Protestant vs Orthodox - who's closer?

[mcq72]

I agree that if unity is meant, then the Power Grid, as I referred to it, is utterly meaningless

And some enter the PowerGrid ( quite ontologically), before they even touch the waters, being baptized in the Holy Ghost.

dare say you could not - But Saints are not normally found at water coolers, though it can happen, obviously… Their work is constant prayer and intercession to God in behalf of those in need… Most Christians are not Saints

This is a medieval view of saint, developed over centuries. Quite traditional now to many, but not really apostolic nor biblical.

Indeed there are saints in heaven, praising God and pleading His return and full restoration.

 

[CathBoy1]

This is a medieval view of saint, developed over centuries. Quite traditional now to many, but not really apostolic nor biblical.

I have to disagree, St Anthony the Great (and many if not all of the desert fathers) seems to fit @George720 criteria quite well:

Their work is constant prayer and intercession to God in behalf of those in need

Seeing that St Anthony lived from January 12th 251 - January 17th 356 I would say that he pretty well predates “medieval thinking/notions”, just my 2 cents.

 

[mcq72]

I have to disagree, St Anthony the Great (and many if not all of the desert fathers) seems to fit @George720 criteria quite well: criteria quite well:

Seeing that St Anthony lived from January 12th 251 - January 17th 356 I would say that he pretty well predates “medieval thinking/notions”, just my 2 cents.

Well, St. Peter predates him right?

Do you think St. Anthony wants to be referred to as “Great”?

He was declared saint 13th century. (though pretty sure he was thought of as Christian/saint by contemporaries, before such a thing was “institutionalized”).

I am not denying saints. Just wouldn’t deny sainthood if they were not in constant prayer ( which is what 24/7 ?) or that a “Christian” is not a “saint” in scripture. If most Christians are not saints, as per george 720, then most Christians are not Christians.

ou see, Protestants generally do not understand nor do they affirm the ontology of Baptism into Christ given by Christ to His Apostles

Protestants is a broad stoke, for some indeed see it as ontological, and some as by baptism in the Spirit (He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost).

Struggle against sin is the hidden daily regimen of those Baptized into Christ, and without that Baptism, as Paul indicates - eg for those “knowing the Law” - one has very little chance of overcoming sins…

Disagree. (by the way, this is also a Catholic problem, continual sin/continual confession). When we are baptized in the Spirit, even born again. Any Christian has died in Christ, arsing as a new spiritual creature.

Honestly, do not know where you are coming from, as the church acknowledges each others baptisms.

Baptism into Christ, in the early Church, came after a repentance that normally required some 3 years of the praxis of the Faith of Christ

Well, not churches under the apostles. Again, this is a later development, not unbiblical but not biblical either. Belief and baptism almost became synonymous because it often immediately followed.

I always found it odd for one to have saving faith in Christ, be a believer, yet not qualify or seek baptism. For sure , if you do not fully believe, count the cost before you do, or do not be baptized if you don’t believe. “Today is the day of salvation, …Choose ye this day,” not hear and learn for three years then decide.

n a word, Protestants lost the “High Church” understanding of the Faith of Christ…one has very little chance of overcoming sins…

Again, can’t quantify, qualify this, that is a low church Christian from a high church Christian .

And of course, a very broad stroke for Protestants.

 

[mcq72]

And living a pious life of itself will often attract God’s giving of His Grace

Well, yet He is not a respecter of persons.

But you see, without Baptism into Christ, one has the Faith of all those spoken of in Hebrews 11, of whom the world is not worthy, and these did not attain the Promise until Christ Incarnated for them…

Not sure the CC teaches this , other than opinion, that separated brethren do not attain.

My Brother, look to the Apostolic Churches for discipling… The rest is human guesswork based on Biblical writings in a language not understood by those telling you what it means… The Ekklesia is the foundation and the holding forth of the Truth…

Christ did not fail…

Well thank you for your responses.

As Augustine wrote, besides the church , and writ , “He teaches us” . We as Christians have the indwelling and can know all things.

In my opinion, only a strict sectarian view would lead one to say that if one (church-Catholic?)) can be wrong in just one teaching , or that other churches (Orthodox ?) and communities (Protestants) have it more right, that Christ failed, hell prevailed. Almost like that is your own (church’s) straw man.

 

[CathBoy1]

Well, St. Peter predates him right?

Correct, point being?

Do you think St. Anthony wants to be referred to as “great”?

And what does that have to do with anything?

He was declared saint 13th century.

It really doesn’t make much of a difference when he was canonized, I was pointing out when he had lived, and there are plenty more early saints that can be pointed to who lived as such, nonetheless it makes no difference, there is a reason that those in the medieval era (and every era) had this notion of saints living a life of prayer and intercession for those in need.
It is because this notion is true, it is across the board a common link between all saints.
I would bet you’d be hard pressed to point to any saint recognized by one of the historically Apostolic Churches that didn’t, that’s not to say that sinners haven’t became saints, only to say that saints have this common “quality”, fun fact every good person who calls themselves Christian (all of us) is called to live exactly the same way, when you really get down to it.

I am not denying saints. Just wouldn’t deny sainthood if they were not in constant prayer ( which is what 24/7 ?)

Who knows how much is enough, but 24/7? Not necessarily praying (as in on your knees 24/7 praying), but look at venerable Matt Talbot, a working man who used mortification as a form of prayer and intercession for others as he held a steady job his entire life, his mortifications were only discovered after his death, where when he was undressed, the extent of his austerities were revealed.
A chain had been wound around his waist, with more chains around an arm and a leg, and cords around the other arm and leg. The chains found on his body at death were not some extreme penitential regime but a symbol of his devotion to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, that he wished to give himself to her totally as a slave.

If most Christians are not saints, as per george 720, then most Christians are not Christians.

All Christians are called to be saints, any and all in heaven are saints, yet who is to say all that have called themselves Christian are in heaven (and who is to say that they aren’t), only God alone can say for sure.
That being said, one being recognized as a saint is only to recognize that they are in heaven with God, and that is something that we as Apostolic Christians, believe has been revealed by God of certain people (saints), of others we are not sure and we do not say.

Anyways that’s just the view from my perspective, YMMV.
God bless you brother.

 

[George720]

George720:

But you see, without Baptism into Christ, one has the Faith of all those spoken of in Hebrews 11, of whom the world is not worthy, and these did not attain the Promise until Christ Incarnated for them…

Not sure the CC teaches this , other than opinion, that separated brethren do not attain.

Heb 11:38-9
(Of whom the world was not worthy
they wandered in deserts, and in mountains,
and in dens and caves of the earth.
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith,
received not the promise:

So the question you have to ask is, what do Christians have that the pre-Christian Saints did not have? For Christ Himself said: “From the time of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven is suffering violence, and the violent are seizing it by force… John the Baptist is the Greatest of ALL the Prophets (that includes even Moses, yes?), but the LEAST in the Kingdom of Heaven is GREATER than he (is)…” Remember this? So tell me, what is it that the least Christian has spiritually that the very Baptizer of Christ does NOT have???

geo

 

[George720]

In my opinion, only a strict sectarian view would lead one to say that if one (church) can be wrong in just one teaching , or that others have it more right, that Christ failed, hell prevailed. Almost like that is your own (church’s) straw man.

Well, the Church has had a couple thousand years to iron out the theological wrinkles and has pretty much done so - The divisive issues these days are those of ekonomia, not theology, with some exceptions - I am not CC, by the way, but Eastern Orthodox, and there are always issues in the Church, past, present and future…

We as Christians have the indwelling and can know all things.

Well, perhaps -

Yet claiming all knowledge fails…
It is so obviously not true…

George720:

Baptism into Christ, in the early Church, came after a repentance that normally required some 3 years of the praxis of the Faith of Christ

Well, not churches under the apostles. Again, this is a later development, not unbiblical but not biblical either. Belief and baptism almost became synonymous because it often immediately followed.

The Apostolic era was hugely Graced of God so as to establish the Faith of Christ, but the spread of the Faith was throughout the non-Jewish Gentiles, and these needed the three years of discipling simply to prepare for Baptism into Christ… The Jews were already discipled under the Law, you see, and had merely to believe and be Baptized… Not so the Gentiles…

I always found it odd for one to have saving faith in Christ, be a believer, yet not qualify or seek baptism.

One’s soul needs preparation - We become according to what we do, and non-Christian Gentiles needed to prepare themselves for some time to be Baptized… Today, Baptizing Protestant converts, the usual preparation takes about a year, and 10 years later they are still “unlearning” by their praxis in the Faith the false teachings built in to their very being through their Protestant origins… As an ex-atheist, I had no such un-learning to do… Took me 4 years under a recovering ex-Evangelical Priest to get Baptized!

The Faith of Christ which He discipled to His Disciples who disciple it to the nations is THE saving Faith… Saving Faith is not a possession, but a self-submission in obedience to Christ’s Commandments given to the Apostles and discipled to the Ethnoi…

geo

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

As Augustine wrote, besides the church , and writ , “He teaches us” . We as Christians have the indwelling and can know all things.

Hard to believe a finite human being can transcend the bounds of his creatureliness and become equally omniscient as the Uncreated Creator…just saying.

Which reminds me of a story from St. Augustine’s Life:

The great Doctor of the Church St. Augustine of Hippo spent over 30 years working on his treatise De Trinitate [about the Holy Trinity], endeavoring to conceive an intelligible explanation for the mystery of the Trinity.

He was walking by the seashore one day contemplating and trying to understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity when he saw a small boy running back and forth from the water to a spot on the seashore. The boy was using a sea shell to carry the water from the ocean and place it into a small hole in the sand. *

The Bishop of Hippo approached him and asked, “My boy, what are doing?”

“I am trying to bring all the sea into this hole,” the boy replied with a sweet smile.

But that is impossible, my dear child, the hole cannot contain all that water” said Augustine.

The boy paused in his work, stood up, looked into the eyes of the Saint, and replied, “It is no more impossible than what you are trying to do – comprehend the immensity of the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your small intelligence.”

The Saint was absorbed by such a keen response from that child, and turned his eyes from him for a short while. When he glanced down to ask him something else, the boy had vanished.

Some say that it was an Angel sent by God to teach Augustine a lesson on pride in learning. Others affirm it was the Christ Child Himself who appeared to the Saint to remind him of the limits of human understanding before the great mysteries of our Faith.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Do you think St. Anthony wants to be referred to as “Great”?

He was declared saint 13th century.

St. Anthony the Great (+356) and St. Anthony of Padua (13th c.) are 2 different persons.

 

[mcq72]

Remember this? So tell me, what is it that the least Christian has spiritually that the very Baptizer of Christ does NOT have???

Same thing two things Peter had while on earth after the Resurection and Ascension, the indwelling of the Comforter ( Christ breathed on them), and His baptism (Pentecost).

Also the ability to go directly to ( attain) heaven after death, and not Paradise, the gates of heaven being opened.

 

[CathBoy1]

St. Anthony the Great (+356) and St. Anthony of Padua (13th c.) are 2 different persons.

Absolutely correct, and as I recall St Anthony the Great was recognized as a saint almost immediately after his death.

 

[mcq72]

Hard to believe a finite human being can transcend the bounds of his creatureliness and become equally omniscient as the Uncreated Creator…just saying.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

“But ye (little children) have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.”

All I’m saying.

 

[George720]

George720:

What is it that the least Christian has spiritually that the very Baptizer of Christ does NOT have???

The indwelling of the Comforter ( Christ breathed on them),
and
His baptism (Pentecost).

Are you saying that the Prophets, of whom John the Baptist is the greatest, did NOT have the Holy Spirit?

Let’s try this differently - Moses was so saturated with the Holy Spirit that the Israelites could not look upon his face, yes? He opened and closed the Red Sea… Newly Baptized Christians in Apostolic times merely spoke unknown (to them) foreign languages…

So tell me the difference between the Holy Spirit in Moses opening the Red Sea and the newly Baptized Christian speaking in tongues, or not speaking in tongues…

Does Christ still breathe on Christians…?
Does Christ Baptize Christians?
Do you think the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer of Christians?
Whom did Christ command to Baptize?
Who did John the Baptizer say would Baptize?

geo

 

[phil19034]

Hello!

Who is closer to Catholicism?

I always thought Orthodoxy is closer. They also worship saints and Mary the Mother of God. They can receive communion in our churches. But now on another board some guy keeps telling me Protestants are closer to Catholics because their views on civilization are more similar.

Theologically & dogmatically, the Orthodox are closer.

Optically & externally, the Protestants are closer because split from the Roman Rite.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[phil19034]

He was into certain theories of civilization I don’t claim to understand. Basically he believes that the Cold War was a clash of civilizations, Protestant America against Orthodox Russia, and because Catholic Poland sided with America, it’s a proof that Catholics have more in common with Protestants.

But weren’t the leaders of Russia atheists or Jews back in the Cold War era?

Yeah, that’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard. The Cold War was NOT Protestant America vs Orthodox Russia.

It was Christian American against the Communist/ATHEIST Soviet Union.

Orthodoxy has ZERO influence in Communist Russia. The Communists were atheists, not Russian Orthodox.

 

[phil19034]

And there are 240 some odd Catholic denominations worldwide.
There are also these Catholics: https://arcwp.org/

I’m sorry, but this a pet peeve of mine. This statement is actually not true. There are 240 some odd groups that call themselves “Catholic” but they are NOT Catholic.

By that argument, all the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox should be considered Catholic too, because they call themselves Catholic as well.

To be “Catholic” you must be in communion with the Pope. Period. I don’t care what the ARCWP, or any other “Old Catholic” group says, they are NOT in communion with the Catholic Church.

“Old Catholics” are NOT Catholics. Like “Anglican Catholics,” Old Catholics LOOK Catholic on the outside, but their theology is very anti-Catholic.

The reason why these schismatic “Catholic” groups are not called Protestant (though they really are closer to Protestant) is because they started breaking from the Catholic Church after Vatican I.

First, it was over Papal Infallibility. But later, more and more broke away due to women clergy and sexual sin.

Practically every single schismatic “Catholic” group is in communion with at least part of the “Old Catholic” communion. Even though they call themselves “Catholic,” they are not “Catholic” because they are NOT in communion with the Pope.

Thanks!

 

[phil19034]

Bit more complex than that, I’ll take a family situation to explain that from my wife’s side. My wife’s grandfather was a super hardcore communist who regarded organized religion as idiocy and he’d let you know that as he was as blunt as a sledge hammer. On the other hand his own mother who lived to a very old age was religious and so apparently was his late father. He’d take his mother to Church and made sure all her grandkids and great-grandkids were baptized and chrismated. Technically Orthodoxy had not influence the Soviet Union, in reality you can’t weed out a religion so deeply imbued in the bones of a people easily and Stalin had to give it a certain amount of tolerance at times, especially during the Great Patriotic War era.
[/quote]

Well, of course. Religion impacts culture. Look how many atheists of Jewish lineage attend Temple each week. The cultural aspects of a religion can easily become very ingrained in a homogeneous society. You can see this with atheists in Spain, Italy, Latin American, etc. today.

However, the article the OP was referring stated that the Cold War was a Protestant worldview vs an Eastern Orthodox worldview; which is 100% incorrect.

 

[GKMotley]

As to the 240 number, JonNC may explain it again. I’ve done so way too often. It derives from a particular method of counting “denominations” used by a particular sociological research group.All that are being counted are indeed, RC. But every Church appearing in a country is counted, by these folk, as a separate denomination, for each country they have a presence in. Thus, all RC in communion, etc, in the United States =1 denomination. All same in Canada, counted as second denomination. And so on, for all countries in which the RCC has any sort of presence.

I might have been the first to point this out, with reference to where the 20K-25K-30K, etc, total of Protestants came from, many many years ago.

Almost sorry I did

 

[GKMotley]

Guilty as charged.

 

[GKMotley]

But, truthfully, one can’t fault Phil for making the error he did. Means I need to post the WHOLE tale more often.