Why did Eastern Orthodoxy never have a Reformation?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, but in the East when our icons start to argue with us, we tend to listen!

That’s debatable because the Iconoclasts began from the Eastern Orthodox religious taken the side of Islam to destroy all icons of Christianity which was labeled idolatory.

It took both Eastern Saints and the Pope to finally settle the issue and allow and continue to maintain icons in the Catholic Church’s and define their purpose to be far from idolatry.

This also revealed the difference between venerating the saints from true worship of God are not the same from the doctrine in the communion of saints.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Reformation did not stem from within the Church.

Martin Luther was first a Roman Catholic monk par excellence, and it was he who set the wheels in motion. Of course, there were many other factors “outside” the Church so to speak, but the extensive influence of the Roman Church on all aspects of secular life (economic, legal, etc.) were certainly major factors as well. All of these factors led to the “success” of the Reformation on the whole.

 

[johnnykins]

Anyone have a theory about this?

Because they had mass apostasy into Islam. What was left was an oppressed minority that coalesced around the rump churches in the East. Until Russia came along, the Orthodox Church was a mere shadow of itself. Then the peculiarities of Russian Orthodoxy and its Caesaro-Papism structure (being a department of the State following the Petrine reforms until the Soviet revolution) and anti-Western politics conspired to keep the Reformation at bay.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That’s debatable because the Iconoclasts began from the Eastern Orthodox religious taken the side of Islam to destroy all icons of Christianity which was labeled idolatory.

It took both Eastern Saints and the Pope to finally settle the issue and allow and continue to maintain icons in the Catholic Church’s and define their purpose to be far from idolatry.

This also revealed the difference between venerating the saints from true worship of God are not the same from the doctrine in the communion of saints.

Sorry, that was a joke (now taken out of context) - not usually my style, so likely an unsuccessful attempt at humor on my part!

As a well-versed Eastern Catholic, I’m most familiar with the history, doctrinal outcomes and the accepted beliefs regarding iconographic images. But I do appreciate the reminder …

That said, one recalls the acknowledged existence of certain “miraculous” icons throughout history, and in that regard they do “speak” to us on occasion.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

There were attempts, but one must also remember that there are varying circumstances that ushered in the Reformation in the West that made it impossible in the East.

First, we must remember that the Eastern Orthodox Church at this point was mostly trying to resist the Ottoman Empire which had overwhelmed the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, and conquered the eminent city of Constantinople in 1453. The Church’s efforts were, quite reasonably, confined to resisting Islamization and avoiding being completely annihilated. God only knows the countless numbers of martyrs who died because of their faith.

When you’re in such a volatile and dangerous situation, there isn’t much room for dissent - only for survival. Also, understandably, there was very little room for ecclesiastical corruption. Contrast this with the West, which had largely extricated itself from the Muslims (for the most part). Spain was free by 1498, the Renaissance was in full swing, and the colonization of the Americas had begun. The West was in a much better position economically and culturally to provide for a free exchange of ideas to allow for religious dissent. The Catholic Church’s power no longer extended so greatly that it could simply act effectively against the Reformation. Let’s remember that the Council of Trent was declared long after Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

Second, I think we misunderstand how devastating the Black Death was to the Roman Catholic Church. My history professor at college told me that during the plague, priests and religious officials were generally known to move into the cities rather than away during the crisis while most people had fled. They did this to care for the sick and helpless who were largely abandoned. It was a long-standing Christian tradition. Roman officials were quick to note the “crazy” Christians offering to help sick countryman during such crises. He told me that some 80-90% of the Catholic clergy was killed by the plague. This provoked a massive crisis within the Church, which led to the hasty ordination of people who were simply unprepared/ill-placed to serve. Once these men were placed in higher positions of power, they were able to ordain their own priests, which led to a large number of clergymen being corrupted and creating a huge web of corruption.

Finally, there were some, very limited attempts at reform within the Orthodox Church. There were attempts at reform, in fact, However, from what I recall they were very small, and entirely unsuccessful at gaining followers for any long period of time. I also think it is reasonable to assume that in many ways, the Orthodox Church, due to Ottoman occupation, was often simply too cut off from the West to feel the effects of the crisis.

 

[Hesychios]

You are correct, I agree with you that Islam’s heretical view of Jesus Christ which denies Jesus divinity, comes from the Orthodox Church which taught and held to a heterodox view of Jesus divinity.

This is calumny, which doesn’t surpise me.

Mohammed (founder of Islam) learned Christianity from teachings from an Eastern Orthodox Bishop named Arius who was excommunicated 2x’s by the Church and labeled his teachings heterodox.

Two errors here.
1] Arius was not a bishop

2] If a person teaches heresy he is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, which is why you are wrong to say his teaching were Orthodox teachings. If his teachings had been orthodox he would not have been excommunicated.

It is also not clear what teachings he did encounter in his travels. The deserts were a refuge for all types of people, including numerous varieties of gnostics , Manichaens and other groups, including tribes of nomadic Jews.]

This would be just like someone claiming that the teachings of John Calvin or Menno Simons were teachings of the Catholic church. It is wrong because the Catholic and Orthodox church doesn’t teach Calvinism or Mennonitism, and those men were excommunicated for that reason.

You should not misrepresent these things to people as you do. I know you have been around for a long time and you should know better. What disappoints me is that I have to be the one to point this out to you, your co-religionists (whom I am sure know better) should not let your misrepresentations stand in this public place.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There were attempts …

Very nice post - enjoyed it!

Also noticed your listed “Religion” - we pray you find your way home!

 

[Publisher]

This is calumny, which doesn’t surpise me.
Two errors here.
1] Arius was not a bishop

2] If a person teaches heresy he is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, which is why you are wrong to say his teaching were Orthodox teachings. If his teachings had been orthodox he would not have been excommunicated.

It is also not clear what teachings he did encounter in his travels. The deserts were a refuge for all types of people, including numerous varieties of gnostics , Manichaens and other groups, including tribes of nomadic Jews.]

This would be just like someone claiming that the teachings of John Calvin or Menno Simons were teachings of the Catholic church. It is wrong because the Catholic and Orthodox church doesn’t teach Calvinism or Mennonitism, and those men were excommunicated for that reason.

You should not misrepresent these things to people as you do. I know you have been around for a long time and you should know better. What disappoints me is that I have to be the one to point this out to you, your co-religionists (whom I am sure know better) should not let your misrepresentations stand in this public place.

You are essiantially correct…Muhammad did get his “Christian” ideas from a desert Christian sect…some believe it to be Nestorian or Gnostic…but definitely on the side lines of Roman Christianity…the Christians in this sect may have only known of this form of Christianity…isolated sects existed for centuries after the Pauline church allied itself with the imperial government.

 

[rinnie]

I did say seemed to be. I think this accurately described what happened for many people, and that it’s pretty plainly in the historical record. How do you account for the reason why masses of people enthusiastically accepted these new teachings, if you reject the notion that they had lost faith in the Church? Even if you contend they were brainwashed by their leaders, it isn’t any less a case of how reality seemed to them.

Why do People accept new teaching’s even today:shrug: Maybe because they had their own sins that they didn’t want to own up to?

And you will get no argument with me that many Priests and a Pope or 2 have alot to answer for to God for their personal conduct.

But the fact still remains and what I was trying to drive home was even when Jesus walked this earth he had many Apostles who betrayed him.

But why do you think people left the Church and followed Luther? I mean do you feel he was a pilar of the Community; I mean lets face it the Man had Big problems. He was tormented with voices etc That surely does not come from God. God torments no-one.

But my answer is the reason they left then is why they leave today. They did not want to obey the Church. Why do you think they left?

 

[johnnykins]

There were attempts, but one must also remember that there are varying circumstances that ushered in the Reformation in the West that made it impossible in the East.

First, we must remember that the Eastern Orthodox Church at this point was mostly trying to resist the Ottoman Empire which had overwhelmed the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, and conquered the eminent city of Constantinople in 1453. The Church’s efforts were, quite reasonably, confined to resisting Islamization and avoiding being completely annihilated. God only knows the countless numbers of martyrs who died because of their faith.

Aside from Russia, the EOC was already overrun by Islam by 1515. Many Orthodox indeed died as martyrs, and many more over the years simply apostatized. Scholarius opted to be the toady of the Ottomans for the Patriarchal crown. Perhaps that was prudent; perhaps cowardly? Islam was the great reformation of the EOC, as it were.

When you’re in such a volatile and dangerous situation, there isn’t much room for dissent - only for survival.

or capitulation, which was the overwhelming response.

Also, understandably, there was very little room for ecclesiastical corruption.

see Scholarius - such opportunities always are available.

Contrast this with the West, which had largely extricated itself from the Muslims (for the most part). Spain was free by 1498, the Renaissance was in full swing, and the colonization of the Americas had begun. The West was in a much better position economically and culturally to provide for a free exchange of ideas to allow for religious dissent.

indeed

The Catholic Church’s power no longer extended so greatly that it could simply act effectively against the Reformation.

Actually the civil powers simply were willing to support the reformers against the established church - money, power, etc., all playing their part.

Let’s remember that the Council of Trent was declared long after Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

Not sure of the point, but OK

Second, I think we misunderstand how devastating the Black Death was to the Roman Catholic Church. My history professor at college told me that during the plague, priests and religious officials were generally known to move into the cities rather than away during the crisis while most people had fled. They did this to care for the sick and helpless who were largely abandoned. It was a long-standing Christian tradition. Roman officials were quick to note the “crazy” Christians offering to help sick countryman during such crises. He told me that some 80-90% of the Catholic clergy was killed by the plague. This provoked a massive crisis within the Church, which led to the hasty ordination of people who were simply unprepared/ill-placed to serve. Once these men were placed in higher positions of power, they were able to ordain their own priests, which led to a large number of clergymen being corrupted and creating a huge web of corruption.

Corruption was a problem - a serious widespread problem long before the Reformation and independent of the Black Death. See the note above on Scholarius - it applies, too, to Catholic Bishops.

Finally, there were some, very limited attempts at reform within the Orthodox Church. There were attempts at reform, in fact, However, from what I recall they were very small, and entirely unsuccessful at gaining followers for any long period of time. I also think it is reasonable to assume that in many ways, the Orthodox Church, due to Ottoman occupation, was often simply too cut off from the West to feel the effects of the crisis.

The reforms of Peter the Great were more than minor issues. The success of the Western reformers in the East were indeed limited. Even Ivan the Terrible debated them. The fact is in Russia the state controlled the Church - even before the Petrine reforms made the Church a department of the government. The Western reformers who went East simply did not have the support of the state to protect and impose their ideas. BTW the reformers indeed went to the East besides Russia.

 

[johnnykins]

You are correct, I agree with you that Islam’s heretical view of Jesus Christ which denies Jesus divinity, comes from the Orthodox Church which taught and held to a heterodox view of Jesus divinity.

Mohammed (founder of Islam) learned Christianity from teachings from an Eastern Orthodox Bishop named Arius who was excommunicated 2x’s by the Church and labeled his teachings heterodox.

Islam never new a real Catholic Bishop to learn the Orthodox teachings of Jesus Christ held in the Catholic Church.

Islam to this day denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. No wonder Mohammed the founder of Islam invented his new religion to correct Christianity, because he was never taught the Truth of Christianity only a heresy.

Now that the world is smaller, it would do much progress for followers of Islam to learn Christianity from real Catholic bishops who have apostolic succession to the original apostles instead of what their founder of Islam got introduced to a heretical form of Christianity.

You really do overstate - at least - things here.

Certainly many scholars believe that the centuries of heated virulence and nit-picking distinctions that the opposing parties in the East, especially, had with respect to the numerous heresies contributed to the ease with which so many EO abandoned Christianity for Islam - and the sword and taxes, too…

Islam certainly had contact with the west and it’s Bishops. I think most historians would hold that Muhammad took many of his ideas from Judaism and Christianity - and hence the belief that Jesus is not God, being the more natural and easier to accept idea, won out. The Trinity is a difficult concept; the hypostatic union ain’t easy either. A human prophet is one most can buddy-up to.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And you will get no argument with me that many Priests and a Pope or 2 have alot to answer for to God for their personal conduct.

We Catholics must be honest about our past, or reconciliation will never become a reality.

In those days, it was a lot more than “Priests and a Pope or 2”, and yes they will surely answer.

In retrospect, honest intellectual reflection would convince us that this mass act of “disobedience” also triggered the Counter-Reformation, which put many necessary reforms in motion within the Catholic Church, ensuring Her survival and development to the Body we know today.

But the fact still remains and what I was trying to drive home was even when Jesus walked this earth he had many Apostles who betrayed him.

Many? Other than Judas? Yes, they all may have suffered from lapses of faith and belief. Peter denied Him three times. But is that betrayal? Did you mean “Apostles”, or “followers”?

But why do you think people left the Church and followed Luther? I mean do you feel he was a pilar of the Community; I mean lets face it the Man had Big problems. He was tormented with voices etc That surely does not come from God. God torments no-one.

Luther wasn’t out there banging a drum. He wrote a list of grievances, and posted it to the door of the church. In those days, such a posting would likely have been ignored by the illiterate who happened upon it, and picked up by other clergy to be delivered to an abbot or bishop. Such was the manner in which educated clergy engaged their superiors in those days. But, then some disgruntled, educated folk stumbled upon it, and the printing press was recently invented. Soon, unbeknown to him, Luther was the best-selling author in all of Europe! And if the Church were perfect at that time, do we believe that such would have been the widespread reaction to Luther’s document? What if Luther tried to do the same today? Speculation of course, but likely the second he posted his list on the internet, his Bishop would have known about it, and corrective action would have been taken.

But my answer is the reason they left then is why they leave today. They did not want to obey the Church. Why do you think they left?

Your heart is in the right place, friend! However, arguing that the Reformation was simply an act of mass disobedience with no causal factors that could be attributed to our Mother Church is simply not a winning position.

Things are very different today then they were in those days. It is difficult to argue that what drove “disobedience” then in Luther’s day is the same as that which drives it today. We’ve created our own set of problems, a great number outside the Church IMHO. We must work to resolve them, in the present!

Peace!

 

[johnnykins]

Luther wasn’t out there banging a drum. He wrote a list of grievances, and posted it to the door of the church.

Actually it was the way scholars announced they we up for a debate. It was a routine academic act of epic proportions. But, it wasn’t a list of grievances so much as a theological debate - for scholars at the University.

In those days, such a posting would likely have been ignored by the illiterate who happened upon it, and picked up by other clergy to be delivered to an abbot or bishop.

It was on the University chapel door - it was meant to be seen by students and faculty - and it was the routine, normal way to do it.

Such was the manner in which educated clergy engaged their superiors in those days. But, then some disgruntled, educated folk stumbled upon it, and the printing press was recently invented. Soon, unbeknown to him, Luther was the best-selling author in all of Europe!

Europe was already ripe for reformation. Lot’s were disgruntled - with good reason. The printing press had been invested well before the posting. Yes, he did indeed become a best seller - and in Latin.

And if the Church were perfect at that time, do we believe that such would have been the widespread reaction to Luther’s document?

The transcendent Church was and is perfect. The members who make up the Church are anything but…

What if Luther tried to do the same today? Speculation of course, but likely the second he posted his list on the internet, his Bishop would have known about it, and corrective action would have been taken.

You really can’t compare then and now. Also, we’re not that different now from then.

Your heart is in the right place, friend! However, arguing that the Reformation was simply an act of mass disobedience with no causal factors that could be attributed to our Mother Church is simply not a winning position.

Well, we can attribute it to Church members and leaders if not the Church qua Church.

Things are very different today then they were in those days. It is difficult to argue that what drove “disobedience” then in Luther’s day is the same as that which drives it today. We’ve created our own set of problems, a great number outside the Church IMHO. We must work to resolve them, in the present!

Peace!

Well, money, power, greed, pride, envy, sin in all its forms all around - even in the reform and counter-reform - laced with politics, emerging nations, etc., all impacted it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is calumny, which doesn’t surpise me.
Two errors here.
1] Arius was not a bishop

2] If a person teaches heresy he is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, which is why you are wrong to say his teaching were Orthodox teachings. If his teachings had been orthodox he would not have been excommunicated.

It is also not clear what teachings he did encounter in his travels. The deserts were a refuge for all types of people, including numerous varieties of gnostics , Manichaens and other groups, including tribes of nomadic Jews.]

This would be just like someone claiming that the teachings of John Calvin or Menno Simons were teachings of the Catholic church. It is wrong because the Catholic and Orthodox church doesn’t teach Calvinism or Mennonitism, and those men were excommunicated for that reason.

You should not misrepresent these things to people as you do. I know you have been around for a long time and you should know better. What disappoints me is that I have to be the one to point this out to you, your co-religionists (whom I am sure know better) should not let your misrepresentations stand in this public place.

Not responding, simply addressing you, because you might shed light on the following.

I have been curious as to why Arabic Islam was so successful among the Orthodox (as well as some Catholics in the Middle East and North Africa) while Turkish Islam seems to have been far less so. Those areas conquered by Arab Muslims are, today, almost totally Muslim, while virtually all of the areas conquered by the Turks in Europe are not. (Albania, Bosnia and parts of Russia and a tiny bit of Ukraine being exceptions).

Granted, the Arab-conquered areas remained under Muslim domination far longer. (The fairly quick re-Christianization of Spain might be instructive in this regard) Possibly the Turks were more tolerant. Possibly a sort of nascent “nationalism” was more prevalent in places like Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Hungary and Serbia; a “nationalism” that might not have been there in the more cosmopolitan Middle East and North Africa.

Gibbon and Durant at least suggest that the high degree of religious dissent and dissention in the Arab-conquered areas might have been instrumental in the fairly rapid conversions to Islam. Possibly the dissention within Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the Turkish-conquered areas was of a lesser degree.

So, why Syria and not Bulgaria? Is there an Orthodox point of view about this?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It did, in a way, and in some places. Peter the Great “reformed” the Russian Church, but was able to “perfect” the Reformation model. He got power over the Church, but without plunging his country into fratricidal conflict. Peter basically “denatured” the Reformation by removing much of the theological content **while focusing the political aspects of it more carefully.
**
Greece and Greek speaking provinces did not have a reformation because they did not have the luxury of debating what praxis was best. When Luther posted his thesis, the Greeks were entering into the second full genetion after the fall of Constantinople. They were fully engaged in a struggle for their very existence against an invader who was prepared to extinguish their existence as a people. It was hardly the time to overturn all their institutions over the interpretation of grace.

So he was a caesaropapist. Is caesaropapism really Reformation in origin and thus Western?

 

[rinnie]

We Catholics must be honest about our past, or reconciliation will never become a reality.

In those days, it was a lot more than “Priests and a Pope or 2”, and yes they will surely answer.

In retrospect, honest intellectual reflection would convince us that this mass act of “disobedience” also triggered the Counter-Reformation, which put many necessary reforms in motion within the Catholic Church, ensuring Her survival and development to the Body we know today.

Many? Other than Judas? Yes, they all may have suffered from lapses of faith and belief. Peter denied Him three times. But is that betrayal? Did you mean “Apostles”, or “followers”?

Luther wasn’t out there banging a drum. He wrote a list of grievances, and posted it to the door of the church. In those days, such a posting would likely have been ignored by the illiterate who happened upon it, and picked up by other clergy to be delivered to an abbot or bishop. Such was the manner in which educated clergy engaged their superiors in those days. But, then some disgruntled, educated folk stumbled upon it, and the printing press was recently invented. Soon, unbeknown to him, Luther was the best-selling author in all of Europe! And if the Church were perfect at that time, do we believe that such would have been the widespread reaction to Luther’s document? What if Luther tried to do the same today? Speculation of course, but likely the second he posted his list on the internet, his Bishop would have known about it, and corrective action would have been taken.

Your heart is in the right place, friend! However, arguing that the Reformation was simply an act of mass disobedience with no causal factors that could be attributed to our Mother Church is simply not a winning position.

Things are very different today then they were in those days. It is difficult to argue that what drove “disobedience” then in Luther’s day is the same as that which drives it today. We’ve created our own set of problems, a great number outside the Church IMHO. We must work to resolve them, in the present!

Peace!

See as much as I love St Peter I see him denying Jesus as a betrayal in a sense. But what I was taught the difference between St Peter and Judas is Peter repented. They claim he cried so hard that he had welts on his face. But my point is Peter was sorry, Judas never repented he gave into the devil and took the easy way out.

But what I am trying to say and can’t get my point across is this, Nothing that was done by the early leaders of the Church has anything to do with the Church. What I mean by the Church is Christ leading us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The teachings of the Christ never changed because of the sins of the People in the Church, rather leaders or just common people.

Many of Luther’s ideas did not line up with the teaching’s of the Church and that is the truth.

And no offense but do you really think Luther had the right to throw stones. Look how he lived his life! Where was he any better example.

But my point is I respect him for the Truth that he did teach, and if we were to stay with a Church or leave a Church by the behavior of any Human Being where would we go??

He was throwing stones at the things the Leaders of the Church were doing. I do not even disagree with him for that, but its the way he went about it when he did not get what he wanted I disagree with. He had no authority to start another Church. If he did where did he get his authority.

Jesus said he and his Church are one, and he started the CC and promised he would stand by us until the end of age. Jesus never promised us that the leaders would ever be perfect or sinless. He actually even warned us the devil would never quit trying to tear down the CC. And he has never quit trying. But he has never nor will ever do it.

Bottom line Luther never did it either. The Catholic Church is still here. Luther was no better person then the sinners he condemned.

And you must show me ONE thing that Luther could give me that I can not get from the Catholic Church. You won’t and you can’t!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8782012]This is calumny, which doesn’t surpise me.
Two errors here.
1] Arius was not a bishop

Not an error, a misunderstanding; True Arius was an Eastern priestly monk, who in his early years was raised by Bishop Peter to deaconship, later to be excommunicated by Peter due to Arius support of “another” schismatic group Meletians. Achillas Peter’s successor freed Arius from his excommunication ordained him a priest and put him as “overseer” in charge of one of the great churches of the city called Baucalis, which is the misunderstanding.

My point to all of this is that Arius teachings were raised to the Eastern bishophoric is what I failed to write with clarity.The followers of Arius became Arian Bishops ruled in the Eastern Church’s for example an Arian bishop replaced the deposed Bishop Eustathius of Antioch, Another Arian bishop deposed St.Athanasius. It is no secret that the Eastern Emperor Constantius imposed Arianism on the Whole Church, which by this time had splintered into different forms of Arianism.

If a person teaches heresy he is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, which is why you are wrong to say his teaching were Orthodox teachings. If his teachings had been orthodox he would not have been excommunicated.

Another misunderstanding; The simple point I have made which you misunderstand is that the Arian heresy derived from the Eastern Church’s later to dubb themselves “Orthodox” to distiinguish themselves from such heresies such as Arianism who were teaching heterodox.

It is also not clear what teachings he did encounter in his travels. The deserts were a refuge for all types of people, including numerous varieties of gnostics , Manichaens and other groups, including tribes of nomadic Jews.

Allow me to correct my sentence; Mohammed (founder of Islam) learned Christianity from teachings (that derived from Eastern heretical sects) such as those teachings taught from Eastern Arian Bishops who followed the teachings of Arius who was excommunicated 2x’s by the Church and labeled his teachings heterodox.

Mohammed allied himself with Arianism teachings who denied Jesus Christ divinity but held to the view of Jesus humanity was a far superior type.

This similarity is not surprising between Islam and Arianism, because Arianism flourished on the fringes of the Roman Empire from Northern Europe to Arabia, far from the center of Rome. Let us not get confused here Constantinople was the new Rome where the Eastern Emperor ruled over the Eastern Church’s.

In fact the early church regarded Islam as it regarded Arianism to be a Christian heresy and gave it the name “Muhammadism”.

It is one thing for you to try and defend Eastern heretics which came from the Eastern Church’s as not being Orthodox, which changes the subject matter being addressed, which you appear to be good at creating a deception. If ever you need clarification from my posts, you just need to ask, but trying to discredit my character is getting too old from your Orthodox apologetics when your theories begin to lose effect and slide away when Truth confronts them.

Peace be with you

 

[PJM]

=tomarin;8776531]Anyone have a theory about this?

YEP

They weren’t BIG enough to be a target.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You really can’t compare then and now. Also, we’re not that different now from then.

Enjoyed your post. I obviously took some “shortcuts” in mine, and thank you for clarifying some of the historical notes.

On the caption above, I do hope we are different now, but I understand where you are coming from …

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

By the way I do not deny the wrong that the early Church leaders have done anymore then I would deny the damage the Priests of today has done. There is no excuse for the sin they commited and they will face God with it.

But my point if I may once more, You can’t condemn the Church for the failures of the leaders.

That would be like myself now leaving Christ in the Eucharist because of what a Roman Catholic Priest did. I hate the disgrace they have done to my Dear Jesus and his Church, but thier sin will still not make me leave my Lord in the Eucharist.

And trust me I take ALOT of abuse for the sin they committed. I was told because I still am still Roman Catholic and do not leave my Church and my Christ I am also guilty:shrug:

And I am sure many of my brothers and sisters in the faith have suffered. How about he GOOD PRIESTS and there are many, talk about being persecuted. They did nothing wrong.

But my point is in modern day people still leave the RCC because of the sins that were committed. But its still the Church of Christ and will always be. He started it. He will end it. When he see’s fit. And as long as its here, I will support Christ in his Church.