the first Church.

[Volodymyr]

Въ начал7 б7 слово й слово б7 к Богу й слово б7 Богъ

I only now learned how to use computer to type in Church Slavonic. Sorry.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually in reality I think not.

Let me tell you why:

What one believes affects one’s behavior, and that can be a problem. There are a lot of things we can think that will never matter either way.

For instance, if one believes that “Once Saved, Always Saved” and this causes some people to sin boldly, with disregard for the effects this behavior has, they could lose their own salvation and never realize the danger they put themselves in. An example might be of New England slave-ship owners who thought their own prosperity was a sign of their election. (Catholic and Orthodox slave-ship owners had no excuse, they were sinning for greed and they knew it.)

The propagators of that idea are really soul-killers. Like the Pied Piper they could lead people off into danger. That is why heresy is a serious concern to you and me, it can lead us to crazy ideas and bad behavior.

But whatever one thinks about obscure points of theology about God, it hardly matters. God is not really that easy for ordinary people to understand. So when the church declares something or other about God and His supernatural existence based upon logic or philosophy or just plain common sense, it does not matter if we understand it or not, because God did not tell us through the revelation of Jesus Christ these ‘facts’, we are just making a lot of assumptions as we go along.

It really does not matter whether you and I understand the filioque, or whether it is correct. Miaphysite or Diaphysite - Begotten and Proceeding - Essence and Energies - 220 volts or 110, decaf or regular … gosh-O-gee. Knowing this kind of thing is not important to salvation, it never was. It is the work of theologians, it can be rather obscure to most of us but here we peons are arguing nonetheless.

It really does not matter whether we think that the unbaptized who die are bound for hell or not. You can think one way, and I another but these are just opinions…we don’t make the decision about what happens to dead infants or savages on distant islands, God does… it’s God’s business and he can break any rule we make on the subject. No matter what I think on that subject it is not what is going to save me, better for me not to speculate.

If I guess wrong God is not going to go " *Bzzzt!..*you guessed wrong on that obscure theological point so you now go to hell! " God knows you and I don’t understand His ways, He knows we can’t be expected to know this kind of stuff (or remember it all).

The people who thought knowledge would save us were called gnostics. Many of them lost their moral compass because they completely misunderstood what Jesus was all about.

So in my personal opinion (I am not speaking for anyone but me), I cannot see anything that the Roman Catholic church currently teaches, even if it were doubtful or even if it were possibly incorrect (from an Orthodox perspective), that is a danger to someone’s salvation.

I hope that this is clear to you.

We just agreed.

Let it be a beginning of many more agreements.

 

[Hesychios]

We just agreed.

Let it be a beginning of many more agreements.

May Almighty God bless you and yours, my friend.

Pax et Bonum

 

[Louie1983]

May Almighty God bless you and yours, my friend.

Pax et Bonum

Amen to that!(both of you) i just read through your discussion! great stuff!

 

[dzheremi]

Dear Dzheremi:

I am glad to learn that relationships between Catolics and Orthodox are so pleasant in North Californa. This is good. Relations between Catolics and Orthodox believers in previous Soviet Union were better under ateistic government. Then we realized more deeply that a believer has more in common with another believer than with the militant ateists. Now our differences are more obvious and some conflict exists but mostly not at level of individual believers - particularly older ones who like me who remember baptism and weddings in the comfort room (because it had no windows) of a Jewish family.

Indeed. Several of my older (50s+) Russian friends tell similar stories of those times.

Perhaps you should quote John in Church slavonic - closer to way Kirill would have written:
Въ начале бе слово и слово бе къ Богу и Богъ бе слово

That is beautiful! Thank you. I wrote it in Russian because I don’t know any OCS other than the Jesus prayer and a few random things I learned while working on historical reconstruction of Russian as an undergrad in Linguistics. Anyway, I will put the proper OCS in my signature now. Thank you very much.

 

[LutheranDK]

It sounds somewhat similar to disputes Martin Luther had when he decided to leave the Church, rather than make reforms within the Church.

Just on a sidenote from your discussion:
Luther DID want to reform the Roman-Catholic church from within. The pope at the time, though, had no desire to get rid of the abuses and other wrongs in the RC church. They were too profitable for him.

Luther didn’t leave the RC church. He was thrown out.

I sometimes think that if John Paul II or Benedict XVI had been the pope at the time of the Reformation, then it could have been avoided…

 

[jlhargus]

It is not the Orthodox church which has changed, the Latin church added these new understandings.

JL: I think the key word here is new understandings, yes in the Catholic Church, development and better understanding of doctrine especially those you mention below has and will continue be clarified. That’s the purpose of theology.

You can thank Saint Augustine for your understanding of Original Sin, he was born 350 years after Christ. Before that Rome had an Orthodox understanding of original sin, which we call First Sin.

JL: I do thank St Augustine for better understanding original sin. I have respect for the Orthodox, they have preserved apostolic teaching, and we have few real differences. Well if Orthodox call it FIRST SIN, and Catholics call it ORIGINAL SIN, what is the difference, except the West has developed its understanding? I know Orthodox baptize infants. That would indicate they know infants have a LACK that Adam did not have originally, which baptism restores or regenerates.

I don’t even know when the doctrine of Purgatory was first defined, but I think is may date from the scholastic era, which is 1,000 years after Christ. You can check that out for yourself, I lack the time today.

JL: You seem to be hung up on terms. I can’t remember for sure, but the ECF’s called it holy fire or something like that, we now call it purgatory. My understanding Orthodox pray for the dead. Now if you pray for those who have passed over and they are either in heaven or hell, there would be no need or use to pray for either, would there? Unless they pass thru fire first.

The filioque was unknown in the west until the local Council of Toledo in 589AD. It Spread to Gaul two hundred years later under protest from the bishops of Rome (to no avail, Popes did not have much authority outside of their own Metropolitan church until long after the schism). The king of the Holy Roman empire basically forced the church in the city of Rome to adopt the filioque early in the eleventh century.

JL: Which king of the HRE forced the pope to adopt the filioque and when? Do the Orthodox believe the HS proceeds only from the Father? My understanding is the Orthodox object not to the theology of the filioque, but that it was added to the creed on the authority of the pope instead of a ecumenical council. Which the Orthodox believe cannot be held untill there is unity.

Holy Orthodoxy teaches the original orthodox catholic Christian faith.

JL: While I do not disagree completely with that statement, I give thanks to God they have, with few exceptions. I would add so does the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which has developed and clarified them for better understanding, with no exceptions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just on a sidenote from your discussion:
Luther DID want to reform the Roman-Catholic church from within. The pope at the time, though, had no desire to get rid of the abuses and other wrongs in the RC church. They were too profitable for him.

Luther didn’t leave the RC church. He was thrown out.

I sometimes think that if John Paul II or Benedict XVI had been the pope at the time of the Reformation, then it could have been avoided…

The Church was in need of a reformation. There were others that knew this, but they did not take the actions that Martin Luther had taken to an extreme of being ex-communicated. Martin Luther could have used his influence within the Church for change. History shows us that the change did come about.

Where in scriptures does Christ tell anyone that if they do not agree with the authority of His Church, they should leave it and start His Church new?

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[Hesychios]

The Church was in need of a reformation. There were others that knew this, but they did not take the actions that Martin Luther had taken to an extreme of being ex-communicated. Martin Luther could have used his influence within the Church for change. History shows us that the change did come about.

Father Martin Luther O.S.A. followed the standard scholastic procedure of inviting debate on the subject. He was not out of line as far as I can tell.

Interestingly, printers were always looking for something to print and sell, and they grasped onto this indulgence selling issue raised by Father Martin as a hot-button topic. It seemed to resonate with the literate public and so Father Martin became well known rather quickly, it was not something he planned.

He first ran into trouble when the Medici Pope tried to silence him. This was (as I understand it) well before his theology had diverged.

The Medici Popes were just about the worst thing that could have happened to the church at that time, but they had a stranglehold on the church and there was no way to remove them. They set up the situation and expected this monk in Germany to simply obey the discipline of silence. The Pope had no intention of changing this money raising strategy if he could help it.

I don’t think Father Martin wanted that fight originally, but he was a pretty stubborn man and very afraid for his soul, he was not about to be silenced over something that seemed so important to the salvation of his flock. He was driven to extremes in some of his theological positions once he lost faith in the papacy as an institution. In other words - if the papacy is suspect - then all it’s teachings are suspect too, and need to be reviewed. That’s really sad. It’s as if the two of them, the pope and the priest, were doing a dance for the devil.

As you say, they original complaints of Father Martin Luther have been addressed, and the abuses are now recognized as the abuses they were. These abuses have been corrected. This also vindicates Father Martin’s original position, the position for which he was originally silenced.

 

[LutheranDK]

Father Martin Luther O.S.A. followed the standard scholastic procedure of inviting debate on the subject. He was not out of line as far as I can tell.

Interestingly, printers were always looking for something to print and sell, and they grasped onto this indulgence selling issue raised by Father Martin as a hot-button topic. It seemed to resonate with the literate public and so Father Martin became well known rather quickly, it was not something he planned.

He first ran into trouble when the Medici Pope tried to silence him. This was (as I understand it) well before his theology had diverged.

The Medici Popes were just about the worst thing that could have happened to the church at that time, but they had a stranglehold on the church and there was no way to remove them. They set up the situation and expected this monk in Germany to simply obey the discipline of silence. The Pope had no intention of changing this money raising strategy if he could help it.

I don’t think Father Martin wanted that fight originally, but he was a pretty stubborn man and very afraid for his soul, he was not about to be silenced over something that seemed so important to the salvation of his flock. He was driven to extremes in some of his theological positions once he lost faith in the papacy as an institution. In other words - if the papacy is suspect - then all it’s teachings are suspect too, and need to be reviewed. That’s really sad. It’s as if the two of them, the pope and the priest, were doing a dance for the devil.

As you say, they original complaints of Father Martin Luther have been addressed, and the abuses are now recognized as the abuses they were. These abuses have been corrected. This also vindicates Father Martin’s original position, the position for which he was originally silenced.

Thank you I agree with virtually everything you said here!
Just one question:

Father Martin Luther O.S.A

What does “O.S.A” stand for?

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you I agree with virtually everything you said here!
Just one question:

What does “O.S.A” stand for?

He was a member of the monastic Augustinian religious order.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Gabriel of 12, From the first Pentecost through to this very day…always there has been the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Gabriel of 12;
Blessings Hesychios; now you have changed the topic landscape from my post; I cannot disagree with this new statement of yours, because the Orthodox faith from Peter and the apostles still remain some in blossom, and some in full fruit from the Roman and new “Orthodox” Catholic Church. “always there has been the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church”. The first century Catholic church was not orthodox yet, because the apostles were of “The Way” a new covenant, they being called first did not have an “Orthodox” faith to claim from, because these were first of whom Jesus built his Catholic church.

It is not until the second century church who defended the apostolic faith with “Orthodoxy”, and the Eastern Schism Church renamed herself “Orthodox” Church 1000 years later, and rightly so, because of the language, provinces and cultures remained. We are not different because I am of the Roman Rite, and you are of the Eastern Rite we are different members of the same body of Jesus Christ.

I disagree with your recent definition of “Orthodox” applied to Peter as I explained above, for Peter and the Apostles did not have a faith to claim Orthodoxy from, unless they remained to their Jewish religions and rejected Jesus new teachings, which did not happen.

I know you have a hard time understanding Jesus building his church upon Peter still remains in the successors of Peter these last 2000 years in the Roman Catholic Popes to today. But these differing of opinions do not seperate my love for you. Less my sacrifice be left at the altar.

God bless you brother;

 

[guanophore]

Just on a sidenote from your discussion:
Luther DID want to reform the Roman-Catholic church from within. The pope at the time, though, had no desire to get rid of the abuses and other wrongs in the RC church. They were too profitable for him.

Luther didn’t leave the RC church. He was thrown out.

I sometimes think that if John Paul II or Benedict XVI had been the pope at the time of the Reformation, then it could have been avoided…

I agree, but Luther was called, as we all are, to embrace suffering and purity in obedience. Had he been willing to offer himself as a holocaust on behalf of the Bride of Christ, as Jesus did, instead of separation and division, purity would have resulted. We can see this by those who agreed with Luther in his observations of the sins of the clerics, but offered themselves in fasting, prayer, but could look beyond the sins of persons to the Holy Bride, for whom Jesus sacrificed HImself.

It is difficult for us to look beyond people, sometimes, to see the Bride of Christ, who is above and beyond those fallible men who are representing her. This is where Luther failed.

 

[MDK]

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian. Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome. Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

You’ve got a little truth mixed in with a decent amount of falsehood. Result is that the view you’ve presented is misleading and untrue. In other words, your view does not represent reality.

The Church started by Christ was then, is now, and always will be the same Church. The descriptive name was added later, but that didn’t change anything. The name of the Catholic Church could be changed into another formal name today, and that alone would not change anything.

What’s in a name? Some people call themselves Catholic, and espouse beliefs that are opposed to Catholicism. So you can call yourself anything, and that alone won’t change errant views or correct views. Please learn what is true historically, and please stop the historical revisionism.

 

[MDK]

OTCA yes the universal church is the catholic church. The church that all Christ followers are part of. Catholics are not derived from St. Peter they are derived from Christ. We are followers of Christ not Peter…

The irony with this logic is that Christ established the office of Peter for us to listen to, and know what is true in regard to teaching. Christ also said he who hears the ones He sent, also hears Christ; He who rejects those Christ sent also rejects Christ. So, by rejecting Peter, you’re also rejecting Christ.

Consider that if Christ established the office of Peter to keep His Church from teaching error in faith and morals, such that we all need to look at the head Bishop as having been given authority from Christ that no one else on Earth has, then is it okay to reject Christ’s plan?

 

[wisdomseeker]

How can that question be answered when you have not told us what your friend believed about the RCC?

sorry guys but i was out of town.

my friend believes that the CC became pagan with Constantine.

 

[greggy53]

… What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians…

What evidence can you show us that this is true?? What writings of the early church point to this?

 

[rinnie]

Again: This is what you believe. And fair enough. But that does not mean that to disagree with this belief is to, say, deny historical facts (even though some people try to paint that picture).
You cannot compare denying the claim that Jesus founded the RC church to, say, denying that the battle of Waterloo took place, or that Germany stole Slesvig-Holsten from Denmark in 1864. The latter are factual historical events, thoroughly witnessed and established. Fact.
The former is a question which is inseperable from that of theology, and therefore not merely a matter of whether or not a historical event took place.

Example: I agree that Jesus founded the Church Catholic. (bearing in mind the meaning of the Greek word) But I do not agree that the Church Catholic and the RC church is one and the same. And I have not to date seen any arguments in favor of this which did not in some way or another constitute circular reasoning.
For instance:

1: Jesus founded the RC church, because the RC church says so, and the RC church is right, because it’s the one that Jesus founded.

2: Jesus founded the RC church, because Ignatius uses the word “katholikos” (“Catholic”), and that means = The RC church, because the church says so.

And I could continue…

The bottom line: I have yet to encounter A SINGLE piece of reasoning pointing to the RC church being the church that Jesus founded, which did not presume this to start with.

And no - even though some people might like to read anti-RC-attitudes into this post, there is none to be found. Only frustration at the intellectual level which some posters’ posts display.
It feels like this: :banghead:

Okay let me ask you this. You said you believe that Jesus did indeed start the Catholic Church. But not the RCC. Okay here is my SINGLE piece of reasoning to point to the RC. Jesus built the Church on Peter. Now Peter started the Catholic Church. You must agree with that, Now Peter started the Roman Rite. Because he was the first pope. Now the Pope is still here, and is still in the Roman Catholic Church. Now the Pope has the Church handed down from Peter, it can be PROVEN. Now that Church in Rome that the Pope is still the head of is the Roman Catholic Church. So how could the RCC be in succession from Peter and not be the Church Jesus started. Or are you saying Peter did not do what was asked of him?

Here is another piece of evidence. Luther left the Roman Catholic Church. Not just the Catholic Church. Kind of strange huh. Even luther was Roman Catholic.

So do you agree or disagree that Peter started the RCC. If you don’t then how can the RCC prove every Pope after Peter in history. The RCC claims that they follow the Church Peter started.

 

[greggy53]

The Roman Catholic Church can present a direct, and unbroken line of Church leadership from St Peter, to the current Pope Benedict. This hierarchy has been well documented down through the centuries. You can believe it or not, but you cannot in my opinion deny that is exists. It’s a an extended eyewitness testimony down through the ages. You either believe the witnesses, or for whatever reason disbelieve the witnesses, but you cannot deny that the witness took place The logic and reasoning for the RCC claim of being the one true Church of Christ is pretty solid.

 

[MDK]

The Roman Catholic Church can present a direct, and unbroken line of Church leadership from St Peter, to the current Pope Benedict. This hierarchy has been well documented down through the centuries. You can believe it or not, but you cannot in my opinion deny that is exists. It’s a an extended eyewitness testimony down through the ages. You either believe the witnesses, or for whatever reason disbelieve the witnesses, but you cannot deny that the witness took place The logic and reasoning for the RCC claim of being the one true Church of Christ is pretty solid.

Pretty solid indeed, built on the rock, by the Rock.