the first Church.

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am very excited, Dennis, to see the “historical proof” of which you have spoken here. If it is too big to paste in one message, you can use many, or you can just post a link!

Constantine was Roman emperor from 306, and the undisputed holder of that office from 324 until his death in 337. Best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire.

You need to cite your sources, Dennis. Where did this passage come from? Constantine was sympathetic to Christians because his mother was a Christian, but he did not become a Christian until he was on his deathbed. Whoever said he was a “Christian Emperor” is not in posession of all the facts.

Were you taught that he started the Roman Catholic Church? This is a common error I have heard among Protestants.

guanophore,

I posted that information to show denwiles his timeline was off and assumed he was referring to Constantine starting Roman Catholicism, when in fact Constantine legalized Christianity. Not only did he legalize it, he enforced Church actions against heretics. He was known as the first Christian emperor of Rome. Constantine waited until he was at death’s door to receive baptism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The word Church in the Greek is “Called out ones” Holy means “set apart” All I am saying is this: all who call or are called out of the world through the Father and are set apart by the Blood of Jesus (Made Holy) are part of the Church.

Gabriel of 12;
The Greek word term that lives on in the Latin loanword “Ecclesia” derives from the Old Testament root qahal, which is translated “Assembly of the people” as “Cultic” not “occult” on the basis of Juridical and Political entities in both Jewish and Greek worlds. These Greek and Jewish terms of the “Assembly of People” go much more deeper in the New Testament language of “Church”.

Be careful about these two terms because a mis use of terms totally changes the landscape of religion. The Catholic church is not an “occult” she is a “Cult” not “Occult”. Confusing these two terms will open up a Pandora box.

Jesus and the Apostles especially from the Epistles of Paul. Clearly defined the “people of God” to set themselves apart from Jewish and Greek sentiments as “Church being the Body of Jesus Christ”, St. Peter identifies the Church as partakers of Jesus divinity. Church from biblical terms means those who partake of the body of Jesus Christ. This partaking of Jesus body, soul and divinty is done through the Sacraments especially the Eucharist. Jesus instituted and commanded his apostles do everything Jesus taught them.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,

I posted that information to show denwiles his timeline was off and assumed he was referring to Constantine starting Roman Catholicism, when in fact Constantine legalized Christianity. Not only did he legalize it, he enforced Church actions against heretics. He was known as the first Christian emperor of Rome. Constantine waited until he was at death’s door to receive baptism.

Thanks! I missed that post.

Most folks don’t realize that Constantine’s interest in the function of the Church was largely economic and political. He had a difficult time managing an empire with so many religiously based divisions. One of his main motivations was to make the “Sabbath” consistent across the empire so that they did not lose two days of labor. The Sabbatarians still took off the seventh day, and the Divine Liturgy folks took off the First Day, so on any given weekend, half the businesses were closed, and sometimes both days! Constantine did not really care which day the Christians chose to set aside for worship, as long as it was consistent.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

He was an Orthodox-Catholic.

Gabriel of 12;

Peter was an Apostle of Jesus, a Jew of “The Way” a Christian who professed the stumbling block of Jesus Christ Crucified. Peter and the apostles set the “NEW” path for humanity in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

There was never an Orthodox Church until the schism from the East over a thousand years later after the resurrection. As I understand it, both the West and Eastern Catholic provinces remained in their Apostolic Teachings Traditions from both Written and Oral against heresies and threat of death, the term “orthodox” is given to these Catholic Saints who would not succumb to heresy even at the threat of death.

Unless you have another opinion, Peter was not “Orthodox” in the late term to indentify him from today’s Orthodox Church. Yet the faith remains in Oneness of the Catholic Church. To claim a province early on “Antioch” or language that makes Peter “Orthodox” does not equate or seperate his faith from either Roman Catholic Rite or Eastern Orthodox Rite in the Catholic Church the body of Jesus Christ.

Your statement was to broad to go unnoticed.

Peace be with you

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Gabriel of 12,

There was never an Orthodox Church…

From the first Pentecost through to this very day…always there has been the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

It has suffered horribly for nearly 2,000 years…in the 20th century as much as any other…from oppression and persecution and betrayal, but it stands even today as the witness to Christ.

O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles;
a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust;
a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal values of purity, poverty, asceticism, humility and forgiveness;
a Church which has often not known how to act, but which can sing of the joy of Pascha like no other!
Father Lev Gillet “Monk of the Eastern Church”

Unless you have another opinion, Peter was not “Orthodox” in the late term to identify him from today’s Orthodox Church.

Of course I have another opinion. Orthodoxy in theology is the one immutable defining characteristic of truly catholic Christianity. It is the Faith received from Christ through the Apostles with no omissions and no additions or admixture. All the Apostles are Orthodox in the modern sense for sure! Saint Peter included…

I realize that you have a hard time recognizing this. That’s OK, you will always be my brother in Christ.

Peace be with you

And also with you!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

It has suffered horribly for nearly 2,000 years…in the 20th century as much as any other…from oppression and persecution and betrayal, but it stands even today as the witness to Christ.
Of course I have another opinion. Orthodoxy in theology is the one immutable defining characteristic of truly catholic Christianity. It is the Faith received from Christ through the Apostles with no omissions and no additions or admixture. All the Apostles are Orthodox in the modern sense for sure! Saint Peter included…

I realize that you have a hard time recognizing this. That’s OK, you will always be my brother in Christ.
And also with you!

I can see the great difficulty involved in the unification of the Church, when there are members of the body who preach a superiority over their Catholic brothers and sisters.

 

[Hesychios]

I can see the great difficulty involved in the unification of the Church, when there are members of the body who preach a superiority over their Catholic brothers and sisters.

I am not preaching superiority.

I gave my opinion…buried deep in a long thread at that, others deny my opinion here and make their own claims so who among us is claiming superiority…all of us?

If you want to see superiority claims check the archives here. There has been so much bragging and baiting it’s a doggone shame.

"We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken"

It’s not that you don’t have a right to your opinion…you do! But sometimes I think Catholic Apologists wish the Orthodox church would just disappear. We are just too hard to explain away, and the tried and true arguments against Protestants do not work against us.

So there is an occasional attempt by some to deny the legitimacy of the Orthodox. It will not work.

*Michael

*http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/images/articles/a0000318.jpg

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am not preaching superiority.

I gave my opinion…buried deep in a long thread at that, others deny my opinion here and make their own claims so who among us is claiming superiority…all of us?

If you want to see superiority claims check the archives here. There has been so much bragging and baiting it’s a doggone shame.

"We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken"

It’s not that you don’t have a right to your opinion…you do! But sometimes I think Catholic Apologists wish the Orthodox church would just disappear. We are just too hard to explain away, and the tried and true arguments against Protestants do not work against us.

So there is an occasional attempt by some to deny the legitimacy of the Orthodox. It will not work.

*Michael

*http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/images/articles/a0000318.jpg

No one, that I know of, wants the Orthodox Church to disappear. As for searching the archives here, two wrongs doesn’t make a right. That is, because others do something does not justify another doing the same thing. I guess pride pushes the wrong buttons for some.

Catholicism is too hard to explain away, from either Church, because we were ONE.

Your post seemed to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, and that’s sad.

 

[jlhargus]

They apparently weren’t carrying deeds with them, because these churches were never administered from Rome, and never did adopt the distinctly Roman developments like the filioque, purgatory or the Latin understanding of First Sin.

They each grew into dioceses of the Orthodox Church.

BTW, father Raymond Brown was a Roman Catholic priest and noted Biblical scholar. Your pastor would know him by his name. If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with a Roman Catholic priest and theologian.

JL: Although I have not read much about Brown. What little I have read, I do have a problem with Brown and some of his theology, I don’t have a problem with any magisterial teaching or theology of the Catholic Church. Brown’s theology is his opinion not doctrine or teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[racing59]

********dear non Catholics i was arguing with my friend, i believe she is an assembly of God, she told me all about the CC as she believes. after i made some points to her about her false beliefs, she came to acknowledge that the CC was the first Church.

any of you have the same belief? explain how did you come to this conclusion? that the CC was the first Church? what is the second church?

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

After for weeks reading all the different threads especially on “The Tree of Life” and “The Priesthood of Melchizedek” I must confess The Catholic Church is the Original Church, whether your Roman,Byzantine, or Orthodox, you were one and there in the beginning.

 

[jlhargus]

The Church is BOTH visible, in her SENT ministers and people, and invisible. What she was called at any particular point in history in not important. What is important is unbroken continuity with those whom Christ SENT. As a Catholic convert from a non-denominational fundamentalist Bible Church, this is my Scriptural understanding of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. CAPITAL WORDS, added. Sorry for the length, it’s grown from one paragraph.

Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT? [Can an invisiable church SEND anyone?] Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES; JN 17:18 As you have SENT me into the world I also SENT them into the world 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE CONSECRATED IN TRUTH. 20 I do not pray for these alone but for those who will BELIEVE IN ME THROUGH THEIR WORD 21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME.] Christ is praying for one specific VISIBLE sent group the Apostles Fellowship, whom he consecrated in truth. Hearing their word and being one in fellowship, with THEM, the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world. [Mt 28:16 THE ELEVEN disciples 18 Jesus spoke to THEM, ALL POWER IS GIVEN TO ME in heaven and in earth 19 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 TEACHING to observe ALL things whatever I have COMMANDED you I AM WITH YOU always even TO THE END.] Can an invisiable church teach all nations till the end? That’s the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority the apostles to TEACH ALL to observe what he taught, they were to go to all nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them till the end of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end, but their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

DN 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall THE GOD OF HEAVEN SET UP A KINGODM which shall never be destroyed and THE KINGDOM shall not be left to other people but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER, Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord GOD SHALL GIVE unto HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID 32 And HE SHALL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOR EVER and OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END. [LK 22:29 I APPOINT YOU A KINGDOM as my Father has appointed me 30 That you may eat and drink AT MY TABLE IN MY KINGDOM and SIT ON THRONES JUDGING the twelve tribes of Israel 31 SIMON Satan has desired to have you 32 I have prayed for you that YOUR FAITH FAIL NOT when you are converted, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.] When Peter is converted his faith will never fail, he is to strengthen all the brethren as Universal Pastor. Can an invisiable church do that? Christ said Satan wanted to sift all the apostles (you plural) as wheat, but Christ prayed that only (you singular) Peter’s faith fail not, this was said in the presents of the other apostles. Christ promised Peter’s faith alone would not fail, implying all must be in union and agree with the faith of Peter. Those not in union with Peter’s faith even though they have apostolic secession can teach error. My Bishop or any number of Bishops can teach error if not in union and agreement, with the successor of Peter. JN 21:14-17 Jesus asked Peter three times, “do you love me more than these” [THESE, would be the other apostles. After being asked three times and replying three times, “yes”. Christ said to Peter, the first time, “feed MY lambs”, the second time, “feed MY sheep”, the third time, “feed MY sheep”. Peter is to feed ALL the sheep in Christ’s flock, not some, but ALL the sheep Christ has purchased with his blood. Can an invisiable church that no one can find, hear, see feed all Christ’s flock?]

[ACTS 2:41 they that RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED 42 THEY CONTINUED STEDFASTLY in the APOSTLES DOCTRINE FELLOWSHIP in BREAKING BREAD and in PRAYERS. 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST. 10 I appeal to you BRETHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and the same judgment.] Can an invisiable church be a fellowship have the same doctrine, be united? One fellowship no matter where it is located in the world. [Lk 24:48 you are witnesses of these things 49 I SEND the promise of my Father upon you WAIT in Jerusalem TILL YOU ARE ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH. Can an invisiable church wait in Jerusalem? Jn 16:13 When THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH comes HE WILL GUIDE YOU into ALL the TRUTH Jn 14:26 the Holy Spirit HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL things and BRING ALL things TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE WHATEVER I HAVE SAID TO YOU.] Christ is speaking to the Apostolic Fellowship, who will be endued with power from on high, by whom the Church will be guided into all truth and teach all things whatsoever Christ said, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, an unbroken line of successors, by laying on of hands, till the end of the world. CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

The sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, by laying of hands gives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to enable an ordained minister to fulfill his mission. [2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER. [2Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be prepared in season and out of season; CORRECT, REBUKE and ENCOURAGE—WITH great patience and CAREFUL INSTRUCTION] 1Tm5:1 Do not REBUKE an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. Titus1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as THE STEWARD OF GOD; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HATH BEEN TAUGHT, that he may be able BY SOUND DOCTRINE both TO EXHORT and TO CONVINCE the gainsayers. Titus1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore, REBUKE them SHARPLY, so that they will be sound in the faith] Titus2:1 But SPEAK THOU the THINGS WHICH BECOME SOUND DOCTRINE: 2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. [Titus2:15 THESE, then, are the THINGS YOU SHOULD TEACH. ENCOURAGE and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Do not let anyone despise you.] Acts 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. Acts 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. 1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.] I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not ordained and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the unbroken apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained. [Except false teachers, who may even have been ordained by laying on of hands, but not SENT by the FELLOWSHIP. They go out on their own authority, I have no doubt they used and thought scripture supported their theology. Acts15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that CERTAIN which WENT OUT FROM US have troubled you with words SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT Jer23:21 I DID NOT SEND these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied [Those not sent are false teachers.] 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR

The Bishops of the world in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) make up the Magisterium (that teaching authority sent by Christ Mt28:16-20 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS I AM WITH YOU TILL THE END). Their duty is to teach, sanctify and govern. Teach the Word of God, faith and morals, what we must believe and moral standards. Sanctify by preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments, govern the Church for good order, Jn 17:21 THAT THEY MAY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you that they also may be one in us THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME

The Catholic Church continues steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers, ACTS 2:42. The one sent fellowship Christ sent to teach all he commanded, Mt 28:20, as he promised to sent the Holy Spirit to lead them in all truth (not part but all) Jn 16:13. He that hears you hears me, LK 10:16, those whom Christ send we must listen to. If he neglect to hear the church treat him as a heathen, MT 18:17. I do not rely on my understanding nor on that of any man, no matter how learned, who in the last analysis gives only his own opinion, although he could be right at times. I prefer the assurance of those Christ SENT to lead in all truth, not hit and miss truth. to follow those, whom Christ has set over me, who have the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands in an unbroken line, to recall all Christ has taught, the Church to whom Christ promised the gates of hell shall never prevail against, Mt 16:18, the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 TM 3:14. [Eph3:7 Whereof I was made A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace of God given unto me BY the effectual working OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is the fellowship of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God,] CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

Two of the greatest brothers, Peter and Paul, went from Palestine to Rome, where both were martyred. The successor of Peter is the bishop of Rome, and holds the keys of the Davidic kingdom a type or foreshadowing of the regenerated and restored spiritual kingdom of Israel in the new covenant (Mt 19:28). Christ the Son of David is king in David’s line, who will build a house for God, (2Sam 7:12-14). Peter is the first minister (prime minister) [Isa22:19 I will drive you from your station 20 I will call my servant Eliakim 21 I will commit your government to his hand he shall be a father to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay on his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut he shall shut and none shall open] Eliakim will be the new Prime Minster and called father of Jerusalem, in the Davidic Kingdom, he will succeed Shebna. So in the regenerated spiritual Kingdom of David, of which Christ is now king, Peter is will be appointed Prime Minister and called father=pope in the new Jerusalem=Church. The keys indicate the holder has authority over the other royal ministers (or apostles) as they do not receive keys, also indicates the head office has successors. When the office is vacant it is filled by the King in David’s line, who is Christ, with another by giving of the keys. Jesus alluded to this passage when giving the keys to Peter, Mt 16. Incidentally if Christ is King in David’s line, his mother, which all generations will call blessed, is Gebirah (Queen Mother) 1Kings 2:19. From Solomon the son of David, who built a house for God, there was an office of queen mother in the Dividic Kingdom, the type and foreshadowing of the regenerated spiritual Kingdom. The king Christ, the Son of David, is building a habitation for God of living stones.

The Jerusalem Council sent a letter to Antioch, with it decision settling a doctrinal dispute, which said, [Acts15:28 It seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:] using their authority to bind and loose, Mt16:18. That magisterial teaching authority, sent by Christ, speaks with the authority of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, and all Christians knew it. That’s why the decision was accepted with JOY and without dispute in Antioch, Acts15.

Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.] Even though sent by Christ, Paul realized he could possibly be preaching another gospel than the Apostolic Fellowship. Paul went by revelation to check his teaching with the teaching of the Apostles’ Fellowship. Those SENT by Christ, to teach ALL NATIONS, ALL Christ commanded, till the end of the age, Mt28:16-20. The Apostolic Fellowship Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL TRUTH, Jn16:13. If individual Christians had the ability to be led into all truth, because they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we would all be one without disagreement. We can see that is not the case.

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, the tridition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.]

[Mk 9:38 And JOHN answered him SAYING MASTER we saw one casting out devils in thy name and HE FOLLOWETH NOT US and WE FORBAD HIM because HE FOLLOWETH NOT US 39 But JESUS SAID FORBID HIM NOT for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me 40 For he that is not against US is on OUR PART.] The Holy Spirit works in those separated denominations outside the Apostles Fellowship. Uniting them to that one fellowship in a spiritual way.

 

[jlhargus]

After for weeks reading all the different threads especially on “The Tree of Life” and “The Priesthood of Melchizedek” I must confess The Catholic Church is the Original Church, whether your Roman,Byzantine, or Orthodox, you were one and there in the beginning.

Hi racing, good to see you again

 

[Hesychios]

Your post seemed to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, and that’s sad.

My first post on this subject said…

Peter, as one of the Apostles, was one of the very first Catholics.

Note my phrase…Orthodox hyphen] Catholic. A compound word.

You said…

The 7 different Churches were all of the same doctrines, evident by the letters St. Paul sent to them all, teaching the same things, to be of full accord and one mind and judgment.

And I said " Yes, this is true."

You said…

But it took the Orthodox years over a thousand years to arrive at that understanding or rejection of those Catholic doctrinal] things?

And I corrected you here…

Orthodox have not rejected any Truth given us by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. What you presume we rejected just did not exist as Apostolic doctrine.

Another poster here said this…

Unless you have another opinion, Peter was not “Orthodox” in the late term to indentify him from today’s Orthodox Church.

I replied… " All the Apostles are Orthodox in the modern sense for sure! Saint Peter included…"

And I explained why. In other words if the Apostles did not know something to pass it on to us, Orthodox do not dogmatize it. If they passed it along to us, we will never relinquish it.

** There was never an Orthodox Church** until the schism from the East over a thousand years later after the resurrection.

I called this man my brother in Christ.

Where have I denied the legitimacy of the Catholic church?

From what I see all the denying has been over the Orthodox church, and coming from your direction.*

Pax et Bonum
*

 

[Hesychios]

Your post seemed to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, and that’s sad.

My first post on this subject said…

Peter, as one of the Apostles, was one of the very first Catholics.

Note my phrase…Orthodox hyphen] Catholic. A compound word.

You said…

The 7 different Churches were all of the same doctrines, evident by the letters St. Paul sent to them all, teaching the same things, to be of full accord and one mind and judgment.

And I said " Yes, this is true."

You said…

But it took the Orthodox years over a thousand years to arrive at that understanding or rejection of those Catholic doctrinal] things?

And I corrected you here…

Orthodox have not rejected any Truth given us by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. What you presume we rejected just did not exist as Apostolic doctrine.

Another poster here said this…

Unless you have another opinion, Peter was not “Orthodox” in the late term to indentify him from today’s Orthodox Church.

I replied… " All the Apostles are Orthodox in the modern sense for sure! Saint Peter included…"

And I explained why. In other words if the Apostles did not know something to pass it on to us, Orthodox do not dogmatize it. If they passed it along to us, we will never relinquish it.

** There was never an Orthodox Church** until the schism from the East over a thousand years later after the resurrection.

I called this man my brother in Christ and I mean it. I harbor no malice toward you or your church.

Where have I denied the legitimacy of the Catholic church?

From what I see all the denying has been over the Orthodox church, and coming from your direction.

• Pax et Bonum

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again, I’m afraid you are mistaken. I do not deny the Orthodox Church and apologize if I’ve caused some of the confusion.

My view is, until 1054 there was ONE Church and even after the great schism, the two existing Churches were both of Catholic doctrines. Both of those Church still exist to this day. Do I want to go into the political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between men from a thousand years ago? No, I do not.

I simply couldn’t understand a dispute, you attributed to St. Augustine around 350AD resulting in a schism 800 years later. When you threw in purgatory, you made it sound like it was a straw that broke the camel’s back and then there was a decision to schism, 800 years later. Then you said Popes didn’t have much authority outside their own metropolitan Church until long after the schism. If St. Augustine had a sincere bad theological outlook on original, or first, sin, why wouldn’t there have been a split at that time? It just doesn’t make sense to me. It sounds somewhat similar to disputes Martin Luther had when he decided to leave the Church, rather than make reforms within the Church.

It seems you are making an effort to portray Roman Catholicism in a bad light for some reason. Again, I apologize if I am misreading a smug condescending tone in your posts, in an attempt to make Orthodox as superior.

Let me ask you this, do you believe there are any differences between our doctrines that affect one’s salvation?

 

[dzheremi]

I am sitting here at a computer terminal at the local university, waiting for a meeting I have to go to in a bit and listening to Paschal hymns as sung by St. Seraphim Orthodox Church (from my home region in N. California, the southernmost tip of the historical Russian empire), shaking my head at the time I just wasted reading 9 pages of this same old argument. It’s definitely both disheartening and enlightening to notice the way we communicate with one another. Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have very deep roots in my home region, and I have never noticed any sort of enmity between the Catholic and Orthodox communities there.

Upon my confirmation, I was given a small icon of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as a gift by our RCIA leader. When I asked her where she got it (because it is quite beautiful, and quite unlike the Roman Catholic art I had become accustomed to), she told me that there is a small shop that sells such items in a neighboring town that she likes to frequent with a Russian friend of hers, and when she learned that I had chosen Saints Cyril and Methodius as my patron Saints, she and her friend went to that shop and picked out the appropriate icon together (I suppose it helps to have a Russian friend with you if you can’t read Old Church Slavonic, to make sure you know who you’re looking at!). I told her to thank her friend for me, and I still display that icon as a reminder of the people back home who have seen to my spiritual welfare, and of the fact that no matter what keeps our Churches from communion with one another (and I don’t deny for a second that there are serious differences between us), we must (and can, and do!) still love each other, as Christ loves us.

 

[Volodymyr]

I had chosen Saints Cyril and Methodius as my patron Saints,

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.

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

 

[Hesychios]

Let me ask you this, do you believe there are any differences between our doctrines that affect one’s salvation?

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.