W
- Status
C
catholic2
Guest
JM, I hope you are not apologizing. It’s pretty hard to pin down the conglomeration of Churches that stem from Constantinople, so I can see how they may not have been mentioned in your site.
M
mtr01
Guest
Ok everyone, please let us not get too bent out of shape over this website. At least to me it is obvious that this site was created in order to answer Protestant claims about the nature of the Church.
I didn’t get the impression at all that it was meant to be a definitive timeline of the development or spread of Christianity. Certainly no sincere knowledgeable Orthodox Christian would deny that the Catholic Church is apostolic in origen, just as no sincere knowledgeable Catholic Christian would deny the apostolic nature of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches. Thus, I think it is a non-issue in regards to the site, and I wouldn’t read any insult into the fact that the Orthodox were not mentioned.
I didn’t get the impression at all that it was meant to be a definitive timeline of the development or spread of Christianity. Certainly no sincere knowledgeable Orthodox Christian would deny that the Catholic Church is apostolic in origen, just as no sincere knowledgeable Catholic Christian would deny the apostolic nature of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches. Thus, I think it is a non-issue in regards to the site, and I wouldn’t read any insult into the fact that the Orthodox were not mentioned.
J
JoaoMachado
Guest
Thanks catholic2, but it is not my site, I just stumbled upon it.
this is my site catholictuner.comhttp://www.catholictuner.com
Joao
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
1. The Catholic Church began at Pentecost. And Catholics agree. We know the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ and the one who receives the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it And the keys to the kingdom, Jesus gives to the successor to St Peter, the popes of the Catholic Church
[Mt 16:18…]. In fact Satan will be crushed under the feet of the Church of Rome. [Rm 16:20]
2. The Orthodox Church began in 1054. Catholics know this also.
*People who divide from the one Catholic Church change their name, which you did, and that’s honest. That’s what Protestants did in the 16th century too. It’s dishonest however, to appear as a continuum on the same line as the Catholic Church which you broke from. *
fr ambrose:
Soon, the new successor of Peter will be named by the power of the Holy spirit, to head Our Lords One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The keys to the kingdom will pass to his new successor, the pope of Rome. And the timeline goes on from Pentecost down till today.And the entire world is watching it happen on T.V… Jesus and Paul’s words are so powerfully seen in these times.
"You are Rock[Peter] and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it… [Mt 16:18…]
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you [the Church of Rome], because your faith is being reported all over the world.”[Rm 1:8]
What we see from your historians timeline is:
1. The Catholic Church began at Pentecost. And Catholics agree. We know the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ and the one who receives the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it And the keys to the kingdom, Jesus gives to the successor to St Peter, the popes of the Catholic Church
[Mt 16:18…]. In fact Satan will be crushed under the feet of the Church of Rome. [Rm 16:20]
2. The Orthodox Church began in 1054. Catholics know this also.
*People who divide from the one Catholic Church change their name, which you did, and that’s honest. That’s what Protestants did in the 16th century too. It’s dishonest however, to appear as a continuum on the same line as the Catholic Church which you broke from. *
fr ambrose:
As an aside,You can see that at least the Orthodox have the integrity to acknowledge the existence of the Roman Catholic Church.
odox.net/A%20Timeline%20of%20Church%20History.pdf
Soon, the new successor of Peter will be named by the power of the Holy spirit, to head Our Lords One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The keys to the kingdom will pass to his new successor, the pope of Rome. And the timeline goes on from Pentecost down till today.And the entire world is watching it happen on T.V… Jesus and Paul’s words are so powerfully seen in these times.
"You are Rock[Peter] and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it… [Mt 16:18…]
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you [the Church of Rome], because your faith is being reported all over the world.”[Rm 1:8]
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
not to mention that site only used the word “catholic” not “roman catholic” and throughout history the terms “catholic” and “orthodox” have been used by both the east and west.
see my post a little farther up. the roman catholic church considers eastern orthodox christians to be catholics too…in fact, in the missals we use for mass it says that members of the eastern orthodox church can recieve communion at a catholic church.Excuse me, Joao, but I have to admit that I am sitting here with tears of laughter rolling down my face,
Now who was it who started this thread by asking us to have a look at this site?
Who started Your Church.com
whostartedyourchurch.com/
That Catholic site is so severely slanted and untruthful that it does not even mention the existence of the Orthodox Church !!! So no lectures about “Historical Truth” please
not to mention that site only used the word “catholic” not “roman catholic” and throughout history the terms “catholic” and “orthodox” have been used by both the east and west.
A
AmberDale
Guest
Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church is different from the Orthodox chruch.
There are what…30+ Rites to the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite, Eastern Rite, Byzatine Rite, etc etc) all these Rites are in Full Communion with the Church of Rome.
The Orthodox is not in Full Communion with the Church of Rome. And Rome is not in Full Communion with the Orhodox Church. We are of course trying to remedy the Great Schism.
But Eastern Rite and Orthodox are not the same.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
:bowdown:
So you do admit that the Roman Catholic Church used to allow divorce, for at least 500 years!
From the 6th century until 1054 (during the period when there was no Orthodox Church) the Pope allowed the faithful in all the eastern segment of his Church and in all of southern Italy to divorce and remarry. This was allowed within the Catholic Church and with papal consent.
At last a clear admission that divorce was allowed in the Catholic Church. Thank you.
:bowdown:
steve b said:
So you do admit that the Roman Catholic Church used to allow divorce, for at least 500 years!
From the 6th century until 1054 (during the period when there was no Orthodox Church) the Pope allowed the faithful in all the eastern segment of his Church and in all of southern Italy to divorce and remarry. This was allowed within the Catholic Church and with papal consent.
At last a clear admission that divorce was allowed in the Catholic Church. Thank you.
:bowdown:
S
steve_b
Guest
So you do admit that the Roman Catholic Church used to allow divorce, for at least 500 years!
From the 6th century until 1054 (during the period when there was no Orthodox Church) the Pope allowed the faithful in all the eastern segment of his Church and in all of southern Italy to divorce and remarry. This was allowed within the Catholic Church and with papal consent.
At last a clear admission that divorce was allowed in the Catholic Church. Thank you.
:bowdown:
[/quote]
You’re speaking of civil and ecclesiastical disobedience in the East. Don’t confuse that with papal consent of what went on in the East.
“In the Eastern Empire, from 311 to 1054 A.D., civil divorces were freely granted in the East, with no limitation, either to husband or wife, and for any one of many reasons like adultery, cruelty and incompatibility”. Who allowed this? Not the pope!!! The pope is not some referee in a game, calling each play of the game. The East had its own bishops. The East takes full responsibility for this.
"The Emperor Justinian (527-565) eliminated divorce by mutual consent, but this did not reduce the number of civil divorces. The Greek Fathers of the Church frequently reminded Christians to obey God and not Caesar in this matter, yet they had little effect on the imperial attitude toward divorce in the Byzantine nations". Are you seeing what’s going on here?
"And when Photius led the break of the Eastern Church from Rome, he accepted the position of Justinian, allowing divorce with the right to remarry. Since the time of the great Eastern Schism in 1054, civil divorce plus remarriage have been accepted by the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome."
"In the Western Empire, from the Edict of Constantine to the Protestant Reformation two periods may be distinguished: an earlier conflict during which the Church fought vigorously the “usurpation of civil power,” and the practical elimination by legal statute of remarriage after separation. Time and again the Councils and the Fathers insisted that among Christians the Church alone has rightful jurisdiction over marriage and its conditions. Finally in 800 A.D., Charlemagne recognized Canon Law as having force in the Holy Roman Empire. From his time to the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Church’s rights over marriage were both recognized and honored. Absolute divorce among Christians was simply outlawed". [from Fr John Hardins archives]
From the 6th century until 1054 (during the period when there was no Orthodox Church) the Pope allowed the faithful in all the eastern segment of his Church and in all of southern Italy to divorce and remarry. This was allowed within the Catholic Church and with papal consent.
At last a clear admission that divorce was allowed in the Catholic Church. Thank you.
:bowdown:
[/quote]
You’re speaking of civil and ecclesiastical disobedience in the East. Don’t confuse that with papal consent of what went on in the East.
“In the Eastern Empire, from 311 to 1054 A.D., civil divorces were freely granted in the East, with no limitation, either to husband or wife, and for any one of many reasons like adultery, cruelty and incompatibility”. Who allowed this? Not the pope!!! The pope is not some referee in a game, calling each play of the game. The East had its own bishops. The East takes full responsibility for this.
"The Emperor Justinian (527-565) eliminated divorce by mutual consent, but this did not reduce the number of civil divorces. The Greek Fathers of the Church frequently reminded Christians to obey God and not Caesar in this matter, yet they had little effect on the imperial attitude toward divorce in the Byzantine nations". Are you seeing what’s going on here?
"And when Photius led the break of the Eastern Church from Rome, he accepted the position of Justinian, allowing divorce with the right to remarry. Since the time of the great Eastern Schism in 1054, civil divorce plus remarriage have been accepted by the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome."
"In the Western Empire, from the Edict of Constantine to the Protestant Reformation two periods may be distinguished: an earlier conflict during which the Church fought vigorously the “usurpation of civil power,” and the practical elimination by legal statute of remarriage after separation. Time and again the Councils and the Fathers insisted that among Christians the Church alone has rightful jurisdiction over marriage and its conditions. Finally in 800 A.D., Charlemagne recognized Canon Law as having force in the Holy Roman Empire. From his time to the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Church’s rights over marriage were both recognized and honored. Absolute divorce among Christians was simply outlawed". [from Fr John Hardins archives]
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
For a period of at least 500 years the bishops of the Catholic Church in the East AND the Catholic Church in southern Italy allowed divorce. In all the churches of the papal Church in the East the Supreme Pontiff allowed ceremonies of second marriage.
You cannot honestly tell us that the Popes allowed their clergy to do this for 500 years and yet never spoke a word against it if they disapproved. To try and pass off a 500 year fact of church life in the Catholic Church as “civil and ecclesiastical disobedience” simply provokes laughter.
The bottom line is that for century after century the Popes allowed divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.
Sorry, that won’t wash, nor will Hardon’s misinterpretation.
For a period of at least 500 years the bishops of the Catholic Church in the East AND the Catholic Church in southern Italy allowed divorce. In all the churches of the papal Church in the East the Supreme Pontiff allowed ceremonies of second marriage.
You cannot honestly tell us that the Popes allowed their clergy to do this for 500 years and yet never spoke a word against it if they disapproved. To try and pass off a 500 year fact of church life in the Catholic Church as “civil and ecclesiastical disobedience” simply provokes laughter.
The bottom line is that for century after century the Popes allowed divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.
E
Emery
Guest
steve b:
– we often call the Church “Orthodox” or “Orthodox Catholic” in order to distinguish ourselves.
The official name of our Church is stil the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” – or just the “Catholic Church” for short (it is referred to as such, for instance, in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848). Historically, in the East, the Church has been called “Catholic” to distinguish it from schismatic groups, and the faithful the “Orthodox”. However, as you guys have successfully co-opted the name “Catholic” –
– we often call the Church “Orthodox” or “Orthodox Catholic” in order to distinguish ourselves.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Absolutely. The Orthodox Church consistently refers to herself as the Catholic Church through all the centuries. Here are just a few examples from the Encyclical you mention…
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”
To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
… the many great and glorious Fathers of **the Catholic Church **in all parts of the earth, [they mean the Orthodox Church]
… which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat
… for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church
… contrary to the universal Confession of **the Catholic Church **
… Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of **the Catholic Church ** with such is unlawful.
The whole Encyclical is here…
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html
L
Lumen_Gentium
Guest
Fr. Ambrose,
Now why whine about the Orthodox Church not being mentioned
in that site (whostartedyourchurch.com/) if the “Orthodox Church does consistently refers to herself as the Catholic Church” when in fact, the Catholic Church who considers the Orthodox Church a part of her (and therefore, no need to mention the Orthodox Church) is mentioned in that site?
What, then is the “severly slanted and untruthful” are you talking about? I don’t see any “ignorance,” as you would like to call it to be, in the part of the author(s) of that site.
Fr. Ambrose, it seems like the Roman Catholic Church has always been wanting, needing, teaching the fact, and has embraced the Orthodox Church as a part of her, yet the Orthodox Church continues to alienate herself from the true church just because of disobedience to the holy father. Why can’t the Orthodox Church see the Catholic Church’s humility as a perfect example of her obedience to Christ’s command to Peter (feed my sheep, feed my lambs)? Why can’t Alexey of Russia follow the other Orthodox Patriarchs’ humility to end the schism as an example of Christ’s parable of the prodigal son?
Ahhh…Pride…the same pride that caused the downfall of humanity to sin that started with Adam. It’s so sad; very sad Fr. Ambrose.
And oh Fr. Ambrose, bring up (again) the issue of divorce in this thread is simply irrelevant. Read carefully the subject of this thread: Who started your church?
PAX
Fr Ambrose:
Now why whine about the Orthodox Church not being mentioned
in that site (whostartedyourchurch.com/) if the “Orthodox Church does consistently refers to herself as the Catholic Church” when in fact, the Catholic Church who considers the Orthodox Church a part of her (and therefore, no need to mention the Orthodox Church) is mentioned in that site?
What, then is the “severly slanted and untruthful” are you talking about? I don’t see any “ignorance,” as you would like to call it to be, in the part of the author(s) of that site.
Fr. Ambrose, it seems like the Roman Catholic Church has always been wanting, needing, teaching the fact, and has embraced the Orthodox Church as a part of her, yet the Orthodox Church continues to alienate herself from the true church just because of disobedience to the holy father. Why can’t the Orthodox Church see the Catholic Church’s humility as a perfect example of her obedience to Christ’s command to Peter (feed my sheep, feed my lambs)? Why can’t Alexey of Russia follow the other Orthodox Patriarchs’ humility to end the schism as an example of Christ’s parable of the prodigal son?
Ahhh…Pride…the same pride that caused the downfall of humanity to sin that started with Adam. It’s so sad; very sad Fr. Ambrose.
And oh Fr. Ambrose, bring up (again) the issue of divorce in this thread is simply irrelevant. Read carefully the subject of this thread: Who started your church?
PAX
Fr Ambrose:
S
STIOFAN
Guest
Jesus Christ
A
Aris
Guest
I was about to say the same thing.
Since the Orthodox claim to be Catholics as well then it should not be an issue if the site does not put the Orthodox Church. Maybe the authors think the Catholics are Orthodox as well?
Since the Orthodox claim to be Catholics as well then it should not be an issue if the site does not put the Orthodox Church. Maybe the authors think the Catholics are Orthodox as well?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
STIOFÁN:
http://www.teachnet.ie/fwilliams/communityoffaith/images/orthodoxirelandmap.png
A chara! So we’re in the same Church! I know that the Church is growing in Ireland. We’ve displaced the Methodists as the fourth in size - not that that means too much. It means we number about the same as the Muslims, around 17,000.
http://www.teachnet.ie/fwilliams/communityoffaith/images/orthodoxirelandmap.png
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Lumen Gentium:
It’s not pride and it’s not disobedience. We are obliged to preserve the faith handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. We cannot take this ancient and holy faith and warp it for the same of a compromised unity. Changing the faith would mean compromising our salvation and that of all the future generations. The Church (that is, the Orthodox Church) sees a number of serious errors in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church -just read the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs and you will see what they are. We just cannot take the Body of Christ and unite it to error.
Think of us as the original wheat stock from old. We are the primitive wheat which you will need again one day when all the experimentation and permutations have made all the other wheat infertile. But we will always be here, primitive and unchanged. We are your past. We are your future. We wait for you…
Lumen,
It’s not pride and it’s not disobedience. We are obliged to preserve the faith handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. We cannot take this ancient and holy faith and warp it for the same of a compromised unity. Changing the faith would mean compromising our salvation and that of all the future generations. The Church (that is, the Orthodox Church) sees a number of serious errors in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church -just read the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs and you will see what they are. We just cannot take the Body of Christ and unite it to error.
Think of us as the original wheat stock from old. We are the primitive wheat which you will need again one day when all the experimentation and permutations have made all the other wheat infertile. But we will always be here, primitive and unchanged. We are your past. We are your future. We wait for you…
L
Lumen_Gentium
Guest
Actually, could be the other way around that the authors(s) think:
That the Orthodox are Catholics as well (as what Fr. Ambrose said)? I simply cannot understand why he (and Podromos) had to whine about it and call the author(s) of that site “ignorant,” and claims the site to be “severely slanted and untruthful.” :bounce:
PAX
Aris:
That the Orthodox are Catholics as well (as what Fr. Ambrose said)? I simply cannot understand why he (and Podromos) had to whine about it and call the author(s) of that site “ignorant,” and claims the site to be “severely slanted and untruthful.” :bounce:
PAX
I was about to say the same thing.
Since the Orthodox claim to be Catholics as well then it should not be an issue if the site does not put the Orthodox Church. Maybe the authors think the Catholics are Orthodox as well?
S
STIOFAN
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
but your response was quick.
I don’t think your in the USA, probably UK or some other part of Europe.
Thanks for the info, I need to do more reading,thanks to this site regarding other faiths, and brush up on my own in the process.
Before it didn’t cost me a thought, because Ireland was mostly Catholic.
I’m not sure what Churches there are in Ireland, we aren’t the Ireland of old anymore, great in some respects, and bad in others.
Too much materialism and greed and complicated living, rush, rush,rush. (consider the lillies of the field)
I read somewhere that Jesus complained, that the more educated and free people become, the less they want to know about their God"-------totally true.
I also read in a prophecy, that in the end times, that people would have the outward signs of religion, in otherwords, a cosmetic religion without much substance.
What do you think Fr Ambrose, is that true in some respects ?
I don’t wan’t to hijack JoaoMachado’s thread with this by the way.
Hello there Fr Ambrose, either your an allnighter, or believe in nocturnal prayer
but your response was quick.I don’t think your in the USA, probably UK or some other part of Europe.
Thanks for the info, I need to do more reading,thanks to this site regarding other faiths, and brush up on my own in the process.
Before it didn’t cost me a thought, because Ireland was mostly Catholic.
I’m not sure what Churches there are in Ireland, we aren’t the Ireland of old anymore, great in some respects, and bad in others.
Too much materialism and greed and complicated living, rush, rush,rush. (consider the lillies of the field)
I read somewhere that Jesus complained, that the more educated and free people become, the less they want to know about their God"-------totally true.
I also read in a prophecy, that in the end times, that people would have the outward signs of religion, in otherwords, a cosmetic religion without much substance.
What do you think Fr Ambrose, is that true in some respects ?
I don’t wan’t to hijack JoaoMachado’s thread with this by the way.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
STIOFÁN:
Here it is 10:30 pm on Tuesday night.
I’m in New Zealand and when I am not starring in Peter Jackson’s films I have a second job as an Orthodox priest.Hello there Fr Ambrose, either your an allnighter, or believe in nocturnal prayer
Here it is 10:30 pm on Tuesday night.
- Status