It was intended to. I am not going to say those people were wrong to say what they did.
The conversation from Fab wasn’t about the reformation, it was about the overall attitude which leaves no room for communication. And as we see your conversation “insists” on a incorrect path of communication.
Protestantism derives from Latin Catholicism, not from Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Many of the most important early Protestant thinkers and leaders were trained and ordained Latin Catholic priests. Almost all classicProtestant arguments are framed against this Latin Catholic background. Protestants and Latin Catholics speak the same language, they are just in disagreement.
EVERYONE derives from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
For Orthodox, we do not even speak the same language as Protestants. Finding common ground in theology is very difficult because we cannot agree even on the terms.
This is by choice, these are Christians, theres the common bond in history, Christianity, and living Christian. That Bible you read is common ground.
For instance, Latin Catholics and Lutherans can burn a lot of bandwidth here on the subject of justification. For Orthodox it is nearly irrelevant and there will be very little participation, that blows some people’s minds.]
Theological debate is all it is. St. Augustine wasn’t regarded by the East or known till the schism? This isn’t Biblical with sin and St Paul? News to me.
Protestants and Latin Catholics usually agree on what Original Sin is all about. This is no accident.
Catholic’s don’t raise St Augustines theory over St Athanasius, they realize these are Saints there teaching is regarded as such. The Apostle Paul and Scripture is the basis for Augustines theory. We don’t force Original Sin down the throat of Eastren Catholics and they have no issue with the IC. IMHO thats an utter failure of an arguement.
No you don’t speak a different language you speak the only one that serves your side of the debate. How “deep” are these deep roots you refer to? Oh right no deeper than Romes.
Rome is the ever evolving Church just as the Holy Spirit is present in the moment, so is the Church thats why its called the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no “better” there are just different theologys which relate to the same topic. The points you chose to differ on you cannot prove but only supply a “theory”.
Protestants and Latin Catholics both agree on what the Immaculate Conception of Mary means to them, they disagree on whether it is real or a lie, but they both know what it means. Orthodox do not agree with either party on the meaning of it, which really goes straight back to the Orthodox understanding of Original (First) Sin.
As to the IC you venerated this as did all Christianity in the One Holy Aposlolic Church.
We already been through its history need we repeat? The IC is your history as it is all Christianity. The fact that Rome spoke ex-cathedra on it is beside the point of History.
Protestants and Latin Catholics usually agree on what the Papacy is all about, both groups having had intimate experience with it. They just disagree on whether it is legitimate. Orthodox actually disagree with what Papal primacy means, not with the primacy itself, this is not the same argument.
And the EO limits itself to the Councils and Saints which Rome surely acknowledges but we are not confined and imprisoned by it for the the same foward progress then, exists now. Revelation in public ended, but the development of Christianity hasn’t.
But yet this intimate experence the EO denys is also its history.
Orthodox ‘speak a different language’ when it comes to religion. This ‘language’ has deep roots, it’s nothing new. Western Christians want to teach us their new language, as if it is better, more advanced and developed. It has become instead a Tower of Babel.
No you don’t speak a different language you speak the only one that serves your side of the debate. How “deep” are these deep roots you refer to? Oh right no deeper than Romes. The topic is Christianity when theres nothing one feels there is to talk about start there. And No Rome does not force its teaching on Eastern Catholics. In fact it disrupts outside culture as little as possible. We want to preserve every culture not consume it which in fact is what the EO insists on doing and is “impossible”.
So no, we don’t really have a lot to talk about (theologically) with committed Protestants, unless some of us are former Protestants and want to talk old times. There are no compromises, we can not change our theology and will not change our liturgy to accommodate. There is nothing visitors will teach us theologically so if they come to visit an Orthodox temple it would hopefully be for polite fellowship.
This is by choice, by you connecting Protestants to Catholic as you have above, then apparently you really don’t have much to talk about with Catholics either. Sad is what that is.
You can learn nothing from these Souls? I find this astounding as I converse with protestants all the time, many friends and we actually agree on many issues, its actually enlightening. And your right you cannot change your philosophy for you painted youself into the corner with it. Then named it “Truth” but can’t prove it. Most astounding is the conversation begins with the we are right you are wrong attitude. Then the walls go up, open minded dialogue will cease, as it quickly did with Fab. And this is a “constant” on this forum, you not right becuase you say so. you must PROVE your right. We are all waiting to see that day.
There is no New Revelation, developed and defined of that which existed is a natural process of learning and education. The Church doesn’t confine itself to St Thomas Aquinas philosophical/theological paradigms. Its a school of thought, no different than Augustine, Athanasius etc. Thus resides a difference from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church you are committed to a paradigm. The teaching authority is not, you say you don’t believe in infallible yet you do and have.
The CC is not confined to the 7 ecumenical councils, nor by any individual Saint. Here resides the difference as explained above in the link I posted. Just as Christianity progressed from the First to the Seventh so too it continued. Infallible by the Councils is a fact, this also doesn’t mean the Church cannot develope its Dogma of the Councils as it is so revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Magesterium/Pope. It does not distract from the deposit of faith.
There is “no” difference from St Augustine and saying well we at the EO go with Athanasius. No sorry then there itself resides a flaw in the Council/Early Church Fathers which leads to the EO minus the Teaching Authority of the Church. Rome committed its own issues by the theorys of Augustine and Aquinas is the EO claim. Well for 12-hundred years why wasn’t the EO speaking up about Augustine then? Oh right we were in communion. Why wasn’t Augustines teaching on Original Sin discussed at the Councils? Right it wasn’t an issue. Its an issue you chose to make an issue in schism.
No one likes “change” we all get this its a fact of life for the logic is it disturbs one’s comfortability, but nothing is Constant but Change. Same issue with the reformation, Luther didn’t start the reformation, he became the voice of the movement. In fact Luthers thinking was influenced by Erasmus, and what did Erasmus state? WE NEED TO STICK TO THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH at least non-dogmatically and admit we don’t have all the answers. NO ONE has all the answers including the EO and CC. But the division hurts the Mission of the Church, and its effecting the Family just as Erasmus stated it would.
We can’t sit here year after years promoting our theology of Christianity in triumphant pride be the EO/CC/Protestant etc. when Christianity is literally perishing in the middle east and Holy Land. The issue didn’t start with the Twin Towers its been on-going for well over a millennium. Who shall we count on? Russia, China and USAs social political hell to stand behind our mission? There is no Us and Them the CC and EO the Protestants and EO…There is only US and in the end thats what this comes down to.
While the link above exludes and minimized the Protestant side of the debate, I’m here to let you know, the Anglican side of the debate presents a brilliant arguement, make no mistake about this. So yes we all must proceed not with an assumption we are right and you are wrong. but lets talk as Christian Brothers and Sisters and see where we agree and disagree and why, and that is “after” you first develope a repoire as friends. Here you find the common bonds in humanity run very deep, we need to get back to human respect before we dialogue in vanity of whos right or wrong. and when you find that respect you proceed in humility thus love.
Surely we can agree that there are “new” sins all the time…
