but according to Scripture there is a torment which plagues human kind, and the Muslim peril is more likely to fit that:Men-like creatures with hair like horses, who torment this world like locusts.Found in Revelation.The tormentors do not take over the world just cause a weariness to come over all, with always the threat of war.
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
More so, what is the better solution for all of us of many titles, and name the Christ as our Savior?We all believe in the great commission, and there are hurting souls everywhere, right in the backyard of some of the greatest edifices of Christianity. All groups proselytize, and that is fact! There are souls to rescue, and each individual has the God-given right to hear the gospel. So some churches are more successful than others to clarify and make alive the Scriptures for the souls that need to hear the message of salvation.There are countless testimonies of people in every country who have been converted to Jesus in spite of all the years they where raised in a dominate Church system. They were converted and chose to go to a church where that was made clear to them.Their rights have been violated in many cases, and even by their families who are disgusted by their conversions.That is why all Christian Churches need to specify that our salvation is in God our Father through His Son’s sacrifice on the Cross,death and ultimate resurrection.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not everyone thinks that “the first 1000 years of an evolving Church, was what is termed as the Roman Catholic Church”. In particular, the Orthodox would disagree with oneGODoneCHURCH’s assertion that “the split of the Eastern and western churches brought about what is known as the Orthodox Churches”.
Nevertheless, if you take a good hard look at early Christianity, I think you’ll see there was a Church and not a bunch of denominations.
We also didn’t have a canon of scriptures until the end of the fourth century. Are you trying to apply a double standard?
I don’t even know what that means.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Wha?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think we need a bit of nuance here. I believe that the [Roman] Catholic Church is the one true Church, so obviously I don’t see the Catholic Church repenting of error and coming to the truth (since “the truth” is where we’re at already). If I thought that Universal Jurisidiction was an error (or heresy even), then I would certainly see the possibility of a future pope renouncing it and returning to the truth of Orthodoxy.
Well again here: If I thought that Papal Infallibility was an error (or heresy even), then I would certainly see the possibility of a future pope renouncing it and returning to the truth of Orthodoxy.
You’re basically correct. It was Vatican I that dogmatically defined papal infallibility. It was already believed before that. (BTW, Cardinal Newman, although he had already believed in Papal Infallibility for some time before Vatican I, said that it was a mistake for them to define it dogmatically.)
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
Is not the truth in the Scriptures, and both the Orthodox and Protestant communions have no problem relying on the Holy Spirit for revelation, and understanding into the truth of the Word. Yet the RCC has a special security blanket in the Infallibility of the papacy for Doctrines and Dogmas.That actually has divided the Church for centuries, and could well be viewed as a schism in and of itself.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think JRKH dealt with this pretty nicely when he asked Shouldn’t Protestants Really be Converted to Orthodox? To paraphrase, Protestants always seem to be justifying their separation from Rome by pointing to Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, etc., but then why don’t they become Orthodox?
I don’t like calling anyone the h-word, but frankly the whole business smacks a little of hypocrisy on the part of the Protestants.
D
Dan_Ugaro
Guest
Peter is it not true that the RCC has the majority of documents that concern the early history of the Church? That is what I mean about monopoly, as they can and have been able to use those documents to their advantage as the only true Church and so on.Here is another very concrete fact to early church history and the ONE Church that you said existed minus the denominations.P e r s e c u t i o n! How many of the early church fathers were martyred in one way or another, and how popular was the Christian church when it advanced into pagan domains? Needless to say, so the Christians were holding on to their truths and what was passed down via word and testimony, and at the same time being hunted down like vermin,being torn to shreds by wild beasts,burned at the stake,boiled in oil,tried in mock courts, and you know the rest!IT was not until after the Roman SEE was established throughout Europe, that small groups were formed in opposition.The Scriptures were kept in monasteries, but they were also passed on to priests and monks of local parishes as well, and even though they were written in Latin, that did not stop priests from reading the scriptures and comparing what they read with what they experienced on a daily level from Rome.And it was the very priests themselves who were the greatest “rebels” as it were from the Political Papacy of their time period. The locals and city dwellers for the most part could not even read, and did not know Latin,except educated men and women and of course the clergy itself.Actually if you want to stop this conversation by words bro. you can stop. I personally do not put much stock into the History of a Church,except to be in gratitude for the scriptures and the blood of the martyrs.Not everyone thinks that “the first 1000 years of an evolving Church, was what is termed as the Roman Catholic Church”. In particular, the Orthodox would disagree with oneGODoneCHURCH’s assertion that “the split of the Eastern and western churches brought about what is known as the Orthodox Churches”.
Nevertheless, if you take a good hard look at early Christianity, I think you’ll see there was a Church and not a bunch of denominations.
We also didn’t have a canon of scriptures until the end of the fourth century. Are you trying to apply a double standard?
I don’t even know what that means.
- Status