I am starting to REALLY like the Catholics (OC plz read)

[bibleberean]

Christians should do good works.

We are saved for them. I don't know any true Christians that preach otherwise...

After all that is what the bible states...


Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

 

[Orthodoxy]

cj,

I am only gouing to respond to this portion of your post at this time

You say:

A history lesson....... In the early years of the Church, Satan did all that he could to put and end to the "way"........ he had believers executed, he had them hated, cast out, beaten, imprisoned, and surely persecuted to the ends of their strength.

But the Church continued, and even grew in numbers, despite this torrid persecution.

Then Satan changed his tactics, and in an act of extreme craftiness and guile, he "joined" himself to the body so that a counterfeit might be produced from within her.

And thus was the Roman institution conceived, and later, made manifest.

This is the "great deliusion" upon the earth today. You are telling me in this statement that Satan entered the "body of Jesus Christ", the Church, in which Jesus said the "gates of hades would not prevail" and destroyed it until American protestantism was formed? When did the Church fail? Did the Church fail in 325ad in the Council of Nicea or in the Book of Acts in the Council of Jerusalem headed by James? The great delusion is that Jesus is a failure possessed by the devil and needs 20th century man to "reform" His possessed Church!

Maybe it is you that needs a history lesson?

In the book of Acts we see a council of the CHurch in Acts 2 where the Aposltes replace Judas. We see the Church in council in Acts 15 on the subject of Circumcision. We have councils after the death of the Aposltes. Then in 325 ad Constantine called a Council to end the strife caused by a priest named Arius who stated "there was a time when Jesus Christ was not". This false teaching was ripping the Church apart thus the Church met to hash out this issue and others. When it was over they had determined books of scripture and wrote the Nicene Creed of 325 ad disspencing with any notion Jesus Christ is not truely light of Light and true God of true God. Godly men by the Holy Spirit determined both of there issues. There were only 4 deligates from Roman at that time BTW and the Pope did not even attend so how can that be an "all roman catholic church affair?

The ENTIRE Church agreed in condemning Arius even the Roman Catholics.

In 381 ad there was issue on the Holy Spirit. Thus the Church met in Council and proclaimed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as stated by Jesus Christ in John 15:26. The entire Church agreed to this statement even the Roman Catholic Church.

Over time other issues came about like Iconography, the dual nature of Christ etc. These issues were agreed upon in Council up to the seventh Council. The Church recognizes the first 7 ecumenical councils the only valid councils of the Church in which all members agree.

In 1054, offically, the Roman Catholic Church by the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" seperated themselves from the Church in its confession the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is your demonic possession for why would anyone change the words of Jesus Christ unless possessed? For 600 year the Roman Catholic Church confessed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then they changed this without full agreement of the Church. The Roman Church broke away from the Church in 1054 ad.

It was not until 1517 ad when a young roman catholic preist named luther did the protestant religion begin. Luther never protested Mary, nor the Eucharist. He did not protest the roman catholic change to the words of Jesus and the Nicene Creed! Fact is Lutherans today confess the Roman trinity in the Roman Creed of 1054 ad! All protestant groups stem from this initial protest of the Roman Church. The Orthodox Church missed the reformation all together!

This is your history as an american protestant. A fallen away Roman Church in 1054ad (and what a great fall it was!) then a rebellious roman priest starts his own "christian faith" as the pope did in 1054 ad 500 years later. From this initial rebellion began a cascading flow of self styled preaches until today in america we have "home churches" that resemble nothing of the Christian faith.

There is your history lesson. History proves the Holy Orthodox Church the authentic and historical Church, unchanging in doctrine and faith, unswayed by the western rebellious world, unadulterated by satan and his hordes, the organic body of Jesus Christ on the Earth, pure.

The gates of satans hades cannot come against the Church because gates are stationary and static and do NO WORK. On the other hand the Church is offensive in nature and takes the "fight to the gates". The Church is timeless within time. The Church spaceless within space. Unchanging because Jesus Christ is unchanging. Ancient because He is the "ancient of Days". New because He is the "bright and morning star". Matthew 13:52

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. Luke 5:39.

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

Christians should do good works.

We are saved for them. I don't know any true Christians that preach otherwise...

After all that is what the bible states...


Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

bibleberean,

Then you agree with the Church. Works are merely "running the race" once one enters. To me if one is not working then one is not running a very good race.

The question must then be: how does one enter the race?

Is a race won by sitting down after one enters?

Can one walk out of the race an "quit"?

Are there rules to the race and who defines the rules?

Are there officals officiating the race and do they have any authority?

Does the "rule book" over ride the authority of the writters?

If one looks at salvation as a race which BTW the Church has never taught otherwise then salvation is not and cannot be a one time event but we grow with "good works". Works help is grow or "run the race". Works are in the rules of the race. Jesus called it "alms giving". Jesus said "when" you give alms not IF you give alms. Fact is if one investigates the Christian faith "alms" are above and beyond the "tithe" which is 10% of your first fruits. Jesus expected His followers to give the tithe then commanded them to give alms on top of that.

Tell me why the heterodox let yourself insist works are for salvation when anyone like the orthodox tout "doing good works" as a fruit of the Holy Spirit?

We are not the ones making that claim. You make that claim about us which is not true. Why?

Orthodoxy

 

[bibleberean]

Orthodoxy,

I find your post enigmatic.

I only agree with a church when that church agrees with the bible.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:23

I don't put my faith in churches but in Christ and His Holy Spirit points me to the bible.

I don't do homework or write essays on request...

My name is Robert not Fido... :D

If you have a point... just make it...

Thanks,

Robert

 

[Orthodoxy]

I have been watching quite a bit of EWTN lately and the Franciscan (I think that is spelled right) monks that come on late at night....

I like the fact that there preaching style is more about trying to understand different points of view and SHARING the Gospel message rather than FORCING it down peoples throats....

Plus the Orthodox and Catholic systems are the oldest Churches and there have been many Holy men, Saints and mystics like Augustine and the like which are very inspirational for me personally!

Last night the monk was explaining how Assisi used to see Christ in ALL THINGS. His blood on the roses, his tears in the rain, his cross in the trees, etc.... That is awesome and I am surprised that I have never heard that kind of preaching before and it made my heart glad!

It sure beats the brow beating protestant hellfire messages thats for sure!

I agree the Orthodox and pre 1054ad Roman Church are the authentic, historical and ancient Church. Unfortunately the Roman Church took it upon themselves to walk away from the Christian faith known in the orthodox understanding. The Romans did this in 1054 ad. Is this a fault of the Church? Not at all. The orthodox faith holds fast to that which has always been understood by the Church and delievered by the saints from Jesus Christ. The 381 ad Nicene Creed that the entire Orthodox Church confesses proves this fact. I challenge anyone to refute any of its points and call themselves "christian" The Church does not force Itself on anyone......

We would all do well to dust off the history books and compare what is truth in the light of the time tested and space transending, eternal unchanging Church, knowable and tanglible, relational. For anyone to say they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ one MUST have a personal relationship with this timeless and eternal "body of Jesus Christ", The Church.

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

Orthodoxy,

I find your post enigmatic.

I only agree with a church when that church agrees with the bible.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:23

I don't put my faith in churches but in Christ and His Holy Spirit points me to the bible.

I don't do homework or write essays on request...

My name is Robert not Fido... :D

If you have a point... just make it...

Thanks,

Robert

Until now I had no idea what your name was. If you find answering a few basic questions annoying, I can understand. I can also understand you not wanting to part with that vast storehouse of knowledge and wisdom that the Holy Spirit grants to you as the "manifold wisdom of God". Assuming of course you personally are truely "the Church" unto yourself.

That said let us disect and discern your post with basic dictionary
words so we can all understand what you mean.

Main Entry: enig·mat·ic
Pronunciation: "e-(")nig-'ma-tik also "E-(")nig-
Variant(s): also enig·mat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
: of, relating to, or resembling an enigma : MYSTERIOUS
synonym see OBSCURE
- enig·mat·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I find no mystery in the fact the Holy Orthodox Church is the body of Jesus Christ on the Earth. My question is what makes you a member of the Body?

If you agreed with the Church then you would be lead by the Holy Spirit to the Church because the testimony of the Holy Spirit is the "fulness of Him" and according Jesus Christ that is the Church. The Holy Spirit who "proceeds from the Father" will testify of fulness of Jesus Christ. John 15:26, Ephesians 1:22-23.

It is a mystery to those outside.

Jesus said "tell it to the Church" thus Jesus's Church trumps the protestant "bible" they exalt to idoldom. Where did Jesus give all the authority of His Father to a book please? I cannot find one quote of Jesus sending a book like His Father sent Him. Can you please give me a scripture where Jesus or any one for that matter gives the bible we have today any authority what so ever. Jesus was always talking to 12 men basically and if you read John chapter 14 through 17 you would soon see the Holy Spirit only leads and guides a man to Jesus Christ and His Church. Jesus Christ instructed and instructs men, ordains men, builds His Church on men, and conducts His affrairs through men in His Church. There is no other path to the "bible" but through the Church. There is no sure salvation but through Jesus Christ, the Church. No man comes to the Father but through "the fulness of Him", the Church. The "fulness of Jesus Christ" saves!

One "hears" reading a book? or hearing the voice of God through His Church, the mouth piece of the Holy Spirit? No, one hears by oral transmission. Are you saying one must have a bible to be saved and hear the gospel? The Holy Spirit is not going to lead one to "the Body of Jesus Christ" but to a book? Am I reading that right? The Holy Spirit testifies to a book not Jesus Christ?

If you have no faith in the Church then you have no faith in Jesus Christ, sorry but that is the simple truth. The one mystery understood by the Church and explained by Paul was that the Church and Jesus Christ as the Head are one and the same, both in heaven and on the earth. The real mystery is: how is the body of Jesus Christ both on earth and in heaven eternally without change at the same time as Jesus stated. The question is this: does anyone need to be organically connected to this organic body living His life?

You obviously dont want to face reality and investigate the faith you so proudly claim. That is fine but we are warned to "study to find yourself approved" and that is not limited to "bible alone". I did not ask you to write anything. I am asking you to think with your God given brain. I would never call you a dog nor did I treat you in such a manner. I merely asked some hard question. I ask questions to learn and discern the spirit you are from as commanded. If this offends you, I understand your spirit.

I guess my point now would be to you is:

Why do you want to be called "christian"? or maybe I am being forword in assuming you are a "christian". Is it a mystery?

Orthodoxy

 

[Pelagia]

bibleberean wrote:

I only agree with a church when that church agrees with the bible.

The Bible that was officially compiled in 325 A.D.? What about the works of the holy men and women who lived before the Bible, as we know it, came into existence? How did they follow Christ's teachings, if they didn't have a Bible to flip through and underline?(BTW - underlining in the Bible is treating it like a text book - it's an holy object that should be respected as such and not defaced with underlining and side notes.)

The church they were following, chose the books that were to be in the Bible. And that was done at the First Ecumenical Council. And then 6 more Councils followed until 787 A.D. This church stands on the teachings of the Bible that you quote to no end.

I don't put my faith in churches but in Christ and His Holy Spirit points me to the bible.

And Christ established a church through the Apostles, who passed down their faith to the next generations. A Church was established and continues to live with the Holy Spirit's guidance and that Church is Orthodoxy. Read the history and you will see the connection.

I don't do homework or write essays on request...

How about as a suggestion? I really do admire the faith in Christ that you and many here have. I really do. And that's why I want so much for you to search into the history. Especially the writings of the holy fathers before 1000 A.D., to start. They lived in the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit that you say is guiding you. Now, are you and other Bible-quoters here the only ones that are guided by the Holy Spirit or is it possible that there were people who lived, say, 400 years after the Resurrection who also could have been living by the Holy Spirit? And they were living in the Holy Spirit everyday, so that their faces shone with the Light of Grace. Does your face shine with such a brilliant Light? They were worshipping in the Church that was established by the Apostles; it was unbroken. Certainly beats all the confusing denominations we have now, doesn't it?

In Christ,

Pelagia

 

[Orthodoxy]

bibleberean wrote:

I only agree with a church when that church agrees with the bible.

The Bible that was officially compiled in 325 A.D.? What about the works of the holy men and women who lived before the Bible, as we know it, came into existence? How did they follow Christ's teachings, if they didn't have a Bible to flip through and underline?(BTW - underlining in the Bible is treating it like a text book - it's an holy object that should be respected as such and not defaced with underlining and side notes.)

The church they were following, chose the books that were to be in the Bible. And that was done at the First Ecumenical Council. And then 6 more Councils followed until 787 A.D. This church stands on the teachings of the Bible that you quote to no end.

[quote:c973b]I don't put my faith in churches but in Christ and His Holy Spirit points me to the bible.

And Christ established a church through the Apostles, who passed down their faith to the next generations. A Church was established and continues to live with the Holy Spirit's guidance and that Church is Orthodoxy. Read the history and you will see the connection.

I don't do homework or write essays on request...

How about as a suggestion? I really do admire the faith in Christ that you and many here have. I really do. And that's why I want so much for you to search into the history. Especially the writings of the holy fathers before 1000 A.D., to start. They lived in the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit that you say is guiding you. Now, are you and other Bible-quoters here the only ones that are guided by the Holy Spirit or is it possible that there were people who lived, say, 400 years after the Resurrection who also could have been living by the Holy Spirit? And they were living in the Holy Spirit everyday, so that their faces shone with the Light of Grace. Does your face shine with such a brilliant Light? They were worshipping in the Church that was established by the Apostles; it was unbroken. Certainly beats all the confusing denominations we have now, doesn't it?

In Christ,

Pelagia[/quote:c973b]

A hearty Amen! Good to "hear" a voice of reason even if it will be ignored. Thank you very much.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

 

[thessalonian]

In 1054, offically, the Roman Catholic Church by the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" seperated themselves from the Church in its confession the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is your demonic possession for why would anyone change the words of Jesus Christ unless possessed? For 600 year the Roman Catholic Church confessed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then they changed this without full agreement of the Church. The Roman Church broke away from the Church in 1054 ad.

Nonsense. The Orthodox Church separated from the papacy of which the Bible says "the gates of hell shall not prevail". You believe there is some sort of a disconnect in the trinity by which it does not proceed from the Son? They didn't need the full agreement by the way. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. You should have submitted to Rome. By the way it is not contradictory to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father. Then to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The second is more complete.
: :

 

[Soma-Sight]

WOW!

There is sure some passion in these posts on the topic of the Catholic Church!

Hell has its place as far as the Gospel goes.....

Fortunately false doctrines of a God that burns sinners that commit finite crimes for an infinite amount of time is not to be found in scripture!

The overiding message of the whole Gospel can be found in Matthew 25.

Preparing yourself for Christ through spiritual discipline and INTERNAL house cleaning, selfless service, love to man and God is what the REAL Gospel is about!

Not hellfire, fear inducing, guilt ridden, spiritually negative bully tactics!

Here is a great article on the MIStranlations of what "hell" is really about!

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html

 

[Orthodox Christian]

In 1054, offically, the Roman Catholic Church by the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" seperated themselves from the Church in its confession the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is your demonic possession for why would anyone change the words of Jesus Christ unless possessed? For 600 year the Roman Catholic Church confessed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then they changed this without full agreement of the Church. The Roman Church broke away from the Church in 1054 ad.

Nonsense. The Orthodox Church separated from the papacy of which the Bible says "the gates of hell shall not prevail". You believe there is some sort of a disconnect in the trinity by which it does not proceed from the Son? They didn't need the full agreement by the way. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. You should have submitted to Rome. By the way it is not contradictory to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father. Then to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The second is more complete.
: :

Since Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in AD 431 is still in effect, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed can only be changed by a true Ecumenical Council. This means the whole Body, East and West.

Regarding the nature, substance, and potential resolution of the issues dividing East and West:
I think it wise to leave such matters to the hierarchs and theologians of our respective traditions. There has been constructive dialogue towards understanding and mutual accord, and knee-jerk position taking by the laity does nothing to foster the completion of the resolution.

 

[Orthodoxy]

Orthodox Christian,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Regarding the nature, substance, and potential resolution of the issues dividing East and West:
I think it wise to leave such matters to the hierarchs and theologians of our respective traditions. There has been constructive dialogue towards understanding and mutual accord, and knee-jerk position taking by the laity does nothing to foster the completion of the resolution.

With all due respect my brother, heirarchs and theologians have confronted this issue and plainly the Church never taught this theology of dual procession. We are plainly told that all good and perfect gifts come from the Father of lights. We are told Jesus Christ is the "only begotten of the Father" before all ages who proceeds from the Father. We are told the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Plainly the Father is the originator of all things. Procession is not a "creative act" thus the Son and the Holy Spirit are not creations but existed "with" the Father before all things. The only thing that existed before all things was God. Thus the Three persons of the Trinity can all be called God individually and collectively.

The problem with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is that this doctrine changes the dynamics in the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If one takes the logical conclusion to the dual procession issue then the Father must proceed from the Son and the Holy Spirit for all proceed from and into each others person in this model. This model of God changes the relationship of the persons in the Trinity.

Flatly, my brother, this made up doctrine of demons creates another "god" made in the mind of man. The Son in this model is another Jesus Christ. I believe the fathers of the faith who were much more spiritfilled than I explained and documented this issue well and agreed that the Holy Spirit, "who proceeds from the Father" is the true Holy Spirit that testifies of the true Jesus Christ. This Holy Spirit leads and draws a man to the "body of Jesus Christ". As you know this Jesus Christ can only be understood and known in a personal relationship with and through the Holy Orthodox Church.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

 

[thessalonian]

Since Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in AD 431 is still in effect, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed can only be changed by a true Ecumenical Council. This means the whole Body, East and West.

Well if the East were still in communion with the west I would agree with you. But since they have separated themselves there is no reason for them to be made a part of such decisions. They have rejected the Bishop of Rome. Your brother says we are not even Christians:

" Unfortunately the Roman Church took it upon themselves to walk away from the Christian faith known in the orthodox understanding.".

We walked away from the Christian faith eh? That's real ecumenical of him now isn't it. Perhaps you should reprimand him that he should let theologians tackle such issues.

Regarding the nature, substance, and potential resolution of the issues dividing East and West:
I think it wise to leave such matters to the hierarchs and theologians of our respective traditions. There has been constructive dialogue towards understanding and mutual accord, and knee-jerk position taking by the laity does nothing to foster the completion of the resolution.

Well, the filoque is one such item and you have chosen to broach that and then the items I raise you say, well let's let the hierarchs and theologians address those. That's a pretty interesting tactic for undermining your opponents position. I am not buying it however. "On this Rock I will build my Church" it says and "the gates of hell shall not prevail". Have you ever read Is 22 in this regard.
Jesus happened to be parrelleling a verse in the Old Testament in Matt 16:18.

Is 22
19: I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


The opening and shutting in rabinical language is equivalent to binding and loosing from what I understand. Note the clear parrellels of the keys, and opening and shutting relating to the binding and loosing. So much could be said about this verse with regard to Matt 16:18 and Catholic theology. It was of course literally fullfilled when Eliakim was given Shebna's office of "steward" or kind of like the prime minister under the king. The kings spokesman. If you look back in 2 Kings 18 you see Eliakim fullfilling this role in going before the Assyrian king and speaking for King Hezikia. But the point is not the keys in both verses. Keys are an indication of succession. I got keys for my house when I bought it. When I pass it along to another I will give them the keys. Shebna was in a long line of stewards since the time of David. It was an office and that indicates succession as well. So your problem with Matt 16:18 is no problem at all. The keys and the implications of this passage with regard to IS 22 indicate and office is being conferred on Peter.

Christ chose one Apostle to lead his Church. History shows that this leadership was passed on singularly to Linus, then Cletus, then Clement on down the line. The scriptures tell us the gates of hell will not prevail on this office of Peter which is the Rock that Christ was speaking of. So if I were in a sect that broke away from this office, I would have to seriously consider that it might be me that was blind to a significant teaching of Christ.


Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Since Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in AD 431 is still in effect, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed can only be changed by a true Ecumenical Council. This means the whole Body, East and West.

Well if the East were still in communion with the west I would agree with you. But since they have separated themselves there is no reason for them to be made a part of such decisions.

By the definition of the Councils, there is no 'Oecumenical Council' without the consent of the synod of Bishops, including East and West. You will find that the East has made not pretense toward an 'Oecumenical council' since the schism.

They have rejected the Bishop of Rome. Your brother says we are not even Christians:

" Unfortunately the Roman Church took it upon themselves to walk away from the Christian faith known in the orthodox understanding.".

We walked away from the Christian faith eh? That's real ecumenical of him now isn't it. Perhaps you should reprimand him that he should let theologians tackle such issues.

One of the obstacles to reconciliation is that we have people on both sides taking a sort of Donatist position: "those people walked away, why should we restore them? Away with them."

And, much like that particular rebellion, we will have hierarchs who will have to discipline the super-rigorists who would stand in the way of reconciliation.

I think it appropriate for Catholic and Orthodox laity to allow their respective hierarchs to work through differences with our schismated brethren in the East, West, and among the non-Chalcedonian believers

Regarding the nature, substance, and potential resolution of the issues dividing East and West:
I think it wise to leave such matters to the hierarchs and theologians of our respective traditions. There has been constructive dialogue towards understanding and mutual accord, and knee-jerk position taking by the laity does nothing to foster the completion of the resolution.

Well, the filoque is one such item and you have chosen to broach that

screech hit the brakes pal, already addressed that. Rome had no authority to change that, but that was hardly the only reason for the schism. Besides, Rome has tacitly agreed to not use the filioque when concelebrating liturgy with the East- and the East has tacitly agreed that the current Roman explanation of the addition is not obejectionable in scope.

and then the items I raise you say, well let's let the hierarchs and theologians address those

.

Yes, unless you wish to be a Protestant. You do remember that the church is the pillar and ground of truth, not your opinion or mine?

That's a pretty interesting tactic for undermining your opponents position. I am not buying it however.

I'm completely unimpressed by your 'not buying.' Whether it be a tactic or not is moot- as you said, your position is undermined. Your opinion is important to you, but I'm much more interested in the opinion of your hierarchs, especially your past two Patriarchs/Popes who you seem to be quite out of step with- I mean, for a guy who ostensibly is a supporter of a Vatican 1 type papacy.

Christ chose one Apostle to lead his Church. History shows that this leadership was passed on singularly to Linus, then Cletus, then Clement on down the line. The scriptures tell us the gates of hell will not prevail on this office of Peter which is the Rock that Christ was speaking of. So if I were in a sect that broke away from this office, I would have to seriously consider that it might be me that was blind to a significant teaching of Christ.

You present a distorted image of how authority was given. First, it was given to Twleve, and to Seventy. When Jesus breathed on them, He breathed on Twelve. When He gave His authority, He gave it to the Twelve. The Apostles so this being such a vital issue that they quickly filled Judas' vacant episcopacy.

Further, we see that Peter stood up among the brethren, as the first among equals, but we see that it was James, the Bishop of Jerusalme, who gave the dictum from the council. We see throughout the history of the Church concilliar action, not unilateral action.

The scriptures demonstrate this, as does history, as do the councils and the canons thereof.

James

 

[fiat]

My brothers,
It does very little good to argue over what seperates us. Our Faith, since the time of the apostles, has never been about personal opinion. Rather we are asked to submit to the authority of the Church. The leaders of the East and West are working towards reunion...let's support our shepherds with prayer. May God, through the intercession of the Theotokos, grant us speedy reconciliation as Christ is truly Present among us.
In Him-
Elizabeth

 

[Orthodox Christian]

My brothers,
It does very little good to argue over what seperates us. Our Faith, since the time of the apostles, has never been about personal opinion. Rather we are asked to submit to the authority of the Church. The leaders of the East and West are working towards reunion...let's support our shepherds with prayer. May God, through the intercession of the Theotokos, grant us speedy reconciliation as Christ is truly Present among us.
In Him-
Elizabeth

Quote that, dig that, live that.
Bravo.

Christ is among us.

 

[thessalonian]

My brothers,
It does very little good to argue over what seperates us. Our Faith, since the time of the apostles, has never been about personal opinion. Rather we are asked to submit to the authority of the Church. The leaders of the East and West are working towards reunion...let's support our shepherds with prayer. May God, through the intercession of the Theotokos, grant us speedy reconciliation as Christ is truly Present among us.
In Him-
Elizabeth

Qualified Amen. I do not degree that theological debates are of little value among the laity. But I am all for the issues being resolved and when the East submits to the Papacy, that will happen. The other issues I think are minor compared to that. Until then, it's not going to happen. The Catholic Church would have to go back on all of Vatican I and II Lumen Gentium in order to go to the patriarchy of Orthodoxy. It would have to reject the already declared infallible canons of Vatican I concerning Papal infalliblity. This just isn't going to happen. It is not in line with scripture that it should.

That said I am all in favor of resolving these things and fully support the efforts on both sides.

Blessing

 

[thessalonian]

I've been thinking about an orthodox/Catholic reuniting today. It's not going to happen but I was reflecting on the backlash that there would be if the resulting resolution included denial of Papal infallibility vs. a resolutoin that simply acknowledged the authority of Rome which is not denied in any official cannon anywhere that I know of. I can tell you from a Catholic perspective that a denial of Papal infallibility would result in my believing that the gates of hell had prevailed. I say this with full confidence that Christ's words are true and the gates shall not prevail.

Now you may say, oh well that is not what that verse means. In Catholicism it is EXACTLY what that verse means is the point. It doesn't matter what yo u believe it means with regard to some future resolution where the Churches are united. The Catholic Church will simply not change it's position on the matter. Not because of the fallout, per se, that would indeed occur, and of which I am sure they would be very well aware of if the discussions got in to that territory, but because it simply veiws it as a truth of scirpture that it has not power to go against or change.

Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I've been thinking about an orthodox/Catholic reuniting today. It's not going to happen but I was reflecting on the backlash that there would be if the resulting resolution included denial of Papal infallibility vs. a resolutoin that simply acknowledged the authority of Rome which is not denied in any official cannon anywhere that I know of. I can tell you from a Catholic perspective that a denial of Papal infallibility would result in my believing that the gates of hell had prevailed. I say this with full confidence that Christ's words are true and the gates shall not prevail.

Now you may say, oh well that is not what that verse means. In Catholicism it is EXACTLY what that verse means is the point. It doesn't matter what yo u believe it means with regard to some future resolution where the Churches are united. The Catholic Church will simply not change it's position on the matter. Not because of the fallout, per se, that would indeed occur, and of which I am sure they would be very well aware of if the discussions got in to that territory, but because it simply veiws it as a truth of scirpture that it has not power to go against or change.

Blessings

And here you contradict the words of your new Pope, who has made one of his chiefest priorities of his papacy reconiliation with the East. He has called upon clergy and laity to assist in the promotion of this cause.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=532621

Thus, you have both denied the declaration of your Bishop, and have endevored to work against his stated intent.

Did you say that you were a Catholic?

 

[thessalonian]

I've been thinking about an orthodox/Catholic reuniting today. It's not going to happen but I was reflecting on the backlash that there would be if the resulting resolution included denial of Papal infallibility vs. a resolutoin that simply acknowledged the authority of Rome which is not denied in any official cannon anywhere that I know of. I can tell you from a Catholic perspective that a denial of Papal infallibility would result in my believing that the gates of hell had prevailed. I say this with full confidence that Christ's words are true and the gates shall not prevail.

Now you may say, oh well that is not what that verse means. In Catholicism it is EXACTLY what that verse means is the point. It doesn't matter what yo u believe it means with regard to some future resolution where the Churches are united. The Catholic Church will simply not change it's position on the matter. Not because of the fallout, per se, that would indeed occur, and of which I am sure they would be very well aware of if the discussions got in to that territory, but because it simply veiws it as a truth of scirpture that it has not power to go against or change.

Blessings

And here you contradict the words of your new Pope, who has made one of his chiefest priorities of his papacy reconiliation with the East. He has called upon clergy and laity to assist in the promotion of this cause.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=532621

Thus, you have both denied the declaration of your Bishop, and have endevored to work against his stated intent.

Did you say that you were a Catholic?

First of all my Bishop is Harry Flynn. An Archbishop by the way. Benedict XVI is my Pope. Secondly could you perhaps spell out how I contradicted him. I read the article and don't see it. If your going to accuse I think it best that you substantiate your accusations rather than just posting a link.

Blessings to ya.