They were not part of the formal protest lodged by the Reformers at the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529. That protest was against civil authorities trying to limit religious liberty, not the Church, per se.
And the occasional Anglican.
True, though I think they not say they are not the devil’s advocate on the subject.Devils advocate here:
I suppose the Orthodox could also argue that the Catholic Church is Protestant.
Exactly my thought.Devils advocate here:
I suppose the Orthodox could also argue that the Catholic Church is Protestant.
The title “Protestant” originated with the Lutherans, protesting the Diet of Speyer in 1529 A.D.
Or that the Pope of Rome is not in full communion with the Eastern Churches. This is not a one sided affair. The fullness of the faith resides when both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches recognizes the need for each other. As long as each Church whether Rome or the Eastern Churches do not admit this need than both Churches are in fact lacking in certain elements of the fullness of faith. The Church of Rome does not own the fullness of faith and neither do the Eastern Churches. Together they do. The problem today is too many people not recognizing this important truth. As long as they do not admit it this stalement will just continue.
Then neither Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the Church started in the Upper room and Jesus lied when he said his Church would not be corrupted and exist for eternity. Christ solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world.
The Church recognizes the need for unity, including the Catholic Church. There have been many attempts to come to understanding through the meetings of The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but there are also other such with Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and western ecclessial communities.
True. But also, I think the EO not only have Apostolic Succession, they also trace their “parentage” as communities, as sees, back continuously to apostolic times, some directly, some indirectly through another EO patriarchate.
You are referring, by Reformation, to 16th century Europe? There is no Apostolic succession, per the Catholic Church, in any of those ecclessial communities because there no longer exists the proper intention in giving the sacrament of Orders as it is in the Catholic Church.
I strongly disagree. I think it a firm truth that Christ’s Church, however our sins have divided it, is still his One Church. And I find this interpretation to be a false limitation of Christ’s grace and authority.
The divine elements of the Church cannot be corrupted, but those fallible human beings that are attached to her may be.
We are all very forunate that this is not true. Jesus protected His Apostles, though they were fallible. He has protected and remained with His One Body, the Church from the day she was born until now, and He will to the end of the age.
How can the church be one if it teaches all different sorts of things?
It remains one Church because it is Christ’s Church. One could also ask how it could be one Church when considering sheep and goats. It is one Church, which He founded, and He is quite aware of our propensity to mess things up, and His grace abounds.
I’ll probably have more to say later, but first can you provide some background to this situation? In particular, were you responding to one argument, or more than one, for Orthodox being Protestant? And what argument(s)?
If that is so, then that means that the gates of hell have prevailed the True Church, and that Lord Jesus Christ failed with His promise about the gates of hell. The one Church is fully true, we all believe that is our Church.
If there is a need to answer the question of the thread, this is close.
