Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?

[JimR-OCDS]

Hesychios

Peace to you too.

Do you have sources for these claims, or is it just your imagination that brings you to these conclusions

Yes, the book I read just recently, “Triumph, The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church; A 2000 Year History,” by H.W. Crocker III.

Jim

 

[JW10631]

What “Roman Catholics” are you referring to?

The term “Roman Catholic” is not known outside of the English language, as it originated as an insult after the establishment of the Church of England.

Therefore, Orthodox - and Protestant - references to “Roman Catholics” are invalid and lack merit and substance.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

What “Roman Catholics” are you referring to?

The term “Roman Catholic” is not known outside of the English language, as it originated as an insult after the establishment of the Church of England.

Therefore, Orthodox - and Protestant - references to “Roman Catholics” are invalid and lack merit and substance.

Absolutely not correct!!

Roman Catholic Rules!

The results from the Vatican Search Engine shows that the Vatican itself uses the term liberally.

Likewise if you do a google.com search with a term such as *romano catolica *you’ll get thousands of European Catholic web sites which happily use the term “Roman Catholic.”

Now, don’t anybody try and say that the Vatican and the Catholic countries of Europe have been bludgeoned by the English Protestants into using the term.

The term is used by Roman Catholics themselves in Portugese, Spanish, Italian, French, Polish, German, Dutch, Croatian…etc. It’s just not possible that this has been forced on them by the English…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the churches in the East were heading towards Arianism. If not for the Pope in Rome, and the grace of God, the Church today would be Aryan.

I agree that credit must go to the Pope of Rome but all the same large numbers of Western bishops adopted the Arian heresy in Italy, Spain and Gaul (France) and Germany.

Arianism had a horrible impact on both the Western and Eastern Church and Arianism persisted longer in the West.

One Pope, looking at the sorry state of the Church in Italy, wept saying: “The world world has become Arian.”

The Western Emperor Constans was Arian and he convened several pro-Arian Councils in Italy. The largest attracted about 160 pro-Arian bishops from Italy, Spain and Gaul. It was held in Milan about 347.

After Constans’ death, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire and he too was an Arian. He convened several more pro-Arian Councils in both the West and the East.

Have a look at how Arianism was finally defeated in the Church of Rome - accomplished by Councils called in Italy by the Byzantine Emperor and then by the Byzantine Emperor sending troops to fight the Arian Visigoths who controlled northern Italy and who would have taken Rome without the Emperor’s military intervention.

Without the assistance of the East you could be Arian today.

 

[mark_a]

My original question was not intended to be taken literally. It is of course rhetorical to engage debate

Do you think maybe I’m a little too defensive?

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios

Peace to you too.

Yes, the book I read just recently, “Triumph, The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church; A 2000 Year History,” by H.W. Crocker III.
Jim

Crockers whoppers!

I believe his book was the inspiration of the term triumphalism, as applied to Roman Catholics. In my opinion it would not be a good place to learn Catholic history (I know my opinion does not count). Try to find better sources.

Nevertheless, if that is your best source, you will have to run with what you’ve got. Good luck!

Michael

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Crockers whoppers!

I believe his book was the inspiration of the term triumphalism, as applied to Roman Catholics. In my opinion it would not be a good place to learn Catholic history (I know my opinion does not count). Try to find better sources.

Nevertheless, if that is your best source, you will have to run with what you’ve got. Good luck!

Michael

And of course we’re suppose to trust your sources, eh?

 

[happygal]

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

**Ya, no matter how we look at it Martin Luther used to be a formal Catholic monk. He received his early teaching from a CC and not a Protestant Church.
All i can say if the early Catholic members runs the church with accordance to God’s proper teaching nothing will happen, nobody will protestant. When pple started to switch away from Holy Spirit, terrible will happened. Thus why wanted to blame ML where in the lst place the Church was not even functioning in a proper way. If you put a kettle full of water to be boil, without fire how would the water bolt right!!! Thus the logic goes back to history, if they were no problems how would pple protestant for nothing right (nothing better to do huh)…Thus i rather feel sorry for those Catholic who always put the blame to ML, for they are too indiretly blaming their early predecessor. **

 

[Hesychios]

And of course we’re suppose to trust your sources, eh?

No, pick your own, just use reputable ones. In the first place, any book that covers as much ground as Crockers should have copious footnotes. Therefore you should be able to give the sources he references in his book for each claim he makes.

Have you no interest in serious scholarship?

 

[jam070406]

**Ya, no matter how we look at it Martin Luther used to be a formal Catholic monk. He received his early teaching from a CC and not a Protestant Church.
All i can say if the early Catholic members runs the church with accordance to God’s proper teaching nothing will happen, nobody will protestant. When pple started to switch away from Holy Spirit, terrible will happened. Thus why wanted to blame ML where in the lst place the Church was not even functioning in a proper way. If you put a kettle full of water to be boil, without fire how would the water bolt right!!! Thus the logic goes back to history, if they were no problems how would pple protestant for nothing right (nothing better to do huh)…Thus i rather feel sorry for those Catholic who always put the blame to ML, for they are too indiretly blaming their early predecessor. **

the Catholic clergymen were sinning for sure, but Catholic doctrine cannot change. it is an immovable pillar and foundation protected by the Holy Spirit. ML is to blame for attempting to change that which God Himself will not allow to change. ML switched away from the Holy Spirit, as you put it. and his attempt to change doctrine, in essence, creating a “new” gospel led many many astray. we are told not to not follow those false teachers that teach a gospel other than what the Apostles taught. ML was a heretic.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, pick your own, just use reputable ones. In the first place, any book that covers as much ground as Crockers should have copious footnotes. Therefore you should be able to give the sources he references in his book for each claim he makes.

Have you no interest in serious scholarship?

Crocker is reputable and he has his sources listed at the end of his book.

Jim

 

[Hesychios]

Crocker is reputable and he has his sources listed at the end of his book.

Jim

Ok, let’s take your first claim…

• The Church’s use of Latin as the official language over Greek, was a big problem in the East.
  What source does Crocker reference to substantiate the claim that the use of Latin in the west was a big problem for the east? His footnotes should tell you.

Basically, that is wrong. Different churches all over the world were using different languages without an issue, it is basically nobody’s business what language their neighbors worship in!

Among the Orthodox, Greek and Slavonic were both widely in use. Plus, the Armenians spoke Armenian, the Syrians spoke Syriac and Arabic and the Copts used Coptic. It is only natural that the west would use Latin, or any other western tongue they might choose.

In fact, Latin was still known in the east. Scholars knew it as well as churchmen and it was still used to some extent in government, because the empire itself began in Roma. The claim that the Eastern Catholics had a problem with what language another autocephalic church was using is pretty silly stuff. The Bull of excommunication was penned in Latin and they knew right away what it stated!

Please let us know where Crocker got that whopper.

Michael

 

[Goblin_Taters]

I almost am tempted to write a book called We are all Heretics. If I knew French, I’d title it Tous heretiques.

 

[icxc_nika]

Greetings Jam-

the Orthodox seem to find a loop hole out of everything don’t they?
the role of Rome has not changed throughout history. your own post asserts this by saying supremacy was not an issue in the split. the claims by the Orthodox about Catholics changing history is in fact the exact opposite, THEY have changed the role of the pope. Orthodox have changed history to make the pope and Rome seem like some evil dictator trying to control the world. (funny it only comes after the split) the role of pope was further defined. that’s it! it didn’t change the role he already had. the pope is to shepard the flock and preserve faith and morals. read Vatican I. it says nothing more than what has always been stated. Peter is the rock, etc. etc. the quotes i posted prove that the Fathers believed the same thing. (it’s not just fluffy talk)
the church has always been know as the Catholic church. the “Orthodox” church is a new church that came out of the split.
or should i say churches? because there is no one Orthodox church.
there is no unity among these churches. it’s a complete fallacy, to give the impression they are one. but they are not.
claiming the papacy is some new creation and pretending the Orthodox churches are all One are the only things the Orthodox can stand on. if they admit they are wrong then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
the only way to unity is to come home to the church of Rome.

It’s hard not to get passionate about our beliefs, but we should err on the side of caution with some of the statements.

The Catholics typically do not state that the “role of Rome” (by this I presume you mean the role of the Papacy), has not changed over the years. They usually speak in terms that allow for the evolution of the Papacy, just as the church has evolved with different needs over time.

The issue of supremacy always seems to be the sticking point.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that both sides can not be right. Either the Pope always had a Supremacy that Lords over all the church’s or it did not.

If it did not, than usurping that role, and making the claims to Supremacy, clearly can not be tolerated. This is the role that Orthodox Christians find themselves in.

As mentioned in previous posts, the flowery letters that went back and forth to the church leaders of the time certainly is not a testament to the authority that any one person had over all the church’s. This would have been evident in hundreds of years of church actions. What is clear and undisputed is that there were counsils that formed to address problems and questions, and to write church opinion into law.

None of these solid historical documents prove a supremacy, quite the contrary, it proves that the church functioned exactly as the Orthodox states it functioned.

In your statements that the Orthodox church changed the role of the Pope: nothing could be further from the truth. Since the role of the papacy is what evolved, independent of the East, it has very little to do with what the East did to this role.

As far as some kind of false unity in the Orthodox church is concerned; it’s only through your personal understanding of what church structure is suppose to be like that you make such statements. We have the same common faith in the same creed, and a common worship through our liturgies. The very church fathers that have been cited above said the same creed that we Orthodox say today, and have worshipped and performed the same liturgies that we use today. Nothing can be more ancient than the unchanged faith and worship that the Orthodox alone continue to protect and disseminate.
Thus claiming that we are a fallacy is unfounded to say the least.

As far as the “Orthodox” church having come about after the split, you again are in error. The “correct teaching” has always existed in the Catholic Church, much in the same way that you assert exists only under the pope in Rome.

The fact is that the Orthodox continue and have always considered themselves to be “pre-denominational”. It is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… these words have never changed, the church remains unaltered. No house of cards has been built on the foundation that our Lord has laid.

Many prayers to all during our Lentin season.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I almost am tempted to write a book called We are all Heretics. If I knew French, I’d title it Tous heretiques.

It’s pretty well been done - by Elias Zoghby, no less. The book is “We Are All Schismatics”. (I’ve not read it, BTW). Amazon link to it​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ok, let’s take your first claim…

• The Church’s use of Latin as the official language over Greek, was a big problem in the East.
  What source does Crocker reference to substantiate the claim that the use of Latin in the west was a big problem for the east? His footnotes should tell you.

Basically, that is wrong. Different churches all over the world were using different languages without an issue, it is basically nobody’s business what language their neighbors worship in!

Among the Orthodox, Greek and Slavonic were both widely in use. Plus, the Armenians spoke Armenian, the Syrians spoke Syriac and Arabic and the Copts used Coptic. It is only natural that the west would use Latin, or any other western tongue they might choose.

In fact, Latin was still known in the east. Scholars knew it as well as churchmen and it was still used to some extent in government, because the empire itself began in Roma. The claim that the Eastern Catholics had a problem with what language another autocephalic church was using is pretty silly stuff. The Bull of excommunication was penned in Latin and they knew right away what it stated!

Please let us know where Crocker got that whopper.

Michael

Crocker merely stated that there were cultural differences between the Latin Church and the Greek speaking church, of which language was one of them, that help foster the split.

Other sources that I have read over the years also say that the Church’s making Latin the official language, and of course the translation of the Bible into Latin, was a big issue with the Greek speaking Church in the East.

Of course the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders, which the Pope had nothing to do with, was the major straw for the schism. But the patriarchs were asking for an excuse to split with Rome.

Unfortunately, there still seems to be a lot of hatred towards the Roman Catholic Church, by the Orthodox Church.

Heck, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, snubbed Pope John Paul II, when he visited Russia years ago. Of course, the Russian Patriarch was afraid that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Roman Catholic Church was going to ask for their property to be returned, which the Orthodox were given when Stalin through out the Roman Catholic Church. However, John Paul never mentioned it, but merely sought reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox, which the Patriarch rudely rejected.

And of course this very thread shows the hatred that still exist by the Orthodox.

Jim

 

[jam070406]

Greetings Jam-

It’s hard not to get passionate about our beliefs, but we should err on the side of caution with some of the statements.

The Catholics typically do not state that the “role of Rome” (by this I presume you mean the role of the Papacy), has not changed over the years. They usually speak in terms that allow for the evolution of the Papacy, just as the church has evolved with different needs over time.

The issue of supremacy always seems to be the sticking point.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that both sides can not be right. Either the Pope always had a Supremacy that Lords over all the church’s or it did not.

If it did not, than usurping that role, and making the claims to Supremacy, clearly can not be tolerated. This is the role that Orthodox Christians find themselves in.

As mentioned in previous posts, the flowery letters that went back and forth to the church leaders of the time certainly is not a testament to the authority that any one person had over all the church’s. This would have been evident in hundreds of years of church actions. What is clear and undisputed is that there were counsils that formed to address problems and questions, and to write church opinion into law.

None of these solid historical documents prove a supremacy, quite the contrary, it proves that the church functioned exactly as the Orthodox states it functioned.

In your statements that the Orthodox church changed the role of the Pope: nothing could be further from the truth. Since the role of the papacy is what evolved, independent of the East, it has very little to do with what the East did to this role.

As far as some kind of false unity in the Orthodox church is concerned; it’s only through your personal understanding of what church structure is suppose to be like that you make such statements. We have the same common faith in the same creed, and a common worship through our liturgies. The very church fathers that have been cited above said the same creed that we Orthodox say today, and have worshipped and performed the same liturgies that we use today. Nothing can be more ancient than the unchanged faith and worship that the Orthodox alone continue to protect and disseminate.
Thus claiming that we are a fallacy is unfounded to say the least.

As far as the “Orthodox” church having come about after the split, you again are in error. The “correct teaching” has always existed in the Catholic Church, much in the same way that you assert exists only under the pope in Rome.

The fact is that the Orthodox continue and have always considered themselves to be “pre-denominational”. It is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… these words have never changed, the church remains unaltered. No house of cards has been built on the foundation that our Lord has laid.

Many prayers to all during our Lentin season.

the role of papacy was not a factor in the split. this should tell you something. the role of the papacy has been further defined as it has always been understood. it has not changed. read Vatican I. and there you go again, as is typical with most Orthodox, you claim the pope “lords over the churches” this is so disengenious. the pope safeguards the truth and maintains unity as a shepard. until the Orthodox get past the vision of the pope as an evil dictator they will never truly understand the papacy because they are blinded by predudice and hatred.
many church Fathers attest to the role of the papacy and Rome throughout the church’s history.
how can someone (such as yourself) that denies that Peter (previously named Simon) is what Christ build His church upon preach to me about church structure?
what do Orthodox teach about the name change anyway? Jesus just thought it sounded cooler?

i still don’t buy the unity in Orthodox churches. are they truly all in unity? you claim they’ve preserved the faith yet they don’t all agree in certain areas of theology. so, you all profess the creed. so what. so do Catholics. so do Anglicans and Lutherans. are you in communion with them? they don’t submit to the evil pope!
the RCC also forms in councils to address problems. unfortunately bishops from the eastern “Orthodox” were not there because they prefer schism. when was the last time the east held an ecumenical council?
the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is the Roman Catholic church with the pope as it’s visible shepard/head and Christ as the foundation and the invisible head.
the Church has always been the Catholic Church which can be found in early church Father’s writings. the Roman Church was the supreme Church, the mother church. the “Orthodox” Church was a term not known and came about after the split from Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

i still don’t buy the unity in Orthodox churches. are they truly all in unity? you claim they’ve preserved the faith yet they don’t all agree in certain areas of theology.

Please substantiate this claim. You are wrong of course, I will attribute this to you being misinformed.

In the early church, orthodox-catholicism was maintained through the bishops, and those bishops who agreed in theology were in communion with each other. Any bishop who changed theological teaching was subject to have communion broken off, that is the discipline the churches use. This is why we are not in communion yet today, the old conficts that started the schism are not nearly as serious as the new ones introduced by Western Catholics later.

We still discipline ourselves it the old fashioned way, and it works. Interestingly, there is far more theological diversity within the Roman Catholic communion under the Pope, a manifestation of a type of relativism. In fact, among other theologies, spiritualities and charisms the entire body of Orthodox theology is accepted as correct by your own church (that would not be possible if there were variations in it), which allows these beliefs to be taught among some eastern Catholic churches.

Orthodox theology is not exploratory, inventive and creative the way the western theological traditions are. We are naturally conservative and our beliefs are closely linked to our liturgical prayers, this helps prevent divergence in theological understanding. Our liturgy, ecclesiology and theology are in tight sync, and help us steadily proclaim the Good News for twenty centuries and counting.

For more information on Orthodox theology and spirituality I can recommend three Catholic authors, men you should be able to trust.

*Spirituality of the Christian East *by Tomas Cardinal Spidlik sj
*The Face of God *by Archbishop Joseph Raya (Melkite) of blessed memory
Anything by father George Maloney sj of blessed memory, his books are short, there are many of them.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Crocker merely stated that there were cultural differences between the Latin Church and the Greek speaking church, of which language was one of them, that help foster the split.

I see, it was just your opinion then…

 

[jam070406]

Please substantiate this claim. You are wrong of course, I will attribute this to you being misinformed.

In the early church, orthodox-catholicism was maintained through the bishops, and those bishops who agreed in theology were in communion with each other. Any bishop who changed theological teaching was subject to have communion broken off, that is the discipline the churches use. This is why we are not in communion yet today, the old conficts that started the schism are not nearly as serious as the new ones introduced by Western Catholics later.

We still discipline ourselves it the old fashioned way, and it works. Interestingly, there is far more theological diversity within the Roman Catholic communion under the Pope, a manifestation of a type of relativism. In fact, among other theologies, spiritualities and charisms the entire body of Orthodox theology is accepted as correct by your own church (that would not be possible if there were variations in it), which allows these beliefs to be taught among some eastern Catholic churches.

Orthodox theology is not exploratory, inventive and creative the way the western theological traditions are. We are naturally conservative and our beliefs are closely linked to our liturgical prayers, this helps prevent divergence in theological understanding. Our liturgy, ecclesiology and theology are in tight sync, and help us steadily proclaim the Good News for twenty centuries and counting.

For more information on Orthodox theology and spirituality I can recommend three Catholic authors, men you should be able to trust.

*Spirituality of the Christian East *by Tomas Cardinal Spidlik sj
*The Face of God *by Archbishop Joseph Raya (Melkite) of blessed memory
Anything by father George Maloney sj of blessed memory, his books are short, there are many of them.

Michael

thanks.
so what exactly is it that the Greek Orthodox don’t agree on with the Coptics? these are the only two that come to mind right now. i’ve seen people from the different churches fighting back and forth on different forums.

Michael, are you a former Catholic?