Orthodox Catholic aint Roman Catholic

[thessalonian]

and this brings us to the "infallible popes" through the ages. Which popes were infallible the ones agreeing with 381 ad statement of faith or the ones rejecting the 381 ad statement of faith?

Dont tell me, let me guess, BOTH camps!

Orthodoxy, their isn't much I can say to you that will convince you of anything. Neither have you convinced me of anything. Where is the fruit from your flame and belittling. That is my biggest objection with you. It is the most critical question. This is not about winning arguements which you are bent on doing. It is about truth and helping people see it. Your flame and belitting of everyone on the board does nothing but boose your overinflated ego. You are a steward of truth, not an owner of truth.

The Church is the final authority not one man. Jesus made that abundantly clear in Matthew 18 when He said "tell it to the Church" not "tell it to Peter's representative". I answer to the Church not the Pope.

You will continue to ignore Matt 16:18 and treat it like the Protestants do, deny the very words this Christ whom you claim to follow spoke. Very sad. Oh, by the way I follow the Church. More false dichotomy by you.

Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

[quote="stray bullet":a6995]

Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so.

No, it does not.

Yes it does.

In love,
cj

Show me scriptural proof.

Jesus suffered all things human in His humanity, if He didn't He would not have been human.

Your original statement was such ignorance and so absolutely unscriptural that I reall have no need to continue this. Ther is nothing in scripture that would support your silly thought that Mary did not have any pain while giving birth to Jesus.

As for your other statement about Jesus not letting His mother suffer,.... really, He has no problem letting His brothers suffer, but His mother gets off.

Where do you guys come up with this crap?


In love,
cj[/quote:a6995]
Why don't you simply supply text to support your earlier assertion.
Mary's heart was pierced with grief, it is not being said that she never suffered.
But this is not your assertion

Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so

That was your assertion.
Chapter and verse please.

 

[cj]

Why don't you simply supply text to support your earlier assertion.
Mary's heart was pierced with grief, it is not being said that she never suffered.
But this is not your assertion

Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so

That was your assertion.
Chapter and verse please.

OC, I'll disregard your silly haughtiness...... Begin with verse one of chapter one in Genesis and go right through to the end of Revelation 22, maybe by the grace of God it will dawn on you.


In the mean time, maybe you can ponder Jesus in His humanity as revealed by the truth found in the following,.....

Mark  6 : 3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? And they were stumbled in Him."

The blind despisers' word here may be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa. 53:2-3 concerning the Slave-Savior: "As a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men." To know Him in that way was to know Him in His humanity according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16), not in His deity according to the Spirit (Rom. 1:4). In His humanity He was a root out of dry ground, a twig out of the stem of Jesse and a Branch out of his roots (Isa. 11:1), a Branch unto David (Jer. 23:5; 33:15), the Branch who was a man and the Servant of Jehovah (Zech. 3:8; 6:12), One who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). In His deity He was the Shoot of Jehovah for beauty and glory (Isa. 4:2), the Son of God marked out in power according to the Spirit (Rom. 1:4).

Scripture tells us that women give birth in pain, and knowledge of the physical anatomy of a women supports this.

These two truths taken together reveals the reality of what is the content of giving birth to a son, as Mary did, as Jesus was born according to the flesh.

Further, as much as you or any other here would like to suggest that God did not allow Mary to suffer in childbirth, there is nothing in scripture that tells us this.

Therefore, which do we accept, what scripture says about human childbirth, or what men would like to add to scripture?

Jesus was (is) fully human, just as Mary was fully human, and His life as a human began as any other human life begins, in pain as a result of what is associated with human childbirth.



Additionally OC, I'll check again, but I believe you need to read the post I was responding to in order to get a clear view regarding what my "assertion" was in response to.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

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?!

As I thought, you were barking up the wrong tree OC.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Why don't you simply supply text to support your earlier assertion.
Mary's heart was pierced with grief, it is not being said that she never suffered.
But this is not your assertion

Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so

That was your assertion.
Chapter and verse please.

OC, I'll disregard your silly haughtiness...... Begin with verse one of chapter one in Genesis and go right through to the end of Revelation 22, maybe by the grace of God it will dawn on you.
I won't disregard your inability to give a real answer. I will disregard your wanton ignorance, arrogance, anti-Semitism, and delusions of grandeur.
Chapter and verse, thanks.


Scripture tells us that women give birth in pain, and knowledge of the physical anatomy of a women supports this.
Scripture tells us that water drowns a man, and the physical reality of women tells us that sperm is required to make babies. The Virgin conceived and the flesh of the Christ walked upon water.

Further, as much as you or any other here would like to suggest that God did not allow Mary to suffer in childbirth, there is nothing in scripture that tells us this.

Do not change your argument and run away from your assertion. Chapter and verse, please, that says that Mary experienced pain in childbirth.

Additionally OC, I'll check again, but I believe you need to read the post I was responding to in order to get a clear view regarding what my "assertion" was in response to.
Yes, I'm certain that you will continue to squirm, it is in your nature to do so.
Don't waste my time- answer the question, or don't.

 

[cj]

You know OC, you keep slapping yourself in the face with your foolish speaking.....

I will disregard your wanton ignorance, arrogance, anti-Semitism, and delusions of grandeur.

All thus far unproven and thus known to only exist within your sick mind.

Scripture tells us that water drowns a man, and the physical reality of women tells us that sperm is required to make babies. The Virgin conceived and the flesh of the Christ walked upon water.

Notice, what you have said in your own words...... scripture tells us.

Not false doctrines of apostate religions.

Show me the scripture that states or even suggest that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

Yes, I'm certain that you will continue to squirm, it is in your nature to do so.
Don't waste my time- answer the question, or don't.

I'm not, your love of the ways of the apsotate institution is though.



OC, if you are going to attemp to bring me into an ignorant discussion then let us both not waste our time in continuing.


The bible tells us that women suffer in childbirth, and that Mary was a woman. The bible also tell us that an unborn child can know what the mother is feeling. And although, as I have often said, God is most capable of saving a person from going through suffering, unlike the examples of God's divine conception and Jesus' walking on water, both of which are spoken of in scripture, what is being suggested, that neither Jesus nor Mary suffered during childbirth, is most definitely not revealed in scripture.


Could it have happened, could God have saved both Mary and Jesus from this natural human suffering that is related to childbirth?

Absolutely.

But scripture neuther says that He did nor does it even slightly suggest that He did.

Therefore, at best it is simply a nice but unscriptural thought.

Yet at worse, it has been developed into a wicked false doctrine perpetrated on weak believers.


If you do not understand the difference of something being found in scripture and not found in scripture, then OC you're worse of than I thought.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

You know OC, you keep slapping yourself in the face with your foolish speaking.....

I will disregard your wanton ignorance, arrogance, anti-Semitism, and delusions of grandeur.

All thus far unproven and thus known to only exist within your sick mind.

All demonstrated with aplomb on this very thread.

[quote="Orthodox Christian":a0d20]Scripture tells us that water drowns a man, and the physical reality of women tells us that sperm is required to make babies. The Virgin conceived and the flesh of the Christ walked upon water.

Notice, what you have said in your own words...... scripture tells us.
Which is what I've been asking you to provide as validation of your claim, and you've failed to provide in your evasive responses. I've long since grown bored of watching you spin circles avoiding verification of your claims.

Not false doctrines of apostate religions.
Just another dodge- if you haven't an answer, provide one of your mindless cliches. Do you have your answers on flash cards? Because you repeat the same banalities day in and day out, empty name-calling and unproved assertions.

Show me the scripture that states or even suggest that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.
No, YOU made the assertion, YOU back it up. No more avoidance, no more dancing liek a sugar plum faerie, back your assertion with scripture.

Yes, I'm certain that you will continue to squirm, it is in your nature to do so.
Don't waste my time- answer the question, or don't.

I'm not, your love of the ways of the apsotate institution is though.
Are you drunk? Is this an answer?


OC, if you are going to attemp to bring me into an ignorant discussion then let us both not waste our time in continuing.
I'm calling you on your assertion, and you are avoiding your own words- which, by your own admission are "ignorant discussion."


The bible tells us that women suffer in childbirth, and that Mary was a woman. The bible also tell us that an unborn child can know what the mother is feeling. And although, as I have often said, God is most capable of saving a person from going through suffering, unlike the examples of God's divine conception and Jesus' walking on water, both of which are spoken of in scripture, what is being suggested, that neither Jesus nor Mary suffered during childbirth, is most definitely not revealed in scripture.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush-
One more time: You made an assertion that the bible says Mary suffered in childbirth. You did not make the argument that the painless childbirth of Mary is a tradition which cannot find scriptural validation, which you attempt below. No, you said that her pain IS scripturally asserted. In your arrogance, you are not willing to repent of your mistake, and take a new tact. So I await your proof...

Could it have happened, could God have saved both Mary and Jesus from this natural human suffering that is related to childbirth?

Absolutely.

But scripture neuther says that He did nor does it even slightly suggest that He did.

Therefore, at best it is simply a nice but unscriptural thought.


Yet at worse, it has been developed into a wicked false doctrine perpetrated on weak believers.


If you do not understand the difference of something being found in scripture and not found in scripture, then OC you're worse of than I thought.


In love,
cj[/quote:a0d20]
I understand the difference quite clearly- but I'm not the one who said, and I quote

Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[cj]

All demonstrated with aplomb on this very thread.

Continue to deceive yourself oh darkened one.

Which is what I've been asking you to provide as validation of your claim, and you've failed to provide in your evasive responses. I've long since grown bored of watching you spin circles avoiding verification of your claims.

Which I've already done. There has been no avoidance on my part.

Now if your abject blindness retards you from being able to understand what I have said, then for now you must remain in ignorance of the truth.

Just another dodge- if you haven't an answer, provide one of your mindless cliches. Do you have your answers on flash cards? Because you repeat the same banalities day in and day out, empty name-calling and unproved assertions.

You know, for a few weeks now I have been having a through that through your mindless taunts and unprofitable questions, Satan has been tying me up for hours on some days.

Your speaking above just confirmed my thoughts OC; really, today it ends, as I won't continue in your crafty work of luring me into playing this wasteful game of your's.

Show me the scripture that states or even suggest that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

I already did.

No, YOU made the assertion, YOU back it up. No more avoidance, no more dancing liek a sugar plum faerie, back your assertion with scripture.

I already did.

Are you drunk? Is this an answer?

To one of your ignorant statements its my response.

I'm calling you on your assertion, and you are avoiding your own words- which, by your own admission are "ignorant discussion."

No, by "ignorant discussions" I clearly meant those which contain your ignorant and untruthful suggestions of my "squirming" at the nonsense you speak.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush-
One more time: You made an assertion that the bible says Mary suffered in childbirth. You did not make the argument that the painless childbirth of Mary is a tradition which cannot find scriptural validation, which you attempt below. No, you said that her pain IS scripturally asserted. In your arrogance, you are not willing to repent of your mistake, and take a new tact. So I await your proof...

"... willing to repent..."

Silly religionist, I have made no mistake, as scripture clearly states, women suffer in childbirth, and Mary was a woman. Additionally, scripture says that Jesus suffered in His humanity, that He was restrained in the flesh He took on. What more do you want it to say?

Which really is why you seek after doctrine that adds to scripture, as you've shown us here, you believe what scripture says is not enough.

Perhaps you don't believe what scripture says, but I do.

I understand the difference quite clearly- but I'm not the one who said, and I quote.......

"Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so."

And I'll say it again..... Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so..

Chapter and verse, please.

For the final time, I already did.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

All demonstrated with aplomb on this very thread.

Continue to deceive yourself oh darkened one.
And we'll leave the deceiving of others to you.
[quote="Orthodox Christian":76700]Which is what I've been asking you to provide as validation of your claim, and you've failed to provide in your evasive responses. I've long since grown bored of watching you spin circles avoiding verification of your claims.

Which I've already done. There has been no avoidance on my part.
You've done nothing of the sort, and now you add LYING outright to your list of offenses.

Now if your abject blindness retards you from being able to understand what I have said, then for now you must remain in ignorance of the truth.
I understood what you said and what you didn't say, and caught you in the process of changing your story.

Just another dodge- if you haven't an answer, provide one of your mindless cliches. Do you have your answers on flash cards? Because you repeat the same banalities day in and day out, empty name-calling and unproved assertions.

You know, for a few weeks now I have been having a through that through your mindless taunts and unprofitable questions, Satan has been tying me up for hours on some days.
Yes, I know, we have footage of that

Your speaking above just confirmed my thoughts OC; really, today it ends, as I won't continue in your crafty work of luring me into playing this wasteful game of your's.
Promises, promises.

Show me the scripture that states or even suggest that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

I already did.
No, you did not.

No, YOU made the assertion, YOU back it up. No more avoidance, no more dancing liek a sugar plum faerie, back your assertion with scripture.

I already did.
No you didn't

Are you drunk? Is this an answer?

To one of your ignorant statements its my response.

I'm calling you on your assertion, and you are avoiding your own words- which, by your own admission are "ignorant discussion."

No, by "ignorant discussions" I clearly meant those which contain your ignorant and untruthful suggestions of my "squirming" at the nonsense you speak.
More squiming. Where is the verse?

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush-
One more time: You made an assertion that the bible says Mary suffered in childbirth. You did not make the argument that the painless childbirth of Mary is a tradition which cannot find scriptural validation, which you attempt below. No, you said that her pain IS scripturally asserted. In your arrogance, you are not willing to repent of your mistake, and take a new tact. So I await your proof...

"... willing to repent..."

Silly religionist, I have made no mistake, as scripture clearly states, women suffer in childbirth, and Mary was a woman. Additionally, scripture says that Jesus suffered in His humanity, that He was restrained in the flesh He took on. What more do you want it to say?
You said that the bible says that Mary suffered in childbirth. Is that in th gospel of Hepsibah? Acts 46? Verse please.

Which really is why you seek after doctrine that adds to scripture, as you've shown us here, you believe what scripture says is not enough.
No, I think what scripture says is plenty. I'm not the one taking a position about Mary's suffering or lack thereof- it is you that has. Verse please.
Perhaps you don't believe what scripture says, but I do.
I'll believe the verse you produce, should this happen before the sun burns out.

I understand the difference quite clearly- but I'm not the one who said, and I quote.......

"Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so."

And I'll say it again..... Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so..
Where?

Chapter and verse, please.

For the final time, I already did.


In love,
cj[/quote:76700]
You must be quoting 1st or 2nd CJ.

 

[stovebolts]

James,

Could you answer this question for us or point me to a Orthodox Source as I cannot find anything official from my limited resources.

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

 

[thessalonian]

James,

Could you answer this question for us or point me to a Orthodox Source as I cannot find anything official from my limited resources.

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

Just do a google on rebaptize, Catholic, orthodox. I found a few articles that in general indicate that there is no rebaptism.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

James,

Could you answer this question for us or point me to a Orthodox Source as I cannot find anything official from my limited resources.

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

Hi:
There is some differences on this matter between jurisdictions. Those of the Russian Orthodox jurisdiction, including the self-governing OCA and the ROCOR, as well as the Serbians- do NOT accept baptism from other Trinitarian faith traditions, whereas the Greek jurisdiction does. The Greek jurisdcition accepts baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as part of the economia of the Church. We only baptize once ("One Baptism"), so we do indeed accept this sacrament from other groups, some of which use sprinkling.

I personally find this illogical and inconsistent with the way that we handle other sacraments, but I am a son of obedience.

We insist that baptizing be full immersion, in the Name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit in our church- and there are other portions of the baptism that I will not specify here that are nevertheless not done by, for example, Lutherans- yet we accept their baptism.

This is a very involved and heated debate in many Orthodox circles.

 

[stovebolts]

James,

I did not set you up here... I just found this moments ago and was going to post it.

The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/m ... reply.aspx

6) Speaking for the "fanatics," certainly no traditionalist Orthodox believer has ever disputed the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes to be Christian. We simply believe that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine, an un-Orthodox Christology (e.g., the theology of the "Sacred Heart"), an incorrect Mariology, and a faulty ecclesiology. We believe that it is separated from our Church, has lost Grace, and is outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, the only place where "Sister Churches" can possibly exist. Since Roman Catholics are without the Grace of Orthodoxy, not only their baptisms, but all of their sacraments are invalid within the Orthodox Church. It is for this reason, and not for "pastoral considerations," that the Great Church has consistently received Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Baptism. Political ecumenism, not the correction of its errors by Rome, and this divisive lie alone, accounts for any change in the current practices of the Å’cumenical Patriarchate.

 

[stovebolts]

James,
Yes, I can see where it would be difficult to put a cut and dry answer to this one. I thought that it would be a simple yes or no answer...

Personally, I'd of thought no. At least that's the answer a RCC or Orthodox would have gotten from our Church.

Jeff

 

[Orthodox Christian]

James,

I did not set you up here... I just found this moments ago and was going to post it.

The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/m ... reply.aspx

6) Speaking for the "fanatics," certainly no traditionalist Orthodox believer has ever disputed the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes to be Christian. We simply believe that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine, an un-Orthodox Christology (e.g., the theology of the "Sacred Heart"), an incorrect Mariology, and a faulty ecclesiology. We believe that it is separated from our Church, has lost Grace, and is outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, the only place where "Sister Churches" can possibly exist. Since Roman Catholics are without the Grace of Orthodoxy, not only their baptisms, but all of their sacraments are invalid within the Orthodox Church. It is for this reason, and not for "pastoral considerations," that the Great Church has consistently received Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Baptism. Political ecumenism, not the correction of its errors by Rome, and this divisive lie alone, accounts for any change in the current practices of the Å’cumenical Patriarchate.

Actually, this exchange demonstrates clearly the disagreement on this matter, and how the arguments are couched.
Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek jurisdiction takes the position I described, oeconomia
The respondent from the Orthodoxinfo site takes the position taken by the Russians and especially the ROCOR- which Orthodoxinfo.com is a ministry of.

Again, I'm not stumping against Catholics- I share many of the views expressed by Maximos regarding our Western brothers. I do believe, however, that it is illogical for us to accept the baptisms of those we do not commune with (yet), and those whose baptismal form and formula are ones that we would not perform (ie, sprinkle/pour)

 

[thessalonian]

James,
Yes, I can see where it would be difficult to put a cut and dry answer to this one. I thought that it would be a simple yes or no answer...

Personally, I'd of thought no. At least that's the answer a RCC or Orthodox would have gotten from our Church.

Jeff

Who's right in all of this. That is something your Church can't answer Jeff. They have no authority to do so. How are we to decide a dispute between you and I? The Matt 18 way? Won't work will it. :-?

 

[cj]

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.

And thusly is raised a white surrender flag, coated in the effusive plegm of a snot-nosed stripling.

So we will now return to the subject at hand, which is differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

I believe what we have discovered is that Rome uses a bit of economia in the use of pouring for baptism. Likewise, the Greek jurisdiction is using economy in accepting baptisms outside her communion.

I'm not a real big fan of a liberal economia in regards to sacramental issues on the part of East or West- but that's just my two cents.

 

[cj]

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.

And thusly is raised a white surrender flag, coated in the effusive plegm of a snot-nosed stripling.

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.

And thusly is raised a white surrender flag, coated in the effusive plegm of a snot-nosed stripling.

Whatever OC.

I know what I said and I know what scripture says on this matter.


And you,.... you serve an apostate institution and kiss silly pictures, worshipping the workers of Satan that scripture tells us are hidden behind them.

In love,
cj

Wow- looks like someone's having a meltdown.
It's kind of creepy to get the same post from you mutiple times. Creepy like Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining' creepy.

I guess it's safe to say that your scriptural proof is not forthcoming?