Pope, Orthodox Patriarch join in prayer

[Dan_Ugaro]

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.

Peter, Protestants do not have any intention of becoming Orthodox Christians, nor do they want to embrace Roman Catholicism. They read their bibles, attend their churches, worship the Living God and try to fulfill Ephesians 2:8-9.Now those groups such as: Anglicans and some Lutherans, and maybe some from the World council of Churches might want to ultimately be Roman Catholic. But even amongst them that would be maybe a 50% chance. As for hypocrisy, these conversations are not widespread into Evangelical churches, they could not be termed as Hypocrites, because frankly they do not even think about Roman Catholics, or care to know the doctrines of the Church of Rome.They are turned off by the Marian devotions, and elaborate Novenas and high masses.But they really do not want to argue with RCs in general. All that concerns most Evangelicals is to win souls for C h r i s t!!! Have a good week, God bless you and your precious family!

 

[Hesychios]

… Protestants do not have any intention of becoming Orthodox Christians, nor do they want to embrace Roman Catholicism. … frankly they do not even think about Roman Catholics, or care to know the doctrines of the Church of Rome.

No doubt much of what you say is true, at least for the majority.

They are turned off by the Marian devotions, and elaborate Novenas and high masses.

OK, I can see that. I think that is a cultural thing, not having been exposed to the concepts these things arise out of, it would not make sense to them.

Boy, if they can’t take to the Latin devotions, they would never approve of Holy Orthodoxy!

…All that concerns most Evangelicals is to win souls for C h r i s t!!!

I accept that.

We Orthodox and Catholics alike are concerned about what these new Christians are being taught about God, and the nature of salvation. We also have firm ideas about the nature of worship, which many (if not most) Protestants cannot seem to grasp. To us belief in God is not merely an intellectual pursuit, it is lived, that life is extra-dimensional.

But when Protestants study their Bible and look for the New Testament church, they don’t readily see it and have to dig deep. The materials are there to point the way, the writings of the church Fathers are available in translation and they can always compare their own Christian experience to what they read. I know that this is a high hurdle for most people, but some at least eventually are drawn to the Apostolic churches.

Then all of that glory and pageantry in worship…the sights, sounds and smells begin to make a bit more sense.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

In a way I think that says it all. You, like many Protestants, don’t want to question where your canon of scripture came from or to know about its history, but just assume that all the books that are supposed to be in there are, and that no book that’s in there shouldn’t be.

It’s really reminiscent of the anti-questioning attitude of the ultra-montanes.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Peter J;3846681]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”.

Very true from the Orthodox point of view it is what brought about the Catholic Church.

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.

That was my point is was a unity.

We also didn’t have a canon of scriptures until the end of the fourth century. Are you trying to apply a double standard?

Also I do not believe that anyone has said that Christ or the Apostles gave us the Mass or Divine Liturgy of the East as we have them today or over the last 4 or 5 centuries. What is being said is that from the Apostles and those Bishops that succeeded them they have developed. It is the Basics of the Faith that spans the the time of Catholic and Orthodox over the last 2000 years.

Just as the cannon was Developed so has the form of worship. Many thing that have had to be defined have come because of the need to combat heresy.

Also we know from Scripture that the whole of the deposit of faith is not contained with in, I can not quote book chapter and verse but I know that at least once in one of the Gospels it states that Jesus said and did many things not contained in this book, And Paul I know at least once writes that we are to do not only what is written but what has been taught.

I apologize as this and many of the things I have stated in response to my post have really nothing to do with the OP. I truly Pray for the Unity of Christ Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Dan Ugaro,

Hmmm … Yes, I suppose what I said about Protestants “justifying their separation from Rome by pointing to Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, etc.” might not apply so much to you and your fellow Evangelicals. My apologies.

How do Evangelicals feel about the term “Reformed”? Would you say that it doesn’t really apply to you?

Peter, Protestants do not have any intention of becoming Orthodox Christians, nor do they want to embrace Roman Catholicism.

Did someone say that they did?

All that concerns most Evangelicals is to win souls for C h r i s t!!! Have a good week, God bless you and your precious family!

Thank you, I’ll try.

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

Dan Ugaro,

Hmmm … Yes, I suppose what I said about Protestants “justifying their separation from Rome by pointing to Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, etc.” might not apply so much to you and your fellow Evangelicals. My apologies.

How do Evangelicals feel about the term “Reformed”? Would you say that it doesn’t really apply to you?

Did someone say that they did?

Thank you, I’ll try.

REFORMED? Try the Dutch Reformed of the Netherlands, or other Reformed movements of the Danish, the Lutherans of the Swedes,Norwegians,and Finns,basically reformed theology. They all kept the baby baptism sacramental practices. Some of them use the word Eucharist, rather than Communion, or Lord’s Supper.Much of course like the Anglicans, and Episcopals.I forgot the German Lutherans, and their brand of reformed as well.Historic churches with much theology that is truly much more Catholic than Protestant in practice.The word Reformation is definitely appropriate for that time period, as the Catholic Church was not meant to be destroyed but r e f o r m e d.Martin Luther,Zwingli,Calvin,and Huss were either Catholic clergy or high state officials.These men in particular did not in the beginning of their movements try to eradicate Catholicism,but only to reform the Church against what they saw as abuses.You know Peter it is not that we are not interested in the canon of Scripture, and that of course the Roman Church played a huge role in securing the Word, and codifying it.The real issue is that G o d is the true author and finisher of all that applies to Him, and what we have today is what we base our present practice of f a i t h. It is so true that God uses many means to achieve His goals for the procurement of righteousness and faith for all believers,A L L!

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

REFORMED? Try the Dutch Reformed of the Netherlands, or other Reformed movements of the Danish, the Lutherans of the Swedes,Norwegians,and Finns,basically reformed theology. They all kept the baby baptism sacramental practices. Some of them use the word Eucharist, rather than Communion, or Lord’s Supper.Much of course like the Anglicans, and Episcopals.I forgot the German Lutherans, and their brand of reformed as well.Historic churches with much theology that is truly much more Catholic than Protestant in practice.The word Reformation is definitely appropriate for that time period, as the Catholic Church was not meant to be destroyed but r e f o r m e d.Martin Luther,Zwingli,Calvin,and Huss were either Catholic clergy or high state officials.These men in particular did not in the beginning of their movements try to eradicate Catholicism,but only to reform the Church against what they saw as abuses.You know Peter it is not that we are not interested in the canon of Scripture, and that of course the Roman Church played a huge role in securing the Word, and codifying it.The real issue is that G o d is the true author and finisher of all that applies to Him, and what we have today is what we base our present practice of f a i t h. It is so true that God uses many means to achieve His goals for the procurement of righteousness and faith for all believers,A L L!

Does the Reformed movement apply to me,as an Evangelical? Naturally it applies to all Christians.How far we go with reform is where the problem lies in regards to UNITY.That is what we basically want isn’t it?Unity in purpose,endeavor,and in understanding. We are already one in Spirit if Christ is in both of us(narrowing down to you and me).The Lord Jesus is the common denominator. Our divide is over the issue of both what is doctrine and needed for salvation, and also in the semantics of our perspective persuasions.I specified that Evangelicals especially do not want to be unified under the umbrella of the RCC, and to be subject to the Papacy(the Holy See as you would respectfully put it)Most Evangelicals recognize Spiritual energy in the lives of those who love and embrace the Lord Jesus Christ.Thus we feel one with all those who basically live to serve Him, and to believe that He was crucified,died and was buried and on the 3rd day ROSE again from the dead,Sits at the Right Hand of the Father.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Dan,

There are several things in your latest posts that I’ll probably respond to later; but in the meantime let me ask you this:
Suppose someone joined your church and was completely onboard with your approach and beliefs, except that he/she didn’t see why the Letter to the Hebrews should be included in the Bible. What would you say to such a person? Would you say “The Letter to the Hebrews is just as much the Word of God as the rest of the Bible, and if you don’t agree with that it means you don’t have enough faith or haven’t prayed enough”, or something along those lines?

 

[Lilyflower]

Pope, Orthodox Patriarch join in prayer

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57058

What would happen if the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were to reconcile? What it put pressure on the Protestants to reconcile as well?

Scott

Does it matter?

Catholicism and Orthodox are as far as I am concerned: 'Two sides of the SAME coin!

It is wonderful news.

Blessings and peace

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

Hi Dan,

There are several things in your latest posts that I’ll probably respond to later; but in the meantime let me ask you this:
Suppose someone joined your church and was completely onboard with your approach and beliefs, except that he/she didn’t see why the Letter to the Hebrews should be included in the Bible. What would you say to such a person? Would you say “The Letter to the Hebrews is just as much the Word of God as the rest of the Bible, and if you don’t agree with that it means you don’t have enough faith or haven’t prayed enough”, or something along those lines?

The Book of Hebrews or any of the 27 in the New testament are there to stay, no person dissects the Word,especially if they go to a church that is evangelical and has a long history of keeping the Word as the Supreme authority in doctrine, and dogma.I have never heard of any individual thinking in that manner,highly doubt anyone would have the audacity to do such. Now if you are heading down the path of the Reformation and Martin Luther’s attempt to do away with the epistle of James, and or Hebrews? As far as I am concerned Martin Luther would never be viewed as a person to have the authority to take away any of the Scriptures. We are in the present, and the Apocrypha is readily available to any believer if they want to read those books. I am at present reading Surach,and have read Wisdom and several others. I do not have any strong opinion about them.Surach is very good, and filled with basic wisdom and so on. I think that we in this age can appreciate the books available to us all to learn and use for the betterment of our souls,enriching our spirits.The 66 books of the Bible I have are wonderful and complete in themselves, also I have a Catholic version, and read it as well.Thank you for the Question. Take care DAN

 

[Peter_J]

The Book of Hebrews or any of the 27 in the New testament are there to stay, no person dissects the Word,especially if they go to a church that is evangelical and has a long history of keeping the Word as the Supreme authority in doctrine, and dogma.I have never heard of any individual thinking in that manner,highly doubt anyone would have the audacity to do such. Now if you are heading down the path of the Reformation and Martin Luther’s attempt to do away with the epistle of James, and or Hebrews? As far as I am concerned Martin Luther would never be viewed as a person to have the authority to take away any of the Scriptures.

No, I’m not asking about Martin Luther. I’m asking about you and what you believe.

I’m also not talking about removing the Letter to the Hebrews from the Scriptures, nor am I talking about adding the Letter to the Hebrews to the Scriptures. I’m talking about whether the Letter to the Hebrews is part of the Scriptures – many early Christians thought it is, many other early Christians thought it isn’t. (I agree with you that if it is, it can’t be removed, but conversely if it isn’t, it can’t be added in.)

God bless,
Peter.

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

No, I’m not asking about Martin Luther. I’m asking about you and what you believe.

I’m also not talking about removing the Letter to the Hebrews from the Scriptures, nor am I talking about adding the Letter to the Hebrews to the Scriptures. I’m talking about whether the Letter to the Hebrews is part of the Scriptures – many early Christians thought it is, many other early Christians thought it isn’t. (I agree with you that if it is, it can’t be removed, but conversely if it isn’t, it can’t be added in.)

God bless,
Peter.

Than perhaps you answered your own question. I love the book of Hebrews, nevertheless, I have never felt that any of the books in the Bible should be or should not be there. My eyes of understanding were opened up when I repented of the sin in my life, embraced Jesus as my Savior, and later as Lord of my life, so the B i b l e to me is the blueprint of the salvation of God our Father,through His Son, and in the Power of the Holy Spirit.Often in our circles the Bible is put in this way"Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."I went to a Bible College years ago in Swansea, South Wales, we studied church history quite extensively. Some of the teachers were Anglicans,most were Evangelical Missionaries who spent time in China,India and Africa.

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

Than perhaps you answered your own question. I love the book of Hebrews, nevertheless, I have never felt that any of the books in the Bible should be or should not be there. My eyes of understanding were opened up when I repented of the sin in my life, embraced Jesus as my Savior, and later as Lord of my life, so the B i b l e to me is the blueprint of the salvation of God our Father,through His Son, and in the Power of the Holy Spirit.Often in our circles the Bible is put in this way"Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."I went to a Bible College years ago in Swansea, South Wales, we studied church history quite extensively. Some of the teachers were Anglicans,most were Evangelical Missionaries who spent time in China,India and Africa.

It seems we are discussing the need for the Bible. However I do have a question for you Peter or Hesychios, or one God one Church,anyone can answer.Here is the question: Is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit considered in the Church a doctrine,dogma, or just part of tradition, that is are Roman Catholics expected to believe in such a concept? Think before you react to this question. You do not have to answer right away,(straight away) as the British would say! Thank you.

 

[PaulDupre]

One might just as well say:
“The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches would have to humble themselves and acknowledge the autocephaly and independence of the Orthodox which, I would think would not be such a problem if the Orthodox Church would do their part. In theory that is, I’m sure the personal egos and triumphalism of the Catholic Churches would get in the way of that.”

Now, are you offended by such language?

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

Nope. Our fallen humanity always threatens to get in the way. Knowing that, we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

If there was ever true unity in the Body of Christ, the churches would not be able to hold the crowds straining to get in.

Paul

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

It seems we are discussing the need for the Bible. However I do have a question for you Peter or Hesychios, or one God one Church,anyone can answer.Here is the question: Is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit considered in the Church a doctrine,dogma, or just part of tradition, that is are Roman Catholics expected to believe in such a concept? Think before you react to this question. You do not have to answer right away,(straight away) as the British would say! Thank you.

It is of my understanding that the Church is the bride of Christ. Now if that is your question I would have to say it is a Dogma, Doctrine teaching of the Catholic church. I believe that in scripture the church is called the bride of Christ so if your question does this come for Holy scripture or Holy Tradition, then I would say Scripture ( which was born out of Tradition) so maybe both.

 

[Peter_J]

Than perhaps you answered your own question.

Um … okay.

I love the book of Hebrews, nevertheless, I have never felt that any of the books in the Bible should be or should not be there. My eyes of understanding were opened up when I repented of the sin in my life, embraced Jesus as my Savior, and later as Lord of my life, so the B i b l e to me is the blueprint of the salvation of God our Father,through His Son, and in the Power of the Holy Spirit.

So maybe those earlier Christians who didn’t see Hebrews as part of the bible hadn’t really embraced Jesus as their savior?

(BTW, when you say “I have never felt that any of the books in the Bible should be or should not be there”, I’m assuming that’s a misprint and you meant to say something like “I have never any doubt about which books should be or should not be in the Bible”. Or am I wrong? Did you in fact mean to say what you said, i.e. that you have no opinion about which books should be in the bible and which shouldn’t?)

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

If there was ever true unity in the Body of Christ, the churches would not be able to hold the crowds straining to get in.

Paul

What about the Holy Spirit, it is HIS job to draw or woo us to the Living Christ. Our unity under one Church heading may sound good to you, but it is offensive to many believers, now if we are all united in the Spirit of Christ, and looked upon as His followers, the Holy Spirit works in and through us. You believe that a physical union under the Pope will foster a great world revival, that is wishful thinking on your part. The Unity we should all strive for is that which is eternal and spiritual in nature.Besides the world views us all as being Christians, and either condemns or praises our actions corporately.

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

Um … okay.

So maybe those earlier Christians who didn’t see Hebrews as part of the bible hadn’t really embraced Jesus as their savior?

(BTW, when you say “I have never felt that any of the books in the Bible should be or should not be there”, I’m assuming that’s a misprint and you meant to say something like “I have never any doubt about which books should be or should not be in the Bible”. Or am I wrong? Did you in fact mean to say what you said, i.e. that you have no opinion about which books should be in the bible and which shouldn’t?)

I will accept your correction of my poor way of stating my position on the subject. Actually I was considering the fact that before I came into personal faith in Jesus spiritually, my interests were nil about the Word of God. I did not perceive anything about the Bible, because frankly I did not read it, before my conversion to Him.

 

[Dan_Ugaro]

It is of my understanding that the Church is the bride of Christ. Now if that is your question I would have to say it is a Dogma, Doctrine teaching of the Catholic church. I believe that in scripture the church is called the bride of Christ so if your question does this come for Holy scripture or Holy Tradition, then I would say Scripture ( which was born out of Tradition) so maybe both.

My question should be re-stated: Is calling M a r y the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, as (expounded by a french saint from Lisieux) to become dogma or a doctrine withing the Roman Catholic Church?I will give you a little background to my question. I was watching EWTN, the show Abundant Life, a woman host(forgot her name). A Catholic priest and the hostess along with another woman were speaking about a book that was titled:Spouse of the Holy Spirit. They were adamant about the fact that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit as Queen of Heaven, and that the Holy Spirit will not fill an individual unless that person believes in Mary as stated in the Roman Church.They were not discussing the validity of such a concept but were encouraging the acceptance of such. I have seen other priests on EWTN expound on the Spouse of the Holy Spirit as well.