Protestants: how did you do what Christ and His Apostles could not do, and found a True Church against whom the Gates of Hell will not Prevail?

[Isa_Almisry]

Christ dies and rises around 30 A.D. (I think 26, but that’s besides the point).

He commissions the disciples as Apostles around that time.

They spread the Word, and give their farewell (Acts 20:17-37, btw quoting a verse from the Gospel, v. 35, not in the Gospels) after appointing bishops/overseers (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1-7, 12-6, and elsewhere) around the 50s. The last Apostle, S.t John, falls asleep around 100, see in touch with the Churches (as the beginning of Revelation shows).

Now, we have letters from two of those bishops that the Apostles left, St. Clement (c. 94, + c. 99, predecessed it seems St. John) ordained by Paul to succeed Peter at Rome, and St. Ignatius (c. 110) ordained by Peter to succeed him at Antioch, which he did c. 67, and was taught by St. John.

(we can include others of the same status, like Polycarp of Smyrna, who was ordained by St. John, and whose life is an early witness to the cult of saints, but I want to keep it simple).

Now these letters explicitly show that they believed:

the episcopacy and hierarchy of the Church is of divine institution, and communion with the bishop is a requirement of Christ. No solo Christo, and no invisible Church.

the Eucharist is really the Sacrifice of the Altar, and the Very Body of Christ

Tradition is a source of Church dogma, not just the heart of the Church’s Tradition, the Bible. i.e. no solo scriptura (a dogma not in the sciptura, but I digress)

Faith must be accompanied by the works that reflect it, no solo fidei.

Man must act in synergy with God’ grace. No solo gratia.

Sunday is the day of worshop, which even the Jews who accept Christ accept. No Seventh day Sabbaticalism

We honor the hierarchy and saints. No solo Deo gloria.

There is more, but I want to keep it simple.

The Apostolic Churchs (the Orthodox, Vatican etc.) are in basic agreement with each other and with SS Clement and Ignatius and these issues (the Vatican and us debate on whether either believed in a papacy, but we agree that they, and we, believe in a episcopal hierarchy established by Christ).

I understand some Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans (I was one once) and perhaps other Protestants may share some of these beliefs with us, but in the main Protestants reject them, holding to the five solos, which SS Clement and Ignatius, from these letters, were opposed to.

These letters were sent to other Churches headed by bishops that the Apostles themselves had set up (e.g. Ignatius writes to St. Polycarp). The recipents did not dispute the dogmas therein: indeed they cherished them as statements of the same Faith they received from the Apostles (e.g. we have evidence that Clement’s letter, to Corinth, was read every year in that Church, and St. Polycarp latter writes with approval of St. Ignatius).

So c. 94-105 we find bishops to whom the Apostles, whom Christ sent to found his Church, entrusted the Church, writing to Churches that the Apostles themselves founded, which Churches accept and approve dogmas in said writings, dogmas that the Protestants tell us Christ did not teach, the Apostles did not teach, and which the Bible does not teach.

Christ said “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18 (yes, I am aware that the Vatican disputes what this means, but we are agreed it means that the Church is infallible), and ordered them at His fairwell (Matthew 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and," promised, them, “lo, I am with you alway (lit. in Greek, “all of the days”) even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

So well within a liftetime (c. 30-104) of Him saying these words, they were proved a lie. Well within a lifetime (or less, if we count from the repose of the last Apostle St. John and SS Clement and Ignatius, who, remember, knew the Apostles, as did some of those whom they wrote, and were appointed by the Apostles to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded them”) the gates of Hell prevailed and those who knew the Apostles apostacized, and Christ did not keep His promise to be with them unto the end of the world.

The True Church lasted only around 74 years, actually less, as we, for instance, have no reason to think that what St. Ignatius was teaching in 67 differed from what he was teaching in 104. Even less, nonexistent even, if we consider that St. John may have reposed after St. Clement, and St. Ignatius shortly thereafter, if not at the same time.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So, Protestants. How did you manage to do it? I mean, found a church (or actually churches since you all aren’t in the same dogma and communion, but I’ll over look that fact for the moment) that has stood the test of time as preaching the “Truth of the Gospel” against whom Hell has not prevailed?

I mean Martin Luther founds a church (I know, he didn’t mean to, but that is what ended up happening), nailing his 95 thesis in 1517, the Augsburg confession publishing his following in 1530 (the only Lutheran Confession accepted by all Lutherans, and only the original, not the varient published by Luther’s disciple Melanchthon). In 1580 the Book of Concord is colllected (although not all Lutherans accept all of it, but I’ll ignore that for the moment) as the “normed norm” of Lutheranism: today the Largest Lutheran Church to subscribe to it is the “Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland” (though it stands out from other Lutherans, except the Swedes, in that it has bishops that claim Apostolic Succsession. How they they fit that in with the other Lutherans, other Protestants and us (Orthodox, Clement, Ignatius) is not clear, at least not to me). So just the existence of the Finnish Church (I mean the Lutheran, there is a Finnish Orthodox Church which is communion with the rest of us Orthodox (and SS Clement and Ignatius), and actually predates the Western church) today from 1580 at the latest means that at least Luther’s Church has lasted four centuries after his death, and still going. Much more than around 74 years.

Calvin writes his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” in 1536, which was developed by theologians such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Huldrych Zwingli and influenced British reformers such as Thomas Cranmer, John Knox and John Jewel. As a group effort, it is not such a problem that there are various churches (plural)-“Reformed,” “Evangelical,” “Presbyterian,” “Hugenots” (in whose name the “Institutes” were written)-that claim him. We’ll ignore the plurality of Churches. We’ll also ignore that during his lifetime, Calvin kept revising the “Institutes.” He ruled Geneva “the Protestant Rome,” which John Knox called “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was on the earth since the days of the Apostles.” Which brings us to our point. The Reformed church of Geneva still exists (though the followers of the Vatican outnumber the Protestants there now), so again nearly 5 centuries and going Calvin’s teachings have been preserved, whereas Apostles and their hand picked successors couldn’t preserve Christ’s teachings for 74 years.

Henry declares himself head of the Church in 1534, his son Edward VI makes the church of England Protestant in 1549 (despite his failings, Henry remained very Catholic: trained for the priesthood before his brother died and Henry was forced to marry Catherine to keep her Princess of Wales, and the pope of Rome gave him the title defender of the Faith for writing against Luther), his sister Elizabeth I sets the seal on it in 1559. For the moment I won’t dwell on the divisions of those attached to Canterbury, and will pretend they are one communion. So yet again, over 4 centuries and still going the church that Henry founded and his children passed on has outlasted the one that Christ gave the Apostles, who only managed to preserve it for 74 years.

The Anabaptists, not content with what “reforms” the above did, but insisted on a radical reformation, which they carried out against the followers of Luther, Calvin and Cramner of England. They insisted on “believer baptism,” as they still do. Who baptized them is anyone’s guess, as infant baptism had been the norm for centuries: since they say infant baptism is no baptism, who was there to baptize? They insisted on an invisible church, as they still do. How they explain how the “invisible” church has been visible for the last 5 centuries (we see them and their teachings in history from the 16th century till today, although they are missing and “invisible” for the 15 centuries preceeding, but I digress), or how the Body of Christ is invisible when He is not the Invisible Man (consult Luke 24:23, John 14:9, Hebrews 2:9, Colossians 1:15). But, despite that 2 of this tradition will give you 3 explanations or more on what a scripture means, still the tradition has been invisibly going for the last 5 centuries, opposed to us Orthodox and SS Clement and Ignatius, again long outlasting the 74 years of the visible Church that Christ founded as His Body with the flesh and blood of the Aposles, who hand picked successors who were teaching Christ’s flesh and blood was on the altar.

Then, several centuris later, came the Restorationists, which was to “restore” the Church. Again they have lasted at least 2 centuries, longer than that 74 years of the original church. One’s like the “Church of Christ, instrumental” only date from the 1940s, the “International Churches of Christ” from 1967 (odd, in that they actually have ecclesiology and an idea of baptism saving, but no hierarchy, and no sacramentalism: I went to a service where the usher tossed the unused “Lord’s supper” down the toilet. ).

But given time they will beat the Lord and His Apostles’ record of 74 years. After all the date 1967 is like the time that SS Peter and Paul died, and 2004 would be the death of St. Ignatius and St. John, so you can make the argument that they already made it. The Pentacostals have made it, lasting longer than the Church of the original Pentacost.

So Protestants, how did you manage to last longer than the 1st century Church, which, according to your beliefs and the historical record, didn’t out last the 1st century?

 

[Harpazo]

I’ll be keeping an eye on this thread. I asked this same question and got all kinds of answers, never any agreement of any kind whatsoever.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ll be keeping an eye on this thread. I asked this same question and got all kinds of answers, never any agreement of any kind whatsoever.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

No agreement. How Protestant.

shlomo lkhuun.

 

[Singinbeauty]

No agreement. How Protestant.

shlomo lkhuun.

Condescending, how Catholic…

If you look at Christians as the Body of Christ, which we are, the Church that Christ founded and as that body each part performs it duty to forward the Word of Christ throughout this broken world then the Gates of Hell has not prevailed. And it won’t. I think we can all agree that protestants are not going to go away or admit whatever defeat you THINK we may contain.

Why is it that pretty much EVERY catholic on here thinks that protestants are out to get 'em or the Catholic Church?

 

[Hisalone]

I will give you the condensed version. God used the Reformation to keep His Church for falling into complere apostacy,

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Condescending, how Catholic…

As St. Paul shows in Corinthians, you can’t claim different things and claim you are one church. “God is not the author of confusion.”

If you look at Christians as the Body of Christ, which we are, the Church that Christ founded and as that body each part performs it duty to forward the Word of Christ throughout this broken world then the Gates of Hell has not prevailed. And it won’t. I think we can all agree that protestants are not going to go away or admit whatever defeat you THINK we may contain.

Actually this former Protestant did go away, admitting defeat. As did the majority of my parish, including the priests (the parish started as a Bible study in Wheaton Christian College). One of our parisioners was the head Moody Bible Institute Radio: he got involved when his daughter, a Moody student, was getting involved with another student (now husband) who was reading about Orthodoxy. “We have to see what this cult is, and put a stop to it,” he told his wife. He, the wife, both adult children and their spouses and the grandparents (and I think a brother) ended up being chrismated into our “cult.” He runs Ancient Faith Radio:

ancientfaith.com/

Btw, his break with Moody was amicable and fair and they left friends.

Our parish also houses on our property a conservative ecumenical group which includes Orthodox, those in communion with the Vatican and Protestants. The Protestants have to keep on being replentished, because they keep on joining the first two.

Why is it that pretty much EVERY catholic on here thinks that protestants are out to get 'em or the Catholic Church?

I think that you are projecting here.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I will give you the condensed version. God used the Reformation to keep His Church for falling into complere apostacy,

And again, the Reformers succeeded where Christ and the Apostles failed.

 

[Harpazo]

I will give you the condensed version. God used the Reformation to keep His Church for falling into complere apostacy,

Shlom lokh,

Do you really and truly think the Reformation has done Christianity good? I think it has done the opposite and has put man on a pedestal. Here’s why: each creator of a new denomination has the “true and pure” interpretation of Scripture. They, in essence, put themselves above the one who came before them because their beliefs are the right ones.

Also, do you believe Christ’s Church is perfect? Christ being perfect would not found an imperfect Church. Granted, it is made of imperfect people (we all are). Why would it need saving from error, if Christ promised that it would 1. prevail against the gates of Hades and 2. be the pillar and foundation of truth? It cannot be either of these if it slipped into error and needed rescuing.

The current situation amongst the Anglicans is a prime example of what the Reformation has done. There are those that believe without a doubt that women should NOT be allowed to hold clerical positions and be ordain, nor should homosexuals be encouraged to seek ordination and/or matrimony. The converse is the other side, which holds that Scripture does not condemn either OR that people need to break with the old and embrace new things, because “the church is always evolving.” Each uses the Bible and claims that they have the correct interpretation and are holding fast to orthodox belief. I will be very surprised if this Lambeth Conference doesn’t result in a large schism. It’s terribly sad, but Protestantism does not guarantee that the deposit of the faith will be kept in tact. Who guarantees it for them?

Which is the truth and how can it be known?

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[TriuneUnity]

And again, the Reformers succeeded where Christ and the Apostles failed.

I must ask, though (mainly because I don’t get to talk to Orthodox often in my neck of the woods)…did the EO succeed where Jesus and the apostles failed with the Western Church? I understand there are a great many commonalities, but any difference is a difference nonetheless.

I understand some Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans (I was one once) and perhaps other Protestants may share some of these beliefs with us, but in the main Protestants reject them, holding to the five solos, which SS Clement and Ignatius, from these letters, were opposed to.

With Anglicans, and my own Lutheran tradition, the five solas are understood completely differently than modern neo-evangelicalism uses them. I think it’s important for dialogue that this not be missed.

 

[BrianH]

You have not accurately stated what those two men wrote. Lets talk about faith and works in Clement and Ignatius. Show me.

 

[mozart-250]

This is a question that I have always wanted to ask and I think this is as good of a time to ask it as any.

OK…let’s work with your assumptions here for grins and giggles.

Let us assume for a moment that one denomination out there is the one church that Jesus founded that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against. That logically means that the remaining denominations are excluded from this designation.

Furthermore let us exclude all Protestant denominations as possibilities for being the one true church.

That leaves the Orthodox and the Catholic for two. And as Brian said (editing here) there are more.

These faiths, while similar, are still mutually exclusive. For example, the Catholics recognize the pope of Rome as their infallible leader while the Orthodox do not. All of these faiths can not be the church against whom the Gates of Hell will not Prevail. Only one can.

So…

Which one is it? And how would I as a Protestant (say for example I adopted these assumptions above) know?

Looking foreward to your answers here.

 

[BrianH]

It is hard to just isolate two groups that practice scripture and tradition. You have the Oriental Orthodox and the other groups like the Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics; I do not think we can exclude them in the equation and like the two mentioned they differ.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Shlom lokh,

Do you really and truly think the Reformation has done Christianity good? I think it has done the opposite and has put man on a pedestal. Here’s why: each creator of a new denomination has the “true and pure” interpretation of Scripture. They, in essence, put themselves above the one who came before them because their beliefs are the right ones.

Also, do you believe Christ’s Church is perfect? Christ being perfect would not found an imperfect Church. Granted, it is made of imperfect people (we all are). Why would it need saving from error, if Christ promised that it would 1. prevail against the gates of Hades and 2. be the pillar and foundation of truth? It cannot be either of these if it slipped into error and needed rescuing.

The current situation amongst the Anglicans is a prime example of what the Reformation has done. There are those that believe without a doubt that women should NOT be allowed to hold clerical positions and be ordain, nor should homosexuals be encouraged to seek ordination and/or matrimony. The converse is the other side, which holds that Scripture does not condemn either OR that people need to break with the old and embrace new things, because “the church is always evolving.” Each uses the Bible and claims that they have the correct interpretation and are holding fast to orthodox belief. I will be very surprised if this Lambeth Conference doesn’t result in a large schism. It’s terribly sad, but Protestantism does not guarantee that the deposit of the faith will be kept in tact. Who guarantees it for them?

Which is the truth and how can it be known?

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

I for one have to say it might be too late for a schism and Lambeth, which would have had the effect of shifting the wheat from the chaff. Some Anglicans are Catholic and Orthodox in everything but chrismation and name. Others worshop the great mother goddess. The former I wish would hurry into the Western Rite Orthodox, or at least the Anglican Use. The latter can do whatever they want, though I pray for repentence.

 

[mozart-250]

It is hard to just isolate two groups that practice scripture and tradition. You have the Oriental Orthodox and the other groups like the Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics; I do not think we can exclude them in the equation and like the two mentioned they differ.

OK…I was not aware of this (or at least had forgotten this). But you are correct (and btw we forgot the possibility of Sedevacantist Catholics).

So let me rephrase my question a little then.

If we for now exclude all Protestant denominations, you still would have more than one denomination that possibly could be the “one true church that the Gates of Hell can not prevail agains”

So which one is it? And how would I know it?

If we can’t conclusively get down to one true church that the gates of hell can not prevail against out of what is left, I would think that it would be very fair to question the assumptions upon which this little exercise rests upon.

 

[masuwerte]

Isn’t the OP like asking, Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is a question that I have always wanted to ask and I think this is as good of a time to ask it as any.

OK…let’s work with your assumptions here for grins and giggles.

Let us assume for a moment that one denomination out there is the one church that Jesus founded that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against. That logically means that the remaining denominations are excluded from this designation.

Furthermore let us exclude all Protestant denominations as possibilities for being the one true church.

That leaves the Orthodox and the Catholic.

These two faiths while similar, are still mutually exclusive. The Catholics recognize the pope of Rome as their infallible leader while the Orthodox do not. Both of them can not be the church against whom the Gates of Hell will not Prevail.

So…

Which one is it? And how would I as a Protestant (say for example I adopted these assumptions above) know?

Looking foreward to your answers here.

Well, for one I can talk from experience: I was an “Evangelical Lutheran,” confirmed, and active in my church (when I left, I believe that if those in the church would have been less shocked if I announced that I had AIDS and less than a month to live, giving their expressions). I went to a Latin high school (my religion class started with me being the only one who could name all the Holy Days of Obligatin, and being the only one to have a perfect score on the final: the course? "Our Catholic Faith). I came across Orthodoxy, and though no Orthodox had ever tried to convert me (a problem we Orthodox have) just by reading, coming and seeing, I embrassed it within a year (to give an idea of how radical it was, I was burning icons the year before my chrismation).

You’re right the two are mutally exclusive. That doesn’t mean the other is d-mned to Hell. I could go more into that, but it would be too long. Btw, I’m not giving up on the Protestants either.

While there is much that could be written on how to make the right choice (Orthodox means "right praise/belief/worship), I’ll just get the ball rolling her. I’ll give a couple of points and elaborate as needed, in response, etc.

Since one of the things I mention in the OP is the hierarchy, which except for Anglicans and the Swedish and Finnish Lutherans, as far as I know, no Protestant even claims to have, I start with that, in conjunction with what you mentioned, namely the claims of Vatican I.

First on the topic of the pope of Rome, you are right: the pope’s supremacy and infallibilty gets into the middle of all other differences.

Now, we Orthodox believe that the episcopacy of the pope of Rome is of divine origin. (btw, the term Pope for the bishop of Rome is not original: it first was given to the bishop of Alaxndria, the first attestation being of Pope Heraclas 232-48. It wouldn’t be used as a special title for Rome’s patriarch until centuries later ).

We also believe primacy (not supremacy) of Rome, while not of divine origin, is of divine sanction: SS Peter and Paul founded the See, many saints served on its throne. As the Early Church developed, Rome played a leading role, being the capital of the Empire, and as the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch (also founded by St. Peter, and his successor there, btw) and Rome stood out among the bishops, who organized themselves into local synods (see Acts 20, what we would call the Synod of Asia (Ephesus almost achieved patriarchal status) comes out for the Apostolic farewell), Rome was the first among equals. (Jerusalem, btw, became a patriarchate only llatter, as the Romans had destroyed the Hebrew Church there and it took a while to recover). I can go into more later.

Now the problem with the supremacy of Rome is that we don’t see it in the Early Church. Now the Vatican appoints and approves all bishops throughout the world. No such thing happened in the early Church: bishops reported to the most important bishop of the patriarchate. Only that bishop would announce his ascension to the Pope of Rome, as he would to all the other patriarchs. The Pope of Rome would do the same when he ascended. The canons are explicite that three of the local bishops at a minimum must ordain a bishop, and they do so in conjunction with their primate. No mention of invovlement of the pope of Rome, except in his own Patriarchate of the West (which Bennedict just abolished the title). The Vatican requires every bishop in the world to do an “Ad limina” visit to the Vatican to report to the pope. In the early Church, and now in the Orthodox, bishops of a patriarchate meet and visit each other. Ordinarily only the patriarchs and other primates visit other jurisdictions on behalf of their whole patriarchate to another. These ancient practices are still those of the Orthodox Church. The vatican has changed them to interject their pope into it all, but he wasn’t there in the first millenium.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you go to any mass at a church under the Vatican, at mass they will commemorate the pope of Rome, and then the local bishop. This is also a change, an important one, that the Vatican has instituted in a practice called the diptychs, and the Orthodox practice is still as it was in the first millenium: when I go to Divine Liturgy, the priest has a cloth, called the antimens, with means (in Latin!, the term came about when both Old and New Rome used Latin officially) “instead of the table” i.e. the bishop’s altar. It is signed by the bishop, given us permission to celebrate Divine Liturgy on it, because the bishop is the oridinary minister. As St. Ignatius writes:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,

Now at Divine Liturgy the priest commemorates our bishop (Mark, a former Pentacostal, btw) and our primate (Phillip) of the Autonomous Archdiocese of North America, to show our communion with our bishop and the head of the synod to which he belongs. Where Bishop Mark celebrates, he has no antimens (as bishop, he needs no permission) but he commemorates all the bishops of the archdiocese and and the synods head, Metropolitan Philip, to show their communion. When Metropolitan Philip celebrates DL, he commemorates the heads of all the heads of all the Archdioceses/synods of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Patriarch, Ignatius IV (the 163rd successor of St. Peter in his first See, Antioch). Patriarch Ignatius at DL commemorates all the other patriarchs of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church. This practice of diptychs is meant to show the unity of the Church throughout the world, and as a sign of who is Orthodox. When someone is struck from the diptychs, it means that bishop, and all who commemorte him, are not in communion. This happened recently with the patriarch of Jerusalem, who had been mismananging Church property amongst other problems. The synod of Jerusalem, met, struck him from the diptychs, the other patriarchs, investigating the situation in a synod of their own in Constantinople supported the synod and struck him from the diptychs, and he was deposed. It also happened in Moscow, where the argument with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople reached a point that the PoM struck the EP from the diptychs. The other patriarchs, however, told both of them that they, the remaining patriarchs, were striking neither from their diptychs. So they were going to keep them in one Church so they had better come up with a solution, which they did.

Now, in the diptychs as modified by the Vatican, the pope of Rome’s name is mentioned at every mass in every church all over the world. In the Early Church, we don’t see that: no Church in Egypt, for instance, commemorated the Pope of Rome except the Church where the Pope of Alexandria was celebrating Divine Liturgy. The Vatican sends out who is in the diptychs, and he alone decides the list. In the early Church, it was not so, and Popes of Rome on occasion were struck from the diptychs: for instance the date 1054 is really not the correct date for the schism, but has been promoted in the West. For the Orthodox, the split occured when Benedict VIII inserted the filioque (at the emperor Henry II’s demand) into the Creed recited at the DL. When the EP received the notice of Benedict’s ascension with the filioque in his confession, the pope was struck from the diptychs. (The Universal Ecumenical Councils had forbidden altering the Creed on the pain of deposition). One of the issues of the delegation from Rome in 1054 was to insist that the other Patriarchs put the pope of Rome back into the diptychs.

Another practice that the Vatican has done is the metochia/titular Churches. The metochion is an “embassy” Church: each patriarchate has a parish in each of the the other patriarchates. In that Church, the patriarch of the “foreign” patriarch is commemorated, not that of the patriarch. For instance, St. Rafael Hawaaweeny (1st Orthodox bishop ordained in the New World, and Arab ordained by Russians). was attached as deacon in the metochion of Antioch in Moscow. In that Church the Patriarch and Synod of Antioch, not Moscow, were commenorated. The metochian coordiantes relations between the patriarchs and their patriarchates. The way the Vatican has it now, they have instead titular Churches: each cardinal (the college itself being an innovation that doesn’t date until after the Greast Schism) gets a titular Church in Rome, although he has no function in it, its just there to justify him as being a member of the curia electing the pope of Rome, although the bishop in question may never otherwise set foot in Rome, except for his mandatory ad limina visit (an innovation of only the last 5 or 6 centuries). The major basilicas are the metochia of the other patriarchates: since they are not in communion with the Vatican, they are defunct. Ironically the Vatican, St. Peter’s is technically the metochion of Constantinople.

Now this all may sound unimportant, just symbolic. But it is not symbol over substance, but the substance of the symbol.

As SS Ignatius and Clement show, the Early Church saw the bishop as the font of Catholicism and unity. And when you look into how the Church of the first milleminium wove that into the life fo the Church, you see that the Orthodox continue the same, whereas the Vatican has changed them into “all roads lead to Rome,” which was not the practice of the Church.

I’ll post more later, I think I’m at the limit.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, for one I can talk from experience: I was an “Evangelical Lutheran,” confirmed, and active in my church (when I left, I believe that if those in the church would have been less shocked if I announced that I had AIDS and less than a month to live, giving their expressions). I went to a Latin high school (my religion class started with me being the only one who could name all the Holy Days of Obligatin, and being the only one to have a perfect score on the final: the course? "Our Catholic Faith). I came across Orthodoxy, and though no Orthodox had ever tried to convert me (a problem we Orthodox have) just by reading, coming and seeing, I embrassed it within a year (to give an idea of how radical it was, I was burning icons the year before my chrismation).

Ugh…you were raised in the ELCA?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OK…I was not aware of this (or at least had forgotten this). But you are correct (and btw we forgot the possibility of Sedevacantist Catholics).

So let me rephrase my question a little then.

If we for now exclude all Protestant denominations, you still would have more than one denomination that possibly could be the “one true church that the Gates of Hell can not prevail agains”

So which one is it? And how would I know it?

If we can’t conclusively get down to one true church that the gates of hell can not prevail against out of what is left, I would think that it would be very fair to question the assumptions upon which this little exercise rests upon.

The Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholics can be treated as off shots of the Vatican (which historically they are, although the Old Catholic acutally preserve the older dogma). The Oriental Orthodoxo can be treated as the Eastern Orthodox (we have some limited intercommuniion and sharing of the Holy Mysteries/Sacraments). We could go into more detail, but first I think to deal with the claims of the Vatican and the Eastern Orthodox, applying Ockham’s razor.