WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does the Bible and early Church define a Saint? And I’m not saying that I don’t doubt the usage of the term developed over time. But I’m not sure that Scripture is specific…
It does NOT define such as Saint & and saints are more recent theological therms; however that heaven exist and " a few" attain it is clear;;

Mt 7: 13-24
[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock"

GBY
 
Yes, I suppose Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world.

Now, how about the Judaizers? Were they heretics? Paul thought so. Of course the Judaizers thought Paul was a heretic; and they perhaps had the stronger position since they were led by James himself, the brother of Jesus. Paul was simply an outsider who bullied his way into the apostolic college.
That is a poor choice of words to describe Paul’s witness as an Apostle. He suffered, preached the Gospel, performed miracles, laid out what happened to him and what he was preaching before Peter, was commanded to be received through a Deacon, etc.
 
Don’t feel bad. I’ve asked that question many times over 13 years here, and so far no one has given me an answer … yet. But I’m waiting 😉
I [Me here] have NOT the slightest idea of what THAT questions, but as the OP, ASK ME and I will respond to it

God Bless you!
Patrick
 
I understand the dictionary definition and it seems simple. Just anybody who has a different belief than the norm. But who gets to be the norm? Thus Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world.
The answer to that is simple. The Jewish world was split into factions. The Church Jesus started and promised to build was 100% Jewish in the beginning. So their was a portion of the Jewish world who accepted Jesus. Jesus also gave his people the first right of refusal to follow Him. But He forced no one to do that
#17

Since Jesus is the one who set the terms of belief, here is just one of many examples that can be used to sho why that was

At Jesus Transfiguration, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and yes God the Father were all there together on top of Mt Tabor… By having Moses and Elijah there, And Peter communicated with THEM as well, those OT figures represent the law and the prophets of the OT. Therefore everything Jewish. THAT was the Jewish world. And what did God the Father say? “This is my Son who I am well pleased, listen to Him” In Context

Bottom line, those who listened, believe correctly.
W:
The Apostle Peter, the first Pope in the Catholic lens would have been a heretic until Paul confronted him publicly over his stance on the Jew/Gentile thing.
Here’s looking at that episode through a Catholic lens, from Jerome, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church. He and Augustine, also Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church, were discussing this very matter.
St Jerome wrote #15

That said, I hope you don’t use your argument again after seeing this in a whole different light.
 
That is a poor choice of words to describe Paul’s witness as an Apostle. He suffered, preached the Gospel, performed miracles, laid out what happened to him and what he was preaching before Peter, was commanded to be received through a Deacon, etc.
Of course to say Paul bullied his way into the apostolic college sounds terrible to our ears, but that is what he did from the point of view of the Judaizers. Paul wasn’t one of the original apostles who knew and travelled with Jesus. The Judaizers would have thought of Paul as a johnny-come-lately who was preaching heretical doctrines. Paul with Peter won out though, and the Church with its magisterium considers the Judaizers to be the heretics.
 
Has the Church Confirmed that age? Do we know how old he was? Maybe he was interpreting Scripture alone, to come up with that theory… ?

I realize not everything he said was Sacred Tradition. Some was most likely opinions, or tradiations in the lesser sense.

Do you have that quote from him? I would like to see it in context.
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6)

Make with it what you want. I am not here to say you are wrong and do something my way, just to point out that saying a Church Father said this or quoting him doesn’t just prove it immediately. I was once “very thoroughly schooled” here on CAF on who Irenaeus was and “he knew what he was talking about”.

Well, maybe he did know? But then that just puts more questions into my head that I am too tired for this time of night.

Regards
 
Heretics? Oh, you mean non-Catholic Christians! 😦
Hmmmmm:hmmm:

I [ME here] wonder; does one HAVE to actually know they are in error to so labled:shrug:

I personally do not favor this terminology when not speaking precisely of their FOUNDERS who invented so many of their beliefs; while followers, often born into this or that church

GBY or at least “buy into” thier faith beliefs, often I suspect, without investigation of same.

Patrick
 
Hmmmmm:hmmm:

I [ME here] wonder; does one HAVE to actually know they are in error to so labled:shrug:

I personally do not favor this terminology when not speaking precisely of their FOUNDERS who invented so many of their beliefs; while followers, often born into this or that church

GBY or at least “buy into” thier faith beliefs, often I suspect, without investigation of same.

Patrick
There used to be a term, “material” heretic that referred to the followers of the founders of the heresy.
 
Interesting,

As the OP I have addressed this issue already several times in this STRING:)

The Foundation is that TRUTH can only be singular per defined issue; nothing else is possible or even logical

NO “church” can be separated from its OWN freely chosen set of Faith beliefs [please see my POST #464

Until and unless these to facts can be grasped; then no right understanding is possible

And as you [I think] said in a prior post; “Nowhere in the bible CAN it be shown that GOD even one time desired, tolerated, accepted ot even ver looked ANY competing set of faith beliefs and practices”

GBY
Patrick, are you taking the time to read the posts people are presenting? Look at #405, 424, 468 &469. You are not grasping what he presented to you. He is showing you that your statement in last paragraph above is false. Unless I am totally out to lunch!
 
The question was

When is the first time in history that we see “Orthodox Church,” in writing, properly referenced.
J:
it is essentially a meaningless question for a number of reasons. The questioner is setting up a question along the lines of. ‘Why don’t the McDonalds on the planet Venus serve lava milkshakes?’ The question is of the same order or relevance ultimately.
The question is easy and apparently most instructive. Because if one had an answer they’d give it in a heartbeat. Why has it not been answered for all the years it has been asked?
 
**

Our friend Latin Right ME thinks is posing as a Catholic":eek: And certainly does NOT reflect our beautiful Catholic Faith in His post that I have read**🤷 The consistancy of HIS errors leads me to this conclusion.

Thanks

GBY

Patrick [the OP]
God bless PJM,

Do you believe, those who believe the teaching of the RCC includes: CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. only posing as Catholics but in reality they are not Catholics? – Seems to me you believe it.

PJM as follows, the RCC has a BEAUTIFUL message PRSONALLY for you.

CCC 1271 … Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; **they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." **“Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.” End quote.

**THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE TEACHINGS / THEOLOGICAL TRUTH **
  1. The members of the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Christians.
  2. As the True Christians are the True Churches, as the results the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Churches.
  3. As the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches **become True Churches, the RCC could not be any longer The One True Church but a True Church **a part of the Universal Church with the parts of the other True Churches.
At the point of the declaration of CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. fulfilled again the common saying from St. Augustine **" Rome has spoken; the case is closed." **(Sermon 131:10)

There is no room for further debate on CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.!!!

PJM you are NOT fighting with me, you are fighting WITH the beautiful faith/teachings of the RCC.

You are accepting or rejecting CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.,** the RCC not going back on her beautiful teaching/faith on CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.**

I suggestion for you PJM, open your heart and accept CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.

**“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” on CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.

Please stop fighting with the RCC on CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.**

What do you think PJM, who are in errors, those who are accepting CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. and love their Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ OR those who are rejecting CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. and rejecting our Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox brothers and sisters???

God bless,

LatinRight
 
Because if one had an answer they’d give it in a heartbeat.
Not remotely. That may be true of Catholic apologists who have made quote mining into a ‘science’ but it is quite alien to the Orthodox mindset.
 
**

Our friend Latin Right ME thinks is posing as a Catholic":eek: And certainly does NOT reflect our beautiful Catholic Faith in His post that I have read**🤷 The consistancy of HIS errors leads me to this conclusion.

Thanks

GBY

Patrick [the OP]
God bless,

As follows, the RCC has a BEAUTIFUL message PERSONALLY for me, described in CCC 818, 819, 1271.

A part of this beautiful message as follows:


CCC 1271 … Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; **they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." **“Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.” End quote.

I wonder, if I vehemently reject this beautiful message of the RCC described in: CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. Am I still a Catholic or only a disobedient Catholic???

God bless,

LatinRight
 
God bless,

As follows, the RCC has a BEAUTIFUL message PERSONALLY for me, described in CCC 818, 819, 1271. etc.

A part of this beautiful message as follows:


CCC 1271 … Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; **they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." **“Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.” End quote.

I wonder, if I **vehemently reject **this beautiful message of the RCC described in: CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. Am I still a Catholic or only a disobedient Catholic???

God bless,

LatinRight
 
Patrick, are you taking the time to read the posts people are presenting? Look at #405, 424, 468 &469. You are not grasping what he presented to you. He is showing you that your statement in last paragraph above is false. Unless I am totally out to lunch!
Maybe its just ME:shrug:

But POST # 405 & 468 are the same reference
  1. It’s Paul not Christ or Yahweh
  2. And even here Paul is NOT accepting other gods, BUT explaining their error as be superstition & then explaining Christianity
  3. POST #424: a time of “ignorance” is not precisely articulating another faith and no specific example is give here for me to respond too
GREATLY appreciate your heads up, but don’t see where my position is in error?

GBY

Patrick
 
Still Not sure of the relevance but here is what I found:)

The Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late third/early fourth centuries, and the derived Latin word (orthodoxus or ortodoxus) was also first used at about that time. There is an earlier verb ὀρθοδοξεῖν, meaning “to have correct beliefs”, used by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. As far as I know, Aristotle’s coining is original, not based on any other language.

In Christianity, the term originally became popular to describe those groups that adhered to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), even though the Oriental Orthodox churches that you mention are exactly the opposite, not accepting the Chalcedonian dogmatic definition. The Oxford English Dictionary (under orthodox, 3) suggests that this is due to a later assumption that “Orthodox” refers to anybody who was not on the Catholic side at the time of the Great Schism (1054). So it seems that “Orthodox” was first associated with the Eastern Orthodox churches, and only later became applied to the Oriental Orthodox.

For the reasons set out below, I think that the group term “Oriental Orthodox” was invented or at least popularized in the 1960s; and that at least some of the churches in question had Orthodox in their name for some years before that, though probably not earlier than the eighteenth century.

It is a bit hard to distinguish between a church that uses Orthodox as part of its name, and one that merely describes itself as orthodox. Certainly, people have been calling themselves small-o orthodox for centuries, and in some cases that shifted from “we are orthodox” to “we are the Orthodox”. The unambiguous use of Orthodox in the name is comparatively recent, in all cases.

church history - When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'? - Christianity Stack Exchange

“Orthodox” as a title of the Eastern Orthodox churches

From what I can see, the term “Orthodox” was not used as a distinctive term until many years after the Schism. The more normal way was to talk about the Eastern Church and the Western Church. The everyday usage was “the Greeks”, though this is of course inaccurate since not all Greeks are Orthodox and not all Orthodox are Greek. Meanwhile, Christians in general could be called orthodox or catholic for some centuries, regardless of their east-west allegiance.

For example, in the proceedings of the Council of Basel (1431-5), we read “the Greeks” as the standard term for the Greek Orthodox delegates, as opposed to “the Romans”; but “the orthodox faith” and “the catholic church” are both used to mean Christianity in general.

The Orthodox churches were certainly using the term as part of their identity by 1672, since the record of the Synod of Jerusalem contains many references to Orthodoxy as a tradition and as a communion (eg, talking about “our Orthodox religion”, “Orthodox bishops”, etc.). They were undoubtedly trying to use the term to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics, and to a lesser extent the Protestants. But even then, “Orthodox” was not part of the name of the church: the synod talks of “the Eastern Church”, which holds “the Orthodox faith”, but they don’t use the title “Orthodox” for the church itself

Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

“ORTHODOXY. Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy. The term is used in the East to identify those churches (not united with Rome) which accepted the ancient councils, notably Ephesus and Chalcedon, and which call themselves “the holy, orthodox, catholic, Eastern Church.” In the West the word is sometimes used to describe a justifiable concern for sound doctrine in the Catholic faith. (Etym. Greek orthos, right + doksa, opinion: orthodoksa, having the right opinion.)”

Catholic Encyclopedia

The technical name for the body of Christians who use the Byzantine Rite in various languages and are in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome. The epithet Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion. It is almost exactly a Greek form of the official title of the chief enemies of the Greeks, i.e. the Moslems (mu’min, fidelis). The Monophysite Armenians called themselves ughapar, meaning exactly the same thing.

How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Easternheretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.

It would be very difficult to find the right name for this Church. “Eastern” is too vague, the Nestorians and Monophysites are Eastern Churches; “Schismatic” has the same disadvantage. “Greek” is really the least expressive of all. The Greek Church is only one, and a very small one, of the sixteen Churches that make up this vast communion. The millions of Russians, Bulgars, Rumanians, Arabs, and so on who belong to it are Greek in no sense at all. According to their common custom one may add the word “Eastern” to the title and speak of the Orthodox Eastern Church (he orthodoxos anatolike ekklesia).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Orthodox Church

GBY

Patrick
 
The question was

When is the first time in history that we see “Orthodox Church,” in writing, properly referenced.

The question is easy and apparently most instructive. Because if one had an answer they’d give it in a heartbeat. Why has it not been answered for all the years it has been asked?
THANKS:D

Please see POST #494

GBY
 
Not remotely. That may be true of Catholic apologists who have made quote mining into a ‘science’ but it is quite alien to the Orthodox mindset.
That’s a non answer.

BTW, I put as a requisite, in answering my question, references to the answer must be given **AND **they need to be properly referenced.

that said, when you say that requisite, i.e. using quotes from scripture, ECF’s, and sacred documents, to show and demonstrate one’s position, is alien to the Orthodox mindset, is that true? Or is that your personal position?

In all fairness, Orthodox Bishop Ware in his book “Orthodoxy” discussed the difficulty Orthodoxy had in maintaining scholarship under Muslim rule.

Once a majority of the East was conquored by Islam, education was very difficult for easterners to acquire, even about their own faith… **#131 **you need to read this internal link I posted **intratext.com/x/eng0804.htm

**particularly (links are operational)
**The Church under Islam **
“Greeks who wished for a higher education were obliged to travel to the non-Orthodox world, to Italy and Germany, to Paris, and even as far as Oxford. Among the distinguished Greek theologians of the Turkish period, a few were self-taught, but the overwhelming majority had been trained in the west under Roman Catholic or Protestant masters. Inevitably this had an effect upon the way in which they interpreted Orthodox theology. Certainly Greek students in the west read the Fathers, but they only became acquainted with such of the Fathers as were held in esteem by their non-Orthodox professors.”

Prodromos,

I don’t “quote mine”. I give quotes and references properly referenced…

Again, that’s why I require references to be properly referenced. from others as well.

Fast forward from the episode Bp Ware refers to, ALL Church history is available today for EVERYONE to read. It has never been easier than today to access
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top