Orthodox Catholic aint Roman Catholic

[stovebolts]

Seems there is a bit of confusion on the boards. I know that I was confused.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

I have recently visited two Orthodox Churches and was greeted with respect both times.

I have also in the past attended Roman Catholic services adorned in Maryism.

I saw No statues in or around either Orthodox Church, literally NONE of any size, shape or form. One Orthodox Church was named Holy Mary. Ironically, there was one icon (picture) with Mary holding the Baby Jesus in the whole place. Icons of Jesus were everywhere.

Both Orthodox Churches had a picture of the Last Supper as the leading focal point and the icons of Jesus on the cross were moving.

Furthermore, The Orthodox Church refutes the Roman Catholic Church in many areas including Mary's Immaculate Conception.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in either doctrine, but I would like to point out that I see a lot of confusion arising from a lot of people attacking the Orthodox Catholic Church on Roman Catholic Church issues that do not exist in the Orthodox Catholic World like they exist in the Roman Catholic World. An analogous argument would be to claim that the Baptist hold the Sabbath day as holy. Sure, the 7th day Adventist and the Baptist have two totally different doctrines and it’s just silly to argue that the Baptist hold the Sabbath as a sacred day like the Adventist.

Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. As a result, the Orthodox claims to not have changed from apostolical teachings, while the Roman Catholic Church, in their ecumenism has seemingly transposed their doctrine around this ecumenism.

I am not advocating for the Orthodox Church here nor am I advocating for the Roman Catholic Church, I am simply stating some fundamental differences that I have seen first hand. I would encourage that those apposed to the teachings of the Orthodox Church get their arguments straight as to minimize further confusion.

Peace be with all.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Thanks Stove Bolts:

You have given a classic example of someone who looks into a matter and sees for himself. I really have no issue with informed dissent- it is attacks made in ignorance that confuse and frankly irritate me.

I want it to be known that we do have some important distinctives with Catholics, but I also want it to be known that as I listen to Catholics, I hear many things that all believers would agree with, expressed in a different manner.

So we ought to listen to one another prayerfully, and guided by the Holy Spirit. We should pray for the gift that fell upon the believers on the day of Pentecost: the ability to understand one another singing the high praises of God in diverse languages.

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto
Doxa Patri kai Gio kai Hagio Pnevmati
Glory to the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit

 

[stray bullet]

Seems there is a bit of confusion on the boards. I know that I was confused.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

Not really, the only differences are on a few doctrinal issues and the Tradition of the Primacy of Peter.

Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. As a result, the Orthodox claims to not have changed from apostolical teachings, while the Roman Catholic Church, in their ecumenism has seemingly transposed their doctrine around this ecumenism.

That is incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantiople separated himself from the Catholic Church in 1054 and established the Orthodox church. He later convinced other eastern Churches to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
He actually kicked off the schism by attacking Latin parishes in the city of Constantiople, having them closed. It was for this action and others that he was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, which was an obvious course of action. The ex-communication even specifically pointed out those under him were not ex-communicated. Orthodox often like to refer to this ex-communication as 'proof' Rome separated themselves. They neglect to mention that the Catholic Church did not separate themselves from the east and even specifically pointed that out- as well as why the Church did it.

The Maronite Church, for example, did not separate themselves from the Catholic Church. They are Catholic not because they left the Orthodox Church, but because they did not join the east in their schism.

The Orthodox flatly rejects the beliefs their Patriarches held before their schism and rejected parts of Tradition that interferered with the legitimacy of their new church.

The Catholic Church has not abandoned one single bit of apostolic teaching, the Orthodox have. Rome is known as "the Apostolic See" for a reason- even the eastern (now Orthodox) Christians called it that.

"Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ..." Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (638)

Today's Orthodox disagree with the Patriarch. It gets in the way of the Patriarch of Constantiople being the true head of the church.
That's what Orthodoxy is all about and what it is founded on, leaving Rome and and making the second in command the first.

 

[thessalonian]

Stovebolts,

There are some errors in your post.


Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:17 am Post subject: Orthodox Catholic aint Roman Catholic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems there is a bit of confusion on the boards. I know that I was confused.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

"I have also in the past attended Roman Catholic services adorned in Maryism.

What does this mean? Is it just that you saw a statue of Mary or two? Or does it mean that everything in the service was about Mary. If it is the later that is simply a lie. Mary's name is perhaps mentioned once or twice in the Mass. You may have come accross a group saying a rosary in the chappel. But the rosary is actually as much if not more about Christ. We meditate on his life, death, and resurection.

I saw No statues in or around either Orthodox Church, literally NONE of any size, shape or form. One Orthodox Church was named Holy Mary. Ironically, there was one icon (picture) with Mary holding the Baby Jesus in the whole place. Icons of Jesus were everywhere.

Orthodox tend more toward icons. We use statues. I don't see a whole lot of difference. Most Protestants I know in general have overemphasized images such that all are evil and so I am not sure what your point is.

Both Orthodox Churches had a picture of the Last Supper as the leading focal point and the icons of Jesus on the cross were moving.

Catholic Churches usually have a crusifix which reminds us of what Christ did for us to make the grace of the Mass available to us. So what's your point.


Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:17 am Post subject: Orthodox Catholic aint Roman Catholic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems there is a bit of confusion on the boards. I know that I was confused.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

I have recently visited two Orthodox Churches and was greeted with respect both times.

I have also in the past attended Roman Catholic services adorned in Maryism.

I saw No statues in or around either Orthodox Church, literally NONE of any size, shape or form. One Orthodox Church was named Holy Mary. Ironically, there was one icon (picture) with Mary holding the Baby Jesus in the whole place. Icons of Jesus were everywhere.

Both Orthodox Churches had a picture of the Last Supper as the leading focal point and the icons of Jesus on the cross were moving.

Furthermore, The Orthodox Church refutes the Roman Catholic Church in many areas including Mary's Immaculate Conception.

I actually find few areas that we really differ on. The Immaculate Conception is one, though I am not sure they have a huge problem with Mary's it. The Papacy is perhaps the biggest one. The filoque problem I truly believe isn't that big. They don't use the word transubstantiation or purgatory, but the differences in what they believe on this matters are suddtle and hardly put them in the protestant camp.

Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. As a result, the Orthodox claims to not have changed from apostolical teachings, while the Roman Catholic Church, in their ecumenism has seemingly transposed their doctrine around this ecumenism.

You claim no bias but your whole post is biased against the Catholic Church. Further, you display your ignorance of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I find it really quite incredible how close Catholics and orthodox are after 1000 years of separation. It points for me to a common source of Tradition. I seriously from my conversations with OC and from reading his posts don't see enough that differentiates us outside the Papacy which was clearly in operation before 1054, and which Eastern Bishops submitted to, that is significant. So it is not as cut and dried as one might think as to who left who, but our Magesteriums will work that out. Further you don't even understand what Ecumenism is in the Catholic Church. It is dialogue between other Christian Churches, especially the Orthodox. You claim we have been influence by Ecumenism yet I would have to say that in some sense we are further from Protestantism than they. Further in my conversations with OC, he has a very similar view to what I do regarding salvation of those not formally Catholic/Orthodox and so I think your point about Ecumenism is quite invalid. We call the interaction between Catholicism and other non-Christian religions religous dialogue. It has a different purpose of Ecumenism.

Blessings though

 

[thessalonian]

Stove,

You make it sound as if Orthodox are Protestant in their views on the Immaculate Conception. I would say they are not far from the Catholic view. OC can correct this if he likes but here is a summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

"Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they do not share the Roman Catholic Church's views on original sin. They note that St Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation. Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth. Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, there is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception, similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist, however there was no cleansing of original sin, since it is believed by the Orthodox Christians that one cannot inherit original sin, or any sin for that matter."

I see that reconcilliation is quite possible on this matter. I think you overemphasize the "many" differences between us.

blessings though

 

[cj]

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

Actually, now you are really confused.

This is what happens when one looks at the outward and concludes it must be representative of what is on the inside.


Ever seen a house when it has just been built on sand? Looks great, just like the house across the street that is also built on sand. One might even start to think that there is a community thing going on with these two houses.

But then the storm comes, and the sand shifts, and the families are left homeless as the wonderful looking houses fall apart.

Don't be faked out by appearance StoveBolts, don't eat of the lie. And even more, don't even give an appearance of doing so, for it might stumble a younger one, and you will most certainly be asked about it in that day.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Point of order:
The events that occured in 1054 neither began nor completed the schismation between West and East.

Assessing blame and interpreting the history of what occured is best left in the able hands of our Bishops, West and East, who are laboring to heal the rift.

As Thessalonian has stated, we find much in common, and even our differences are often matters of definition.

Even the substantive matters are finding resolution:
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/13367.html?1067716122

 

[stovebolts]

There are some errors in your post.

Then by all means, set the record straight.

You claim no bias but your whole post is biased against the Catholic Church. Further, you display your ignorance of Catholicism and orthodoxy.

Bias? Only stating what I am able to comprehend at this time.
As far as ignorance, guilty as charged. Now let me ask,

From a Protestant perspective, is it fair that the Orthodox be guilty by association? I see no rosery in the Orthodox faith. I saw no shrines as I understand a shrine to be of Mary in the Orthodox Church.

You say that there are subtle differences. Let us look at Baptism.

The Bible shows us by example that the act of Baptism has always been done by full emersion. Any Protestant that believes you must go through the act of Baptism believes that one must be fully emersed. The Orthodox Catholic use full emersion. The Roman Catholic use a sprinkling of water. I'd say that's a pretty big difference from a biblical standpoint.

From this one example (Ommitting the argument of infants being baptised), The Orthodox keep to tradition and scripture by fully emersing the believer.

Again, it is my intent not to divide the RCC from the Orthodox, it is my intent to sort out the differences between the two.

 

[stray bullet]

Point of order:
The events that occured in 1054 neither began nor completed the schismation between West and East.

Assessing blame and interpreting the history of what occured is best left in the able hands of our Bishops, West and East, who are laboring to heal the rift.

As Thessalonian has stated, we find much in common, and even our differences are often matters of definition.

Even the substantive matters are finding resolution:
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/13367.html?1067716122

Yes, forgive me for making it sound like it began with the closing of the parishes- the tensions arose long before that. I think fault lies on both sides.

I hope that we will be one Church again very soon. Personally, I'd really like to be able to attend eastern parish beyond the scattered eastern Catholic ones.

 

[thessalonian]

From a Protestant perspective, is it fair that the Orthodox be guilty by association? I see no rosery in the Orthodox faith. I saw no shrines as I understand a shrine to be of Mary in the Orthodox Church.

There are prayers to Mary and the Hail Mary itself is essentially contained in the following Orthodox prayer:

Rejoice, O Virgin Mother of God, Mary, full of grace! The Lord is withyou! Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, foryou have borne the Savior of our souls."

You say that there are subtle differences. Let us look at Baptism.

The Bible shows us by example that the act of Baptism has always been done by full emersion. Any Protestant that believes you must go through the act of Baptism believes that one must be fully emersed. The Orthodox Catholic use full emersion. The Roman Catholic use a sprinkling of water. I'd say that's a pretty big difference from a biblical standpoint.

Once again you betray your knowledge of the two. Catholicism DOES NOT SPRINKLE. We do allow pouring but Immersion is said to be the fullest sign of baptism. It is preferred though less used because of logistical reasons that are obvious, though I find more parishes tending toward it. I would bet you that the Orthodox do not rebatpize someone who has been baptized by pouring in the Catholic Church. Further I think the outright denial of many protestants of the need for baptism for salvation, and the denial of the confering of the Holy Spirit on the baptizee as well as the denial of the removal of original sin by baptism, puts the Orthodox alot closer to the Catholic camp. You raise form to the most important matter but I will bet OC will agree that this is a minor issue compared to the others mentioned.




[quote:6eae2]Again, it is my intent not to divide the RCC from the Orthodox, it is my intent to sort out the differences between the two.

[/quote:6eae2]

I appreciate that. I am learning from it. But you seem to be tryin

 

[thessalonian]

Actually I am glad you raised this issue SB because I have been analyzing it lately. Many Protestants will say something to the effect that "the Romanist doctrine of Purgatory was invented by the Catholic Church at the Council of Flourence in the 1400's". But the fact is that the Orthodox belief is so close to the Catholic one with regard to what happens at death that there is very little credibility to such claims. Transubstantiation is anyother one. The word was coined after the split but the closeness of the Orthodox view to the Catholic one on the matter shares light on the matter, indicating that the teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, which I think OC will agree with, and is the heart of the Lord's Supper, shows that Protestants in general don't know what they are talking about regarding such doctrines and history.

Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Actually I am glad you raised this issue SB because I have been analyzing it lately. Many Protestants will say something to the effect that "the Romanist doctrine of Purgatory was invented by the Catholic Church at the Council of Flourence in the 1400's". But the fact is that the Orthodox belief is so close to the Catholic one with regard to what happens at death that there is very little credibility to such claims. Transubstantiation is anyother one. The word was coined after the split but the closeness of the Orthodox view to the Catholic one on the matter shares light on the matter, indicating that the teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, which I think OC will agree with, and is the heart of the Lord's Supper, shows that Protestants in general don't know what they are talking about regarding such doctrines and history.

Blessings

It would be good, I think, to step away from the arguments for a bit, and perhaps do some posting on comparitive theology between Orthodox, Catholic, Oldline Protestant, Evangelical, and Messianic- with the premise not being debate, but comparison and understanding.

We needn't ignore or downplay our differences, but we needn't overstate them, either. Overstating them has been the primary focus of much of the posting on this Apologetics forum.

I have a few ideas in mind, but it would require the permission of and some oversight from the moderators.

Anyone who would be interested in positively stating the positions of their tradition/denomination regarding communion, prayer, saints, authority, and the like, please PM me. I'd like to see how much interest there would be, should this posting be firmly limited to stating theology in a positive and non-argumentative manner.
James

 

[Lewis]

""HUH""" they are still Catholics aren't they ? Worlds apart how ?

 

[AwedbyGod]

You obviously have a computer. Do a little research.

""HUH""" they are still Catholics aren't they ? Worlds apart how ?

 

[stovebolts]

It would be good, I think, to step away from the arguments for a bit, and perhaps do some posting on comparitive theology between Orthodox, Catholic, Oldline Protestant, Evangelical, and Messianic- with the premise not being debate, but comparison and understanding.

Well Said. This was my point.

Once again you betray your knowledge of the two.

I enjoy you setting the record straight as I make no claim as to being an expert in this area. Please, continue on.

Catholicism DOES NOT SPRINKLE. We do allow pouring but Immersion is said to be the fullest sign of baptism.

Sprinkle... Pour... It still aint a full dunk... I didn't see any pouring stations in either Orthodox Church that I visited. Just a simple observation.

It is preferred though less used because of logistical reasons that are obvious, though I find more parishes tending toward it.

It? It being pouring? or it being full imersion? Sorry, I get confused with the pronouns.

I would bet you that the Orthodox do not rebatpize someone who has been baptized by pouring in the Catholic Church..

I generally don't bet except for the Mega Millions each Friday and I generally loose. Can an Orthodox Catholic validate this claim?

Further I think the outright denial of many protestants of the need for baptism for salvation, and the denial of the confering of the Holy Spirit on the baptizee as well as the denial of the removal of original sin by baptism, puts the Orthodox alot closer to the Catholic camp...

But I'm not talking about the Protestants view on Baptism. Please, don't sidetrack here. Let each of us own what we own. Yes, there are a lot of differences between the Orthodox, Roman and Protestants. My point here is that many are not seeing the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic. hence, it's creating a lot of confusion. God, is not the author of confusion.

You raise form to the most important matter but I will bet OC will agree that this is a minor issue compared to the others mentioned.

Remember, there is a reason that Martin Luther broke away from the Church... Is it safe to say that the Protestants protested against the Roman Catholic Church and not the Orthodox Catholic Church. What role did the Orthodox play in this matter? These are all areas that I know little to nothing about, but I am seeing the value in knowing them.

You obviously have a computer. Do a little research.

And I am and have been. Other than the Orthodox Christians, who has entered an Orthodox Church let alone attended a service? Actually, I've been doing a bit more than reading pages from a computer monitor. I've been accumulating pamphlets directly from the Orthodox Churches and speaking with actual people that I know about the Orthodox Church that are members of the Orthodox Church. It's amazing how co-workers can discuss the same topics without flaming each other.

I will maintain my Protestant view point, but I will not knowingly falsly accuse my Brother.

Don't be faked out by appearance StoveBolts, don't eat of the lie. And even more, don't even give an appearance of doing so, for it might stumble a younger one, and you will most certainly be asked about it in that day.

In love,
cj

The Orthodox have a closed communion that I am not worthy of.

My Brother, I seek truth and to cover truth through ignorance is a lie as is allowing ignorance where it causes division. For a moment, I would like to reference Matthew 18:6 [offend, strongs 4624: to entrap, i.e. trip up (figuratively, stumble (transitively) or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure):--(make to) offend.] with 1 John 2 for you and I are both Children of God. I do not seek to set traps for my brethren or my enemies.

We should be edifying each other in Christ, but as long as some continue to hide under the veil of deception by offence, the confusion will continue for God is not the author of Confusion.

""HUH""" they are still Catholics aren't they ? Worlds apart how ?

Let us then have understanding, and not offence and confusion. I am the first to admit my ignorance, but knowing, is the first step toward understanding.

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[stray bullet]

Actually I am glad you raised this issue SB because I have been analyzing it lately. Many Protestants will say something to the effect that "the Romanist doctrine of Purgatory was invented by the Catholic Church at the Council of Flourence in the 1400's". But the fact is that the Orthodox belief is so close to the Catholic one with regard to what happens at death that there is very little credibility to such claims. Transubstantiation is anyother one. The word was coined after the split but the closeness of the Orthodox view to the Catholic one on the matter shares light on the matter, indicating that the teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, which I think OC will agree with, and is the heart of the Lord's Supper, shows that Protestants in general don't know what they are talking about regarding such doctrines and history.

Blessings

It should be pointed out as well that the Catholic Church is mostly like to rejoin the Orthodox than any other church and the Orthodox to rejoin with the Catholics than any other church.

Furthermore, that the differences between the Catholics and Orthodox are not the differences between the Catholics and protestants, with the exception of the Primacy of the Pope. Since protestants are from the Catholic Church, they follow our beliefs on the nature of the Trinity and original sin. The Catholics and Orthodox are both against protestant beliefs like sola scriptura/fide/etc and their view of communion.

 

[Orthodoxy]

StoveBolts,

Seems there is a bit of confusion on the boards. I know that I was confused.

I believe it is a planned and calculated duping of the protestant faith by the Roman Church. As we go along you will understand what I mean.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are worlds apart in many, many areas.

Yes, however every good counterfeit is hardly distinguishable from the original. So we must understand that an imposter jesus (another Jesus the bible says) will look much like the real Jesus. Is it any wonder the Orthodox are copied and not just by the Roman Church.

I have recently visited two Orthodox Churches and was greeted with respect both times.

Excellent.

I have also in the past attended Roman Catholic services adorned in Maryism.

I would not fault the Roman Church to much for loving Mary however they look at her in a different way than the Orthodox, ie we dont accept the "immaculate conception" because that would mean Mary's parents were also immaculately concieved which is not the case. We reject the idea of here Ascention as the Romans believe Mary did not die but was wisked away bodily like Elijah. The Orthodox believe Mary died (dormition)and by the Resurrection of her Son her body was resurrected (acsention). The Orthodox dont accept the "co redemtrix" innovation of the Roman Church.

I saw No statues in or around either Orthodox Church, literally NONE of any size, shape or form. One Orthodox Church was named Holy Mary. Ironically, there was one icon (picture) with Mary holding the Baby Jesus in the whole place. Icons of Jesus were everywhere.

The Orthodox faith is all about Jesus Christ. Everything in the Church speaks of His life.

Both Orthodox Churches had a picture of the Last Supper as the leading focal point and the icons of Jesus on the cross were moving.

Yes. Again a counterfeit will always mimic the original.

Furthermore, The Orthodox Church refutes the Roman Catholic Church in many areas including Mary's Immaculate Conception.

As I just explained. For Mary to have been concieved in an "immaculate" manner her parents would nessassarily need to be "immaculately" conceieved also. Thus the theology crumbles under the weight of its own illogial error.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in either doctrine, but I would like to point out that I see a lot of confusion arising from a lot of people attacking the Orthodox Catholic Church on Roman Catholic Church issues that do not exist in the Orthodox Catholic World like they exist in the Roman Catholic World. An analogous argument would be to claim that the Baptist hold the Sabbath day as holy. Sure, the 7th day Adventist and the Baptist have two totally different doctrines and it’s just silly to argue that the Baptist hold the Sabbath as a sacred day like the Adventist.

I agree and have repeatedly pointed this out. The orthodox christian in tossed in to the same firey protestant pit because we appear "Roman Catholic" and the protestants have been told over and over by the Romans that the Orthodox are like the "left lung" of the Church. "a sister church". If this is truth then why are they trying to convert russia to the Roman Catholic faith? Why is one family member trying to get the other to denounce their faith if we are a "sister church"? Very sly indeed.

Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. As a result, the Orthodox claims to not have changed from apostolical teachings, while the Roman Catholic Church, in their ecumenism has seemingly transposed their doctrine around this ecumenism.

Correct "offically" the Roman Church walked away from the faith in 1054ad. The issue of the "filioque" was the hinge pin of the whole seperation. In 584ad a Roman Priest in Spain fighting the Arian heresy that says Jesus is a created man who God bestowed divinity upon. In this fight the council of Toledo Spain chose to make Jesus Christ "more God" by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. In other words they added "and the Son" to the Church's 200 year old understanding of the nature of God recited in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed of 381ad. The Roman Church for 700 years proclaimed and confessed the Holy Orthodox Church's statement of faith before the offical proclaimation of "and the Son" in 1054ad. This is historical fact. The Orthodox changed nothing as you have stated. Fact is in later councils and agreed upon by the Roman Church the entire Church said this:

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD
the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise.

The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

The Roman Church agreed to this long before the addition of the filioque to the Creed. Now I am not going to go into why this addition changes the nature of God but when it was added it gave us another Jesus. An imposter.

The Orthodox believe in the Jesus who is the only begotten of the Father before all ages, proceeds from the Father, is sent by the Father.

The Orthodox believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, is sent by the Son, and testifies of the only begotten Son. The Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father testifies of the Son.

The Filioque says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son", is sent by the Father and the Son.

Can you see the dynamic relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has been tampered with?

BTW the Protestant Churches beginning with Luther, Calvin, Wesley and others NEVER denied the "filioque" addition and to this day they confess the 1054 ad Roman Catholic Creed. They confess a heresy yet pick at nits with "mary hate" and anti catholic propaganda. Even the non denominatonal evangelical protestant christian church I "came out of" professed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Not one scripture in the bible states this belief but the Protestants believe it. Duped by Roman Catholic Church into believing in their version of Jesus Christ. The Protestants will even defend this error of Rome at the same time hating rome because of Mary. How twisted is that?

I am not advocating for the Orthodox Church here nor am I advocating for the Roman Catholic Church, I am simply stating some fundamental differences that I have seen first hand. I would encourage that those apposed to the teachings of the Orthodox Church get their arguments straight as to minimize further confusion.

I agree there are differances. The filioque I believe started the entire rift and if this issue would be rectified then reconciliation might have a chance. I would say to all the Roman Catholic that we await your return to the Original and Authentic faith given and preserved in the Holy Orthodox Church. We want you to return to the roots and trunk of the Christain tree.

Thank you Jeff for shining the light of truth on this subject.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

 

[thessalonian]

As I just explained. For Mary to have been concieved in an "immaculate" manner her parents would nessassarily need to be "immaculately" conceieved also.

This of course is quite false and the Catholic Church does not teach it. God made a virgin concieve and bear a son. Why on earth he could not make his mother free of original sin is beyond me. Doesn't God have power over sin? Didn't he cleanse your soul in baptism? Your continued hostility toward Catholicism is duly noted Orthoman. It does little good on these boards. Now I am sure I will be attacked. That's fine. Have at it.

By the way it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary did not die. It is an allowed belief that she did not, but so is it that she did die. I actually lean toward the latter. You deny the Ascention? I hope not. Christ definitely ascended in tho heaven.

 

[stray bullet]

Would Jesus let Satan have influence over his own mother? I don't think so.

Did Mary have pain in giving birth to Christ? Remember, the pain in childbirth is a consequence of original sin. Can you really see Jesus being brought into the world in pain?!

 

[cj]

God made a virgin concieve and bear a son. Why on earth he could not make his mother free of original sin is beyond me.

Because of His righteousness.

Doesn't God have power over sin?

Its not a matter of what God is capable of, its a question of His economy for dealing with sin.

Didn't he cleanse your soul in baptism?

No. He does not such thing at baptism.


In love,
cj