OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 11:49:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox Church is only true Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?  (Read 5619 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« on: October 19, 2012, 05:58:16 AM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 06:08:02 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2012, 06:02:59 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 06:08:33 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2012, 06:10:58 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 06:11:26 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2012, 06:20:58 AM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?
We don't say that the Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Christ - we were one church up until the Great Schism when Rome left us. We believe that in going into Schism the Patriarchate of Rome left the Church and so the other Patriarchates of the Catholic Church (which comprise the Orthodox Church) is the Church founded by Christ whereas the Roman Catholic Church has become something other.

Quote
Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?
Because it was. What would make you think it was founded in the 10th century? We still contain all the original Patriarchates of the Church excepting Rome - that's Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.

Quote
Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

Very briefly indeed - the Church was founded by the Apostles. Various centres of the Church became important and were made into Patriarchates. These were responsible for larger geographic areas - so Rome the west, Alexandria Africa etc. The Pope of Rome was considered first in rank of the Patriarchs but he had no jurisdiction over the other Patriarchates. As time wore the Pope of Rome started to claim more and more power and privileges over the Church. This was resisted by the remaining Patriarchates and Rome also introduced other beliefs and practices that were foreign to ,and in the case of the filioque considered heretical by, the other Patriarchates. Eventually this lead to a split (conventionally dated to 1054, but it was more of a slow process than that would suggest) which has never been healed. Rome went it alone and became the Roman Catholic Church while the other four members of the Pentarchy stayed in communion - this is the Orthodox Church.

Note that this ridiculously brief potted history is from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. The Oriental Orthodox would talk about a split after the Council of Chalcedon rather than the Great Schism.

James
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 06:21:31 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2012, 06:46:44 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2012, 06:47:31 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2012, 06:55:30 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

Such an analysis is only possible by a priori acceptance of the Roman claims to universal jurisdiction. As, however, such claims were never acknowledged in the east and the history of the church shows that it was conciliar, 4 in 1 out is easily the more reasonable interpretation.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2012, 07:24:15 AM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?
 

Because it was founded by Christ with the Apostles.  The Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 1054.  

Why do Orthodox Christians say that Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10th century?
 
10th Century?  You are thinking of the Catholic Church splitting off during the Great Schism and becoming its own entity outside communion with the Orthodox Church.

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

Jesus came, taught the Apostles who taught their disciples, etc.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 07:27:55 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2012, 07:34:34 AM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were founded by Jesus and the disciples in 33 A.D according to these churches.these jurisdictions were places in which the apostles spread the gospel and were both part of the same organization.. Most of the Christian doctrine was formulated in Orthodox ground, i.e the Eastern and Oriental jurisdictions.. There were Ecumenical Councils in which the Patriarch(bishop) of Rome was not even present.. The theological formulations and languages and original language of most of the (united) church's literature is in greek.Take for example the formulation of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan councils that says that there is "one ousia in three hypostases" . One of the things that influenced the separation of these two jurisdictions was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the elevation of Constantinople..

Why didn`t the Orthodox Church start in 1054 ? Because she is the one who sticks with the Ecumenical councils.The niceo-constantinopolitan creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, not "from the Father and the Son" .. It is that why even the patriarch of Rome ,  Pope Leo III in 810 opposed adding the Filioque to the Creed, and had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St Peter's, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin, adding: "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith" . There are roman popes who are venerated as saints in the Orthodox Church, like Pope Gregory , Leo and others..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2012, 07:45:56 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2012, 08:03:30 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?



The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church

Both Rome and Constantinople can show Apostolic succession.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 08:04:16 AM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2012, 08:17:09 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2012, 08:27:21 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

This post is disgusting.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 08:27:44 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2012, 08:28:56 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

This post is disgusting.

That may be but it is TRUE is it not?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2012, 08:29:49 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

We don't necessarily read the Rock as St. Peter, but even when it is read in that fashion there's nothing to suggest that the Pope of Rome is his successor (a successor, not the successor). St. Peter founded Antioch he did not found Rome (contrary to Roman claims), though he was involved in it later. He was certainly never Pope of Rome. Antioch remains Orthodox, so really your St. Peter went to Rome comments seem pretty weak. Not, it has to be said, as weak as your argument from numbers, though. The truth is not determined by popularity nor geography (though I would note that you seem to miss that Orthodoxy spread right across northern Asia to America with the Russians). If instead you were to look at who has adhered to the faith delivered to the Apostles and who has altered it, you'll see that the Rock of faith upon which the Church was built has indeed weathered Islam and communism. Rome, in contrast has added innovation upon innovation  despite being free and Protestantism has gone way beyond even that, shattering into a myriad of sects. I know where I see the Rock in all that, and it certainly isn't the west.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2012, 08:32:13 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

This post is disgusting.

That may be but it is TRUE is it not?

So the church with the most adherents/money is the True Church?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2012, 08:39:32 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

We don't necessarily read the Rock as St. Peter, but even when it is read in that fashion there's nothing to suggest that the Pope of Rome is his successor (a successor, not the successor). St. Peter founded Antioch he did not found Rome (contrary to Roman claims), though he was involved in it later. He was certainly never Pope of Rome. Antioch remains Orthodox, so really your St. Peter went to Rome comments seem pretty weak. Not, it has to be said, as weak as your argument from numbers, though. The truth is not determined by popularity nor geography (though I would note that you seem to miss that Orthodoxy spread right across northern Asia to America with the Russians). If instead you were to look at who has adhered to the faith delivered to the Apostles and who has altered it, you'll see that the Rock of faith upon which the Church was built has indeed weathered Islam and communism. Rome, in contrast has added innovation upon innovation  despite being free and Protestantism has gone way beyond even that, shattering into a myriad of sects. I know where I see the Rock in all that, and it certainly isn't the west.

James

The mission of the Apostles and the church was/is to spread the word of God and the good news I think. So geography and numbers are important. So, who has/is accomplishing their mission and who has/is not?
Logged
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,005


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2012, 08:41:26 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

The rock is the faith of st. Peter, not he as a person. There is only one Head of the Church and it's Jesus Christ. The Church can't relay on the one person (RC pope).

Personally I think, that Islam it's a work of satan to the destroy the ancient Church - Orthodox Church. But it's failed because all the patriarchates still exist and some Orthodox Christians live in e.g. Arabic countries, Balkans are almost completely Orthodox etc. What's more, now these ancient patriarchates, mainly Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, spread the Orthodoxy in South Africa, Latin America. It's in interesting to note that always when Orthodoxy were persecuted, some of Orthodox people have been leaving their homeland and spread the faith in the territories that had not existed the Orthodox Church at all. This is the case of today's missions in Latin America and South Africa (Antioch, Alexandria), earlier it was the case of the North America and Western Europe (Russians), it was the case in Poland with western territories (Orthodox people were moved to the new Polish territories by force, many of them were killed, but thanks to these actions of communists there are Orthodox parishes in Western Poland). And furthermore, these Orthodox Christians who have maintained their faith although Muslims occupations, are much more pious and believers than Christians in e.g. Western Europe. And although so many unfavorable circumstances (Islam, destroying of the mission of st. Cyrill and Methody in Moravia and Poland, destroying of Orthodoxy in Hungaria, comunism, attempts to create a union with Catholic Church etc.), the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith of the Apostles without changes, has very similar Liturgy, fasting and prayer rules through the ages.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2012, 08:47:50 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

We don't necessarily read the Rock as St. Peter, but even when it is read in that fashion there's nothing to suggest that the Pope of Rome is his successor (a successor, not the successor). St. Peter founded Antioch he did not found Rome (contrary to Roman claims), though he was involved in it later. He was certainly never Pope of Rome. Antioch remains Orthodox, so really your St. Peter went to Rome comments seem pretty weak. Not, it has to be said, as weak as your argument from numbers, though. The truth is not determined by popularity nor geography (though I would note that you seem to miss that Orthodoxy spread right across northern Asia to America with the Russians). If instead you were to look at who has adhered to the faith delivered to the Apostles and who has altered it, you'll see that the Rock of faith upon which the Church was built has indeed weathered Islam and communism. Rome, in contrast has added innovation upon innovation  despite being free and Protestantism has gone way beyond even that, shattering into a myriad of sects. I know where I see the Rock in all that, and it certainly isn't the west.

James

The mission of the Apostles and the church was/is to spread the word of God and the good news I think. So geography and numbers are important. So, who has/is accomplishing their mission and who has/is not?

At one point in time the Assyrian Church of the East had the most adherents. Should we all become nestorian now?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,491



« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2012, 08:53:12 AM »



So geography and numbers are important. So, who has/is accomplishing their mission and who has/is not?
I guess that puts Islam in the running.

More seriously, one of the things I find appealing about Orthodoxy is that it is the faith of Christians who have been true to Christ and the Apostolic teachings in the face of great persecution and difficulty. That those difficulties have limited their ability to carry their faith to farther regions is a minor concern.

On the other hand, much of the spread of Roman Catholicism in particular is due to military conquest and zeal for imperial and economic expansion rather than a simple sharing of the faith. In saying that, I in no way disrespect the men and women in past and present centuries who have shared their faith honourably. Fine examples of missionary work are easy to cite.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2012, 08:57:28 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

The rock is the faith of st. Peter, not he as a person. There is only one Head of the Church and it's Jesus Christ. The Church can't relay on the one person (RC pope).

Personally I think, that Islam it's a work of satan to the destroy the ancient Church - Orthodox Church. But it's failed because all the patriarchates still exist and some Orthodox Christians live in e.g. Arabic countries, Balkans are almost completely Orthodox etc. What's more, now these ancient patriarchates, mainly Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, spread the Orthodoxy in South Africa, Latin America. It's in interesting to note that always when Orthodoxy were persecuted, some of Orthodox people have been leaving their homeland and spread the faith in the territories that had not existed the Orthodox Church at all. This is the case of today's missions in Latin America and South Africa (Antioch, Alexandria), earlier it was the case of the North America and Western Europe (Russians), it was the case in Poland with western territories (Orthodox people were moved to the new Polish territories by force, many of them were killed, but thanks to these actions of communists there are Orthodox parishes in Western Poland). And furthermore, these Orthodox Christians who have maintained their faith although Muslims occupations, are much more pious and believers than Christians in e.g. Western Europe. And although so many unfavorable circumstances (Islam, destroying of the mission of st. Cyrill and Methody in Moravia and Poland, destroying of Orthodoxy in Hungaria, comunism, attempts to create a union with Catholic Church etc.), the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith of the Apostles without changes, has very similar Liturgy, fasting and prayer rules through the ages.

I do not understand why you see a union of Eastern and Western Church as a negative thing automatic. If Peter is the person or the faith is a matter of interpretation. It can be taken either way. And the Orthodox church has changed on issues from what I read.

¨...the vast majority modern Eastern Orthodox bishops directly teach that contraception is acceptable in marriage, when until 1930, ALL Christians (even Protestant Christians) taught that ALL forms of contraception were morally sinful; and the ancient fathers of the Church are VERY clear about this.   And, in this case (and there are many others) it is only the Catholic Church that has remained faithful to Apostolic teaching.   The Orthodox have yielded to the voice of the secular world and changed.¨

That is a quote from another website. Is this not correct?
Logged
Nikolaostheservant
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: greek orthodox
Jurisdiction: christian
Posts: 603



« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2012, 08:57:51 AM »

this should answer most of your questions

The Ancient Church (1of3) - True Christianity is the Eastern Orthodox Faith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJueCXNUahw
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2012, 09:01:29 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2012, 09:05:50 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2012, 09:10:36 AM »


¨...the vast majority modern Eastern Orthodox bishops directly teach that contraception is acceptable in marriage, when until 1930, ALL Christians (even Protestant Christians) taught that ALL forms of contraception were morally sinful; and the ancient fathers of the Church are VERY clear about this.   And, in this case (and there are many others) it is only the Catholic Church that has remained faithful to Apostolic teaching (LOL).  The Orthodox have yielded to the voice of the secular world and changed


This unsourced, unproven piece of *bleep* isn't taking a strong adversial position? Compared to this my posts are cute love poems.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:11:30 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2012, 09:11:31 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

We don't necessarily read the Rock as St. Peter, but even when it is read in that fashion there's nothing to suggest that the Pope of Rome is his successor (a successor, not the successor). St. Peter founded Antioch he did not found Rome (contrary to Roman claims), though he was involved in it later. He was certainly never Pope of Rome. Antioch remains Orthodox, so really your St. Peter went to Rome comments seem pretty weak. Not, it has to be said, as weak as your argument from numbers, though. The truth is not determined by popularity nor geography (though I would note that you seem to miss that Orthodoxy spread right across northern Asia to America with the Russians). If instead you were to look at who has adhered to the faith delivered to the Apostles and who has altered it, you'll see that the Rock of faith upon which the Church was built has indeed weathered Islam and communism. Rome, in contrast has added innovation upon innovation  despite being free and Protestantism has gone way beyond even that, shattering into a myriad of sects. I know where I see the Rock in all that, and it certainly isn't the west.

James

The mission of the Apostles and the church was/is to spread the word of God and the good news I think. So geography and numbers are important. So, who has/is accomplishing their mission and who has/is not?

You forget the Orthodox Church did just as much missionary work as the Roman Catholic Church until war and economy prevented the Orthodox Church from doing its work and provided much wealth and secular power for the Roman Catholic Church.  Orthodox numbers are surpassed only by the Roman Catholic Church, and for the same reasons as mentioned in my previous sentence.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2012, 09:11:44 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2012, 09:15:28 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.  

The rock is the faith of st. Peter, not he as a person. There is only one Head of the Church and it's Jesus Christ. The Church can't relay on the one person (RC pope).

Personally I think, that Islam it's a work of satan to the destroy the ancient Church - Orthodox Church. But it's failed because all the patriarchates still exist and some Orthodox Christians live in e.g. Arabic countries, Balkans are almost completely Orthodox etc. What's more, now these ancient patriarchates, mainly Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, spread the Orthodoxy in South Africa, Latin America. It's in interesting to note that always when Orthodoxy were persecuted, some of Orthodox people have been leaving their homeland and spread the faith in the territories that had not existed the Orthodox Church at all. This is the case of today's missions in Latin America and South Africa (Antioch, Alexandria), earlier it was the case of the North America and Western Europe (Russians), it was the case in Poland with western territories (Orthodox people were moved to the new Polish territories by force, many of them were killed, but thanks to these actions of communists there are Orthodox parishes in Western Poland). And furthermore, these Orthodox Christians who have maintained their faith although Muslims occupations, are much more pious and believers than Christians in e.g. Western Europe. And although so many unfavorable circumstances (Islam, destroying of the mission of st. Cyrill and Methody in Moravia and Poland, destroying of Orthodoxy in Hungaria, comunism, attempts to create a union with Catholic Church etc.), the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith of the Apostles without changes, has very similar Liturgy, fasting and prayer rules through the ages.

I do not understand why you see a union of Eastern and Western Church as a negative thing automatic. If Peter is the person or the faith is a matter of interpretation. It can be taken either way. And the Orthodox church has changed on issues from what I read.

¨...the vast majority modern Eastern Orthodox bishops directly teach that contraception is acceptable in marriage, when until 1930, ALL Christians (even Protestant Christians) taught that ALL forms of contraception were morally sinful; and the ancient fathers of the Church are VERY clear about this.   And, in this case (and there are many others) it is only the Catholic Church that has remained faithful to Apostolic teaching.   The Orthodox have yielded to the voice of the secular world and changed.¨

That is a quote from another website. Is this not correct?

If you would like, we can take the assertion and examine various teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to see if this statement rings true.  Of course, in a different thread.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:15:39 AM by Kerdy » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2012, 09:17:15 AM »


¨...the vast majority modern Eastern Orthodox bishops directly teach that contraception is acceptable in marriage, when until 1930, ALL Christians (even Protestant Christians) taught that ALL forms of contraception were morally sinful; and the ancient fathers of the Church are VERY clear about this.   And, in this case (and there are many others) it is only the Catholic Church that has remained faithful to Apostolic teaching (LOL).  The Orthodox have yielded to the voice of the secular world and changed


This unsourced, unproven piece of *bleep* isn't taking a strong adversial position? Compared to this my posts are cute love poems.

Indeed. I'd be interested to see if he can find these very clear patristic quotes. Everything I've ever seen that's been presented as a condemnation of contraception has on closer inspection seemed, pretty clearly, rather to condemn abortion. But maybe that should be in a separate thread. Even if it were true (and I don't believe it is) that the Orthodox Church's view of the practice of contraception has changed, it's hardly equivalent to the formulation of novel dogmas or the alteration of the Creed.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,883



« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2012, 09:17:58 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

The business is a lot messier than that. Antioch remained in communion with Rome until the crusades and the establishment of a Latin bishop in each of these sees. Not to mention that the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were appointed imperial Greeks from Constantinople, while the local Christian communities in these cities were mostly either Non-Chalcedonian (Jacobites, Copts & Ethiopians, etc.) or Nestorian. The Chalcedonian patriarchs in these cities did not authentically represent the majority of the native Christian communities.

Furthermore, the development of the "Pentarchy" wasn't until the time of Emperor Justinian's time. Constantinople's elevated status to second behind Rome was pragmatic, but not according to the ancient order. Constantinople was originally tied to a different line of bishops, and at some point later on the concept of an "Apostolic See" like Rome became important in its authority claims, and hence the legend of St. Andrew was born. This was not a part of Constantinople's early self-understanding.

So at the time of the Great Schism, instead of this 4 to 1 scenario that many here would have you believe, it was really 2 to 1. Antioch was still in communion with Rome, while Antioch and Alexandria were essentially Constantinopolitan puppet sees, with only maybe Jerusalem remaining authentic in some loose sense.

All of that to say, I fully believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the one true and Catholic Church, but this scenario is no slam dunk against Rome as a numbers game.



Forbidden epithet replaced with something more appropriate for the Public Forum  -PtA

You've been warned before not to apply the forbidden M word to the Oriental Orthodox on the Public Forum. Therefore, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 30 days. Do this again while you are on Warned status, and you will be placed on post moderation.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 01:04:48 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2012, 09:18:07 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2012, 09:21:56 AM »


Well let us look here.

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome. Also let us say the obvious. History has been very harsh to the Orthodox Church. The Muslims took over all the lands of those 4 Patriarchs. The Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque and then museum. The traditional Orthodox Christians in these muslim lands are dwindling to nothing. There was communism and all their attacks on the church.

Does that sound like the ¨Rock¨? It does not to me. Sounds like the curse really.

And it was the Roman Catholic Church and later with the Protestant churches that spread Christianity around the world. Orthodox Christianity is very centrally located in Eastern Europe mostly.   

Things are more complicated than they look. If your judgment is so clear-cut, you have to believe that the Church was under a curse until 313 A.D. More, a Jew would follow your reasoning and conclude that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because He was crucified.

What about the Reformation? Was that a blessing or a curse?  Roll Eyes

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2012, 09:22:13 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

I answered you and said that such a discussion would be better off in another thread. I've never seen any dogma, however, related to contraception. You seem to look at everything from a rather Latin perspective.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2012, 09:26:31 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

I answered you and said that such a discussion would be better off in another thread. I've never seen any dogma, however, related to contraception. You seem to look at everything from a rather Latin perspective.

James

So you are saying, ¨No¨ The Orthodox Church has never changed its position on contraception. It has always maintained the same position on contraception. Right?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:27:22 AM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2012, 09:31:07 AM »

Is there even an official Orthodox position on contraception?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,005


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2012, 09:31:49 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

It's very personal thing to be discussed with the spiritual father. It's neither dogma nor law. The Orthodox Church contrary to the Latin Church, never has tried to enter so deeply into the isssues of a married couple (if I'm mistaken, correct me, please). The Orthodox Church hasn't changed anything in the faith. I think I don't need to write a list of the things changed in RC Church?

Sometiems when I read some discussions on RC forums, 1/2 of the topics are about contraception or similar things,as it would be the most necessary thing to the salvation.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2012, 09:33:46 AM »

Is there even an official Orthodox position on contraception?

You are asking me?  Grin

I have no idea. That is why I am asking the question. It looks like no one else knows either!  laugh
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2012, 09:37:20 AM »

It was half-retorical, half-serious. I don't take those anticonception pills myself, so I wouldn't know.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:37:37 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2012, 09:41:39 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

Can anybody ask my above question?

Is there any other STRONG evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

There is still no strong evidence to convince me that Orthodox Church is the only true Church and all its teaching is 100% correct...
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2012, 09:43:15 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2012, 09:47:56 AM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?
 

Because it was founded by Christ with the Apostles.  The Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 1054.  

Why do Orthodox Christians say that Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10th century?
 
10th Century?  You are thinking of the Catholic Church splitting off during the Great Schism and becoming its own entity outside communion with the Orthodox Church.

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

Jesus came, taught the Apostles who taught their disciples, etc.

Be careful. The Orthodox Church considers itself the Catholic Church, as well (according to some on this forum), so you may wish to qualify your use of the name "Catholic" if you wish to refer to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:49:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2012, 09:50:13 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

Can anybody ask my above question?

Is there any other STRONG evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

There is still no strong evidence to convince me that Orthodox Church is the only true Church and all its teaching is 100% correct...


The 5 Patriarch are, Alexandria-St. Mark, Jerusalem-St. James, Antioch-St.Peter, Constantinople-St. Andrew and Rome-St. Peter.

I think this is right. Could be wrong.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2012, 09:56:19 AM »

I can only tell you how I came to my own conclusions...

1) The first thing was deciding that Jesus did mean to start a visible Church, and that the Apostles did indeed help build up this Church. I came to this conclusion based mainly on Scripture.

2) The second thing was deciding that the early Church continued this Church, and believed in visible authority structures. I came to this conclusion based mainly on the early Church writings and history from the first few centuries.

3) The third thing was deciding that the Church did not somehow go off the tracks with St. Constantine or one of the Roman Popes or whatever. This obviously involved a lot more history, checked back against the Scripture and witness of the early Christians.

4) Once I had accepted these things, the fourth thing was deciding which Church existing today was the the Church Jesus founded, the Church Jesus prophecied could not be destroyed. I eventually converted to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism or Anglicanism.

This was the process I went through. It was much more complicated that the above would indicate, but that's the basic framework I think. If you'd like specific thoughts and evidence for any of these let me know and I can post more.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2012, 09:57:22 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.They also claim that teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 10:02:46 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2012, 10:06:04 AM »

Roman and protestant doctrines are correct insofar as they are the same as those of Orthodoxy, so I would never say that they're wrong in everything.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 10:06:16 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2012, 10:10:56 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.THeir teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?


I do not think any protestant church can show apostolic succession. I do not even think they try do they? I have not seen any. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox can show apostolic succession. So ¨the church¨ is either one of them or both.

The reason apostolic succession is important is because in this unbroken chain is supposed the pure teaching and authority of the Christ. Unless you want to say something like ¨the church¨ is the ¨true believers¨ or those who really love Jesus or something like that. I guess that would be a protestant position.    

Now someone will come along and correct all I said but that is my understanding right now.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2012, 10:12:24 AM »

Roman and protestant doctrines are correct insofar as they are the same as those of Orthodoxy, so I would never say that they're wrong in everything.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestant/Catholic and make you choose the Orthodoxy faith rather than Catholic or Protestant faith?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2012, 10:14:17 AM »

Greetings, all. I recognize that Green_Umbrella's words have offended a few of you here, but he asks some hard questions to which we Orthodox would do well to give well-reasoned, articulate answers. Please do work to keep your emotions in check and to not snap at him if his questions betray a Latin bias. Though they are somewhat abrasive at times, I find his questions appropriate to this discussion and necessary to challenge our own tendencies toward Orthodox triumphalism, so I intend to leave them alone.

Green_Umbrella, this section of the forum is committed to fostering dialogue between Orthodox and Protestants specifically, so I'm not going to leave you a lot of room to assert your particularly Latin bias. Feel free to ask questions, but if you wish to continue telling us how you view the Church, contrary as your assertions are to the Orthodox point of view, then I ask you to state your claims on another more appropriate section of the forum, such as the Orthodox-Other Christian board.

Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 10:23:53 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2012, 10:17:03 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.THeir teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?


I do not think any protestant church can show apostolic succession. I do not even think they try do they? I have not seen any. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox can show apostolic succession. So ¨the church¨ is either one of them or both.

The reason apostolic succession is important is because in this unbroken chain is supposed the pure teaching and authority of the Christ. Unless you want to say something like ¨the church¨ is the ¨true believers¨ or those who really love Jesus or something like that. I guess that would be a protestant position.    

Now someone will come along and correct all I said but that is my understanding right now.

Protestant think that Bible is the word of GOd. Bible is everything. Beside the teaching of bible, they do not need to consider any other teaching. 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2012, 10:18:57 AM »

Protestant think that Bible is the word of GOd. Bible is everything. Beside the teaching of bible, they do not need to consider any other teaching. 

This is a position not supported by Scripture...
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2012, 10:20:02 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.THeir teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?


I do not think any protestant church can show apostolic succession. I do not even think they try do they? I have not seen any. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox can show apostolic succession. So ¨the church¨ is either one of them or both.

The reason apostolic succession is important is because in this unbroken chain is supposed the pure teaching and authority of the Christ. Unless you want to say something like ¨the church¨ is the ¨true believers¨ or those who really love Jesus or something like that. I guess that would be a protestant position.    

Now someone will come along and correct all I said but that is my understanding right now.

Protestant think that Bible is the word of GOd. Bible is everything. Beside the teaching of bible, they do not need to consider any other teaching. 

Yeah well, where did the bible come from?  Wink
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2012, 10:22:19 AM »

Greetings, all. I recognize that Green_Umbrella's words have offended a few of you here, but he asks some hard questions to which we Orthodox would do well to give well-reasoned, articulate answers. Please do work to keep your emotions in check and to not snap at him if his questions betray a Latin bias. Though they are somewhat abrasive at times, I find his questions appropriate to this discussion and necessary to challenge our own tendencies toward Orthodox triumphalism, so I intend to leave them alone.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


That is right. you tell them!

This is not the Catholic Answers Forum. We do not shut people up for asking questions. There are no infallible Popes running around here to shut people up.

 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2012, 10:25:07 AM »

Greetings, all. I recognize that Green_Umbrella's words have offended a few of you here, but he asks some hard questions to which we Orthodox would do well to give well-reasoned, articulate answers. Please do work to keep your emotions in check and to not snap at him if his questions betray a Latin bias. Though they are somewhat abrasive at times, I find his questions appropriate to this discussion and necessary to challenge our own tendencies toward Orthodox triumphalism, so I intend to leave them alone.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


That is right. you tell them!

This is not the Catholic Answers Forum. We do not shut people up for asking questions. There are no infallible Popes running around here to shut people up.

  
Please go back and read my request again. I have added a paragraph that addresses you specifically.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 10:27:27 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2012, 10:26:55 AM »

Greetings, all. I recognize that Green_Umbrella's words have offended a few of you here, but he asks some hard questions to which we Orthodox would do well to give well-reasoned, articulate answers. Please do work to keep your emotions in check and to not snap at him if his questions betray a Latin bias. Though they are somewhat abrasive at times, I find his questions appropriate to this discussion and necessary to challenge our own tendencies toward Orthodox triumphalism, so I intend to leave them alone.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


That is right. you tell them!

This is not the Catholic Answers Forum. We do not shut people up for asking questions. There are no infallible Popes running around here to shut people up.

  
Please go back and read my request again. I have added a paragraph that addresses you specifically.

Ok, thanks.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2012, 10:27:45 AM »

Greetings, all. I recognize that Green_Umbrella's words have offended a few of you here, but he asks some hard questions to which we Orthodox would do well to give well-reasoned, articulate answers. Please do work to keep your emotions in check and to not snap at him if his questions betray a Latin bias. Though they are somewhat abrasive at times, I find his questions appropriate to this discussion and necessary to challenge our own tendencies toward Orthodox triumphalism, so I intend to leave them alone.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


That is right. you tell them!

This is not the Catholic Answers Forum. We do not shut people up for asking questions. There are no infallible Popes running around here to shut people up.

  
Please go back and read my request again. I have added a paragraph that addresses you specifically.

Ok, thanks.
If you wish to respond to my addendum, please do so ONLY via private message, since I don't want discussion of my moderatorial request to clutter up this thread.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2012, 10:37:55 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

Contraception is not a moral issue for the EOC.I don`t understand why the RCC tries to put its noze into people's bedroom.It must be the cause of all those celibately sexual frustrations.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2012, 10:37:55 AM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

Can anybody ask my above question?

Is there any other STRONG evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

There is still no strong evidence to convince me that Orthodox Church is the only true Church and all its teaching is 100% correct...


Our ground is the Ecumenical Councils whom we held and the doctrine whom we enunciate.The majority of christian literature is Orthodox(eastern and oriental) and the language is greek.This Ecumenical councils gave you the creed, the trinity, the feasts, the christological and marian doctrines.Rome is just 1/5 of the Ancient Christian Centers.. All the centers are Petrine.. Rome (1/5) took its toys and left.. The Church continued to remain the Church.. The Orthodox Church helds to the Ecumenical Councils (whom is consider the deposit of the Church) strictly.. The RCC has added and broken many of these councils.. They added the fillioque to the Creed, they added to the faith : Purgatory , Created Grace , Papal Infaibility , Papal Supremacy, Immaculated Conception; changed the practice using unleaven bread for communion and no wine, removed the litany in the changing of the Holy Gifts, they invented Papal Indulgences and made use and abuse of the ecclesiastical title and made a shame out of it.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2012, 10:37:55 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world. Why would you think that the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?


from the institutional church (universal , catholic) pov because we remained the same while the RCC changed the faith.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2012, 10:38:07 AM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

The RCC during the times of the ww2 was an allied of Hitler and RCC clergy was involved in crimes and forced conversions all over the EU like the Ustaše in Serbia.


People thought that Paul was under the anathemas when the boat was sinking or when he was bit by snakes, and I bet they thought the same thing when he was stoned,incarcerated and persecuted..

Nice church. Smiley

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2012, 10:53:05 AM »

 What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestant/Catholic and make most of you here choose the Orthodoxy faith rather than Catholic or Protestant faith?


( There must be some or even many difference between true church and "False" Church. And that difference should be able to help us to identify which one is true and which one is false. )  
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 10:53:29 AM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2012, 10:57:43 AM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2012, 11:00:15 AM »

Protestants and Roman Catholics aren't 100% incorrect, we have the fullness of the truth, while they only have part of it (since they come from us).
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2012, 11:01:24 AM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

The RCC during the times of the ww2 was an allied of Hitler and RCC clergy was involved in crimes and forced conversions all over the EU like the Ustaše in Serbia.

People thought that Paul was under the anathemas when the boat was sinking or when he was bit by snakes, and I bet they thought the same thing when he was stoned,incarcerated and persecuted..

Nice church. Smiley


I would criticise the RCC for a lot, but this is plain childish.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 11:01:41 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2012, 11:01:59 AM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

Contraception is not a moral issue for the EOC.
Actually, yes it is. Our Church has traditionally spoken against contraception. We just handle the use of contraception in a manner different from the Roman Church.

I don`t understand why the RCC tries to put its noze into people's bedroom.
And the Orthodox Church doesn't?

It must be the cause of all those celibately sexual frustrations.
Please be careful with your vain speculations, Azul.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2012, 11:02:59 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Most Orthodox fully recognize that for the first 1000 odd years we were functionally one.  Well I shouldn't say we, us Oriental Orthodox folks walked away from that table 500 years previously, however, the Byzantines and Latins were one.  After the Schism, Orthodox would essentially argue that Latins abandoned their legitimate posts, and therefore lost their Apostolic continuity.  So its not that the Catholic Church wasn't founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, its that the Orthodox Fathers argue that the Catholic fathers abandoned the true Faith of the Apostles and nullified their succession.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2012, 11:10:30 AM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2012, 11:37:33 AM »

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestant/Catholic and make most of you here choose the Orthodoxy faith rather than Catholic or Protestant faith?


( There must be some or even many difference between true church and "False" Church. And that difference should be able to help us to identify which one is true and which one is false. )  

To the extent to which my conversion was an intellectual one (and it mostly wasn't - I experienced in Orthodoxy something completely lacking in Protestantism, which was the main thing) then I would have to say it is history and continuity. When I looked into the history of the Church I saw continuity in Orthodoxy, of belief and practice, that I did not see in any other Church and this confirmed, for me, intellectually, what I had concluded experientially. Honestly, you will not find a single smoking gun that any reasonable minded person would accept as proof. If you did the whole world, the whole Christian world at least, would be Orthodox. But... if you start to read the documents of the early Church, if you start to read the Fathers. If you look at Eusebius' history of the Church you will see something that looks, sounds and feels like Orthodoxy. You certainly won't find anything like sola scriptura or sola fide. You will find liturgy, veneration of saints etc. It's quite clear the early Church was not Protestant. You also won't, by my estimation, find any of the teachings that Rome has added in the second millennium. You certainly won't see a monarchical Pope of Rome ruling the whole Church. So for me there were two strands of 'proof' if you will - foremost was my experience of Orthodoxy, and reconfirming this was whole history of the Church from 33AD until today. Of course what convinces me may not necessarily convince you, but if you want a satisfactory answer to your question my best suggestion is that you read up on, in particular, the early, undivided Church.

James
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 11:38:42 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2012, 11:41:10 AM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2012, 11:43:49 AM »

the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.

Really, the problem with almost every discussion around here is that people begin with so many reckless assumptions.

The reason everyone can argue is that you all hold most of them in common.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2012, 11:46:35 AM »

the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.


Care to explain that one?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2012, 11:49:11 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.


Care to explain that one?

The institutional Church existed for hundreds of years before there ever even was a canonical "New Testament" so of course there is no New Testament Church, that is a concept borrowed by Protestants which is how they replaced the concept of Apostolic Succession and it is an inaccurate tool for analysis, just as is the concept of a "Scriptural or Biblical" Church (i.e. disregarding the significance of Tradition)..

There is only the Apostolic Church.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2012, 11:52:15 AM »

the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.


Care to explain that one?

Care to explain me to me how the Church is circumscribed within any period of time?

This is a case of relative accuracy but gross imprecision.

People don't take their own theology seriously enough and get sloppy with language in the day to day and that lack of precision in language then ends up informing their theology.

But if we took time to get serious and precise with our language, most people would not have the time, inclination, nor ability to engage in most of the polemics around here.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2012, 11:53:57 AM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 11:54:17 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2012, 11:56:12 AM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2012, 11:58:53 AM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #75 on: October 19, 2012, 12:03:01 PM »

The children of Abraham?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #76 on: October 19, 2012, 12:07:16 PM »

Is there even an official Orthodox position on contraception?

You are asking me?  Grin

I have no idea. That is why I am asking the question. It looks like no one else knows either!  laugh

Getting back to this very briefly- Green_Umbrella, if you are truly interested and have time on your hands, do a forum search for "contraception". You will get oodles and oodles of threads where the topic has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed again.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #77 on: October 19, 2012, 12:20:37 PM »

Care to explain me to me how the Church is circumscribed within any period of time?

The incarnation...
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #78 on: October 19, 2012, 12:43:30 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.


Care to explain that one?

The institutional Church existed for hundreds of years before there ever even was a canonical "New Testament" so of course there is no New Testament Church, that is a concept borrowed by Protestants which is how they replaced the concept of Apostolic Succession and it is an inaccurate tool for analysis, just as is the concept of a "Scriptural or Biblical" Church (i.e. disregarding the significance of Tradition)..
My point of disagreement with this is that the New Testament is more than just the books we call the canon of the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament is really the covenant Christ established with us through the shedding of His blood. That collection of books we often call the New Testament merely bears witness to that covenant.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #79 on: October 19, 2012, 12:50:36 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

There is no New Testament Church.


Care to explain that one?

The institutional Church existed for hundreds of years before there ever even was a canonical "New Testament" so of course there is no New Testament Church, that is a concept borrowed by Protestants which is how they replaced the concept of Apostolic Succession and it is an inaccurate tool for analysis, just as is the concept of a "Scriptural or Biblical" Church (i.e. disregarding the significance of Tradition)..
My point of disagreement with this is that the New Testament is more than just the books we call the canon of the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament is really the covenant Christ established with us through the shedding of His blood. That collection of books we often call the New Testament merely bears witness to that covenant.

True, I would agree that the New Testament becomes symbolic of this New Covenant which Christ established through the Church and more specifically through the Seven Divine Mysteries, however and again, strictly speaking the New Testament itself is a product of the Church rather than the Church being a product of the New Testament.  Yes, the books are testimony to the events and details surrounding the foundation of the New Covenant, but the Covenant is bigger, deeper, and more far-reaching than the narratives which describe it.  The Tradition is the manifestation of the details of the Covenant, and the Gospels (and all Scripture) is just another strongly weighted facet of the Tradition. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #80 on: October 19, 2012, 01:00:32 PM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.


You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
JorgenThorbjørnsen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Posts: 55



« Reply #81 on: October 19, 2012, 01:10:13 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

This: "founded in A.D 33" "founded by Jesus and his disciple"
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #82 on: October 19, 2012, 01:13:29 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

The RCC during the times of the ww2 was an allied of Hitler and RCC clergy was involved in crimes and forced conversions all over the EU like the Ustaše in Serbia.

People thought that Paul was under the anathemas when the boat was sinking or when he was bit by snakes, and I bet they thought the same thing when he was stoned,incarcerated and persecuted..

Nice church. Smiley


I would criticise the RCC for a lot, but this is plain childish.

what do you fin so childish about that?are you saying it`s not true?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #83 on: October 19, 2012, 01:13:29 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #84 on: October 19, 2012, 01:15:54 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.

"God, I thank you that I am not like other men..."
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #85 on: October 19, 2012, 01:30:31 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.
So you're going to compare the murderous acts of the Orthodox against the murderous acts of the Latins as if it were some kind of game? The point I'm trying to make is that we've had rotten fruit fall off both the Orthodox and the Roman trees.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #86 on: October 19, 2012, 01:50:35 PM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.


You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #87 on: October 19, 2012, 02:13:48 PM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.


You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.
A stickler for alternative ways of looking at things, yes, but I'm not exactly sure it was truth GiC cared about.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #88 on: October 19, 2012, 02:19:12 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

The Roman Catholic Church says they are founded by Jesus and his disciple (singular, which means Peter)

The Orthodox Church says they are founded by Jesus and all the Apostles
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #89 on: October 19, 2012, 02:20:52 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



He was always a stickler for truth.


Haha you are indeed quite funny when you don't try so hard Wink

Was that some kind of crass euphemism?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2012, 02:28:01 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

The Roman Catholic Church says they are founded by Jesus and his disciple (singular, which means Peter)

The Orthodox Church says they are founded by Jesus and all the Apostles

Yes, Roman Catholic Christian says Orthodox Church separated itself from it Catholic Church. However, Orthodox CHristians said that Catholic Church separated itself from Orthodox Church.

Only Protestant Christians claim that they were not founded by Christ and his disciples and they separated themselves from the corrupted and poor Catholic Church. Protestant Christians claim that which one is found by Christ and his disciple is not important, which one separated itself from the true church is not important. The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 02:36:11 PM by walter1234 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2012, 02:36:52 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Orthodox Christians believe that two things are needed for a church to be Apostolic.

1. The church goes back to Christ and the Apostles.

2. The church keeps the faith and traditions of God given by Christ and his Apostles.

The reason why the Orthodox Church doesn't think the church of Rome is Apostolic is because the Orthodox believe the church of Rome violates #2.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 02:37:16 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2012, 02:42:16 PM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.


You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.
A stickler for alternative ways of looking at things, yes, but I'm not exactly sure it was truth GiC cared about.

What alternative view am I espousing here?

The definition of the Church is quite important for the discussion here and we have people arguing via history about where the Church is when that is a tertiary concern at best and rests upon a much more primordial definition of the Church that first allows anyone to speak of it at any time within history.

And we haven't gone back far enough.

Since the use of history and such things seems important to people around here, then using history to find when the Church began will shed light on what the Church is.

When the proper question is asked often many prior and less proper questions are rendered mute.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2012, 02:48:02 PM »

Care to explain me to me how the Church is circumscribed within any period of time?

The incarnation...

Once again, the answer is in the most important Old Testament quote for Christians.

"The LORD says to my Lord:
'Sit at My right hand
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

And a close second:

"The Lord said to me:
'Thou art my Son;
Today I have begotten Thee.

Ask of me, and I will make the nations Your heritage,
And the ends of the earth Your possession."
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 02:55:58 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: October 19, 2012, 03:38:14 PM »

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.


Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.


You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.
A stickler for alternative ways of looking at things, yes, but I'm not exactly sure it was truth GiC cared about.

What alternative view am I espousing here?
I wasn't talking about you, unless you're GiC posting under another name.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #95 on: October 19, 2012, 07:14:04 PM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?
Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #96 on: October 19, 2012, 07:36:11 PM »

The Catholic Church was the church commissioned by Christ and founded by his apostles. Several modern churches claim to be the original Catholic Church, or the continuation of it, including the Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Old Catholics, etc. Several Protestant churches also claim to hold the original Catholic faith.

Which church today is "the original Church" is a matter of opinion.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2012, 08:14:00 PM »


Quote
The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church


Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 08:15:53 PM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #98 on: October 19, 2012, 08:43:28 PM »


Quote
The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church


Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?
I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 08:43:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #99 on: October 19, 2012, 08:57:52 PM »

So then it could be said that the church is wherever a body of noetic creatures both material and spiritual enter into this eternal Eucharistic worship of the Father, problem is its difficult to tell who actually enters into that reality and who doesn't, Infact I believe the main plot of Father Hopkos podcasts is that this can seemingly be done ritually but it's much more difficult to do it substantially
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #100 on: October 19, 2012, 08:58:42 PM »


Quote
The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church


Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?
I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The bible does need study and interpretation. It needs to be looked at in historical context and the perpsectives of the writers and so on.

A person can not simply say ¨It is in the bible¨ and accept all at face value. Well, you can but you may end up in a secluded cult somewhere drinking kool aid but you understand my meaning.  
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #101 on: October 19, 2012, 09:00:57 PM »

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

It think it is safe to say the Orthodox Church never took a position on contraception, at least that I know of, so no, it did not change its position.  The Orthodox Church has not taken position on a lot of things, rather focusing on what is more important, Christ and our salvation. 

I may not have worded this properly, so if someone wants to make it sound better, by all means please do.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #102 on: October 19, 2012, 09:10:38 PM »

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.


Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

Can anybody ask my above question?

Is there any other STRONG evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

There is still no strong evidence to convince me that Orthodox Church is the only true Church and all its teaching is 100% correct...

Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome.

I had the same questions and the book which helped me tremendously was The Orthodox Church by the Most Reverend Metropolitan (Timothy) Kallistos Ware, but the book will be found under Timothy Ware.  This book really helped me to understand several things and as a result I read other books and did a lot of my own research.  It’s inexpensive and easy to read.  In conjunction with asking questions here, I suggest reading that book.  I would send a copy to you, but I have given all of mine away and need to get more.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #103 on: October 19, 2012, 09:12:31 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?
 

Because it was founded by Christ with the Apostles.  The Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 1054.  

Why do Orthodox Christians say that Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10th century?
 
10th Century?  You are thinking of the Catholic Church splitting off during the Great Schism and becoming its own entity outside communion with the Orthodox Church.

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

Jesus came, taught the Apostles who taught their disciples, etc.

Be careful. The Orthodox Church considers itself the Catholic Church, as well (according to some on this forum), so you may wish to qualify your use of the name "Catholic" if you wish to refer to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Catholic Church.

I used capital “C” to distinguish the Roman Church and use lower case “C” for universal catholic.  It I am wrong in this usage, let me know so I can find a different way to separate the two.   Smiley
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #104 on: October 19, 2012, 09:17:11 PM »

Roman and protestant doctrines are correct insofar as they are the same as those of Orthodoxy, so I would never say that they're wrong in everything.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestant/Catholic and make you choose the Orthodoxy faith rather than Catholic or Protestant faith?

Walter,

I am sending you a PM.  I wanted to let you know before I send it.  
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:44:59 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #105 on: October 19, 2012, 09:19:09 PM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #106 on: October 19, 2012, 09:25:21 PM »

Protestant think that Bible is the word of GOd. Bible is everything. Beside the teaching of bible, they do not need to consider any other teaching.  

This is a position not supported by Scripture...
In addition, if scripture was able to interpret itself, there would not be thousands of different Protestants.  They would all have the same understanding of what scripture is saying.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:45:34 PM by Kerdy » Logged
christian7777
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 288


« Reply #107 on: October 19, 2012, 09:33:56 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Orthodox Christians believe that two things are needed for a church to be Apostolic.

1. The church goes back to Christ and the Apostles.

2. The church keeps the faith and traditions of God given by Christ and his Apostles.

The reason why the Orthodox Church doesn't think the church of Rome is Apostolic is because the Orthodox believe the church of Rome violates #2.



This is pretty much how I'd put it.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #108 on: October 19, 2012, 09:35:54 PM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.
I forgot where I read it but something about the Church being in the Garden of Eden too, and Noah, Moses, the Prophets etc are part of the Church.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:36:09 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #109 on: October 19, 2012, 09:41:21 PM »

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

The Roman Catholic Church says they are founded by Jesus and his disciple (singular, which means Peter)

The Orthodox Church says they are founded by Jesus and all the Apostles

Yes, Roman Catholic Christian says Orthodox Church separated itself from it Catholic Church. However, Orthodox CHristians said that Catholic Church separated itself from Orthodox Church.

Only Protestant Christians claim that they were not founded by Christ and his disciples and they separated themselves from the corrupted and poor Catholic Church. Protestant Christians claim that which one is found by Christ and his disciple is not important, which one separated itself from the true church is not important. The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church
This is explained better than I can explain in the book I suggested.  

Rome attempted to take “control” over all of the Church by saying Rome was not just first among equals, but above the equality of the other four, which of course was wrong.  The other four Patriarchs attempted to advise Rome of its mistakes and Rome responded in a less than expected or wanted way.  Rome will say she excommunicated the rest of the Church, as anyone you know would say things to make their position seem more accurate, but the truth is, the rest of the Church gave Rome plenty of time and space to reconcile its differences, which Rome simply refused to do and thus is no longer in communion with the rest of the Church.  When you have four Patriarchs attempting to guide a “rogue” Patriarch back into proper position and understanding of the Church as a whole, and the one Patriarch rebels against them all, while they all are making the same points in agreement with one another, its seems reasonable to conclude the one is wrong, not the other four.  I can suggest another book by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, but it is longer and not as easy of a read.

And as always, if someone more knowledgeable than I wants to make any adjustments to my post, please feel free.

In addition, one can follow the bible to the letter and not be following the Church because the bible is only half of what has been given to us.  Think of it as reading every other page of a book.  You get the general idea of the story and a lot of details, but not the full picture of the book.  
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #110 on: October 19, 2012, 11:12:24 PM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

This is where things start to get interesting. Read all my posts to see why you are on the right track but a little off or wager on me ever returning to this thread.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #111 on: October 19, 2012, 11:13:02 PM »

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.

Sorry Charlie.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,622


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #112 on: October 19, 2012, 11:39:01 PM »

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church

Because they can each trace themselves directly back to the Apostles, surprisingly specific too. I've seen entire lists for each of the Patriarchs which show the entire lineage, ie, all of the Patriarchs from the present ones back to the very first Apostle who established it.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,622


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #113 on: October 19, 2012, 11:44:59 PM »

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome.  

Actually, no. I researched this when I was deciding whether to convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and several of the Fathers actually believed that the 'rock' was in reference to the faith of St. Peter--something all of the Apostles had--and that the authority Jesus later on grants St. Peter applied to all of the disciples.

Origen of Alexandria interpreted it this way, as did St. Cyril I believe, St. John Chrysostom said that everyone can become like St. Peter if they develop the same rock of faith that he possessed, and even St. Augustine of Hippo--while at one point believing that the passage was only in reference to St. Peter--actually changed his view later on in his Retractions and adopted a neutral view and left it up to the reader to decide.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #114 on: October 19, 2012, 11:56:03 PM »

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome.  

Actually, no. I researched this when I was deciding whether to convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and several of the Fathers actually believed that the 'rock' was in reference to the faith of St. Peter--something all of the Apostles had--and that the authority Jesus later on grants St. Peter applied to all of the disciples.

Origen of Alexandria interpreted it this way, as did St. Cyril I believe, St. John Chrysostom said that everyone can become like St. Peter if they develop the same rock of faith that he possessed, and even St. Augustine of Hippo--while at one point believing that the passage was only in reference to St. Peter--actually changed his view later on in his Retractions and adopted a neutral view and left it up to the reader to decide.

Retractions, the greatest work of St. Augustine, if you ask me. Wink
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #115 on: October 20, 2012, 12:36:33 AM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #116 on: October 20, 2012, 12:41:30 AM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #117 on: October 20, 2012, 10:22:10 AM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.

Yet, God the Word became a created being in the incarnation and is the Head of the Church, being part of the Church Himself for our sake.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 10:22:41 AM by Mivac » Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #118 on: October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 AM »

Sorry Walter I dont think we're being much help providing answers, I think maybe one comes to an understanding of the Orthodox church being THE church not by proof or facts but by experiance
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #119 on: October 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM »


Quote
The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church


Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?
I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The bible does need study and interpretation. It needs to be looked at in historical context and the perpsectives of the writers and so on.

A person can not simply say ¨It is in the bible¨ and accept all at face value. Well, you can but you may end up in a secluded cult somewhere drinking kool aid but you understand my meaning. 
Don't assume that I do. Wink
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #120 on: October 20, 2012, 01:41:31 PM »

I think a lengthy, philosophical discussion on the nature of the Church is a great thing, and would love to see it happen...probably not here. Our OP is coming from a Protestant background, and probably needs a more catechetical answer for the time being.

Given the situation, I think I would point to the Church as it is seen in the New Testament, the book written by the Church for the Church, after Christ. That, I believe, is the most important thing to drive home for Walter right now, the point that the Church of Christ, established by our Lord and entrusted to the Apostles, is the very same Orthodox Catholic Church to which I and many of you belong. That we are that same, historical Church from 2,000 years ago, and that we maintain, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that very same Faith once delivered to the saints.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,190


« Reply #121 on: October 20, 2012, 01:45:06 PM »

It is important, I think, if you're going to place a premium on historical continuity/consistency, to look at the churches that the Apostles themselves established, e.g., the Antiochian Church, the Alexandrian/Egyptian (Coptic) Church, the churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc (mainly Byzantine/EO in our times).

Careful study will show that the Rome-affiliated sections of these churches (e.g., Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, etc.) came along much, much later, starting in the 1500s or so (or 1100s, if you take the Maronites as a section of the Antiochian Syriac Church, though their particular form of Christianity cannot be dated back earlier than the 5th century, as that was when Maron died, and the church named after him was founded after his death). So they're, in that historical sense, not candidates as apostolic churches. Rome herself would be, of course, were it not for the fact that the Orthodox view of apostolic succession is faith-based, rather than simply "man-based" (for a lack of a better way to put it; I refer here to the RC/Western idea of "Episcopi Vagantes"), meaning that if the faith itself is not preserved from error, it does not matter who did the ordaining -- the line itself is broken because the faith is not the same. This is also what keeps the Church of the East/Nestorians out of the discussion.

So with all of these things in mind, you should now ask yourself who you are left with. It is only the Orthodox who fit the bill, as the others either came about much, much later (Protestants and Eastern Catholics), or are old enough to trace their church's founding directly to the apostles, but have changed the apostolic faith in some way and hence become 'apostolic' in name only, not in content (Rome and the Nestorians).
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #122 on: October 20, 2012, 07:36:39 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

The RCC during the times of the ww2 was an allied of Hitler and RCC clergy was involved in crimes and forced conversions all over the EU like the Ustaše in Serbia.

People thought that Paul was under the anathemas when the boat was sinking or when he was bit by snakes, and I bet they thought the same thing when he was stoned,incarcerated and persecuted..

Nice church. Smiley


I would criticise the RCC for a lot, but this is plain childish.

what do you fin so childish about that?

I'm thinking the "The RCC during the time of the ww2 was an ally of Hitler" part.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #123 on: October 20, 2012, 08:11:04 PM »

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time.  The Orthodox Church has never experienced this phenomenon.  If you look at what we teach now, it's consistent within the the Ecumenical Counsels and unchanged over more than a thousand years.  Can the Roman Church or any Protestant denomination make this claim and support it with fact and history?  No.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #124 on: October 20, 2012, 08:43:44 PM »

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #125 on: October 20, 2012, 09:19:56 PM »

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps?  Let’s try to help out Walter in this one.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #126 on: October 20, 2012, 09:40:19 PM »

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps? 

Well yes ... if the answer isn't as simple as "No, they're better off being protestant than being non-Christian."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #127 on: October 21, 2012, 02:12:16 AM »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.They also claim that teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?

No one said that Catholics and Protestants are 100% incorrect.

If you want to learn about how the Orthodox Church is the one true Church, I would suggest looking up Church history, primarily early Church history. In other words, the first thousand years of Christianity. For a very short list of important people from the first thousand years of Christianity who hold the Orthodox faith, look up especially people like St. Ignatius of Antioch(died around 110 AD), St. Justin Martyr(100-165), St. John Chrysostom(lived in the latter half of the 300's AD) and St. John of Damascus(lived from mid-600's to mid-700's AD). In fact, St. John of Damascus even has a work called "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #128 on: October 21, 2012, 03:10:36 AM »

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps? 

Well yes ... if the answer isn't as simple as "No, they're better off being protestant than being non-Christian."
I agree with Kerdy on this one. Let's keep this thread on topic.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #129 on: October 21, 2012, 01:17:13 PM »

We have debated this "only true church" concdept previously - and doubtless will again! The question is based on a fallacy, and therefore cannot get to a correct answer. The church of Christ is made up of all whom he has redeemed, many of whom are in Orthodoxy, many are Baptists - and lots of others too. There is no organisation as such which contains them all. As the scripture says, the Lord knows those who are his. The question is based on the idea that one organisation is the true church, and attempts to identify which one. Orthodoxy founds its argument on historical continuity via patriarchs, bishops and so on, and if historical continuity were what defines and delimits the church, I see no reason why the honour should not go to Orthodoxy. We (I write as a Baptist) have a pneumatic approach: all those who have been born again of the Spirit of God are members of the true church. One should be asking a different question: what defines, or establishes the limits of, the church of our Lord? That would lead us to the true church, that is, to his Body or Bride made up of all the redeemed in every age, place - and denomination.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,190


« Reply #130 on: October 21, 2012, 01:32:29 PM »

We have debated this "only true church" concdept previously - and doubtless will again! The question is based on a fallacy, and therefore cannot get to a correct answer. The church of Christ is made up of all whom he has redeemed, many of whom are in Orthodoxy, many are Baptists - and lots of others too. There is no organisation as such which contains them all. As the scripture says, the Lord knows those who are his.

The scripture also says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations which disagree with one another on fundamental doctrines? I guarantee you that if you ask a Baptist what it means to be "saved", you will get a different answer than if you ask the same question of an Orthodox Christian.

Quote
The question is based on the idea that one organisation is the true church, and attempts to identify which one.


No, the question is based on the fact that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Smiley
Logged

NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #131 on: October 21, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.

I was thinking more about the ministry of the Son and Spirit given by the Father, which begins within the life of the Trinity and the uncreated Divine phenomena,  and is then humbly extended to the created beings.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 02:18:24 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #132 on: October 21, 2012, 02:44:37 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

Who says the Old Believers are not the true Church in our detriment?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #133 on: October 21, 2012, 02:44:37 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.

"God, I thank you that I am not like other men..."

you can thank me about other things also.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #134 on: October 21, 2012, 02:44:37 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.
So you're going to compare the murderous acts of the Orthodox against the murderous acts of the Latins as if it were some kind of game? The point I'm trying to make is that we've had rotten fruit fall off both the Orthodox and the Roman trees.

They are both retarded.And yes you might be having a point here.We might not be the Church, but the Old Believers.Or chances are that there might not be a church at all and that Christianity is false.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #135 on: October 21, 2012, 02:44:37 PM »

The Orthodox argument for being the Church is the unchanged doctrine from the councils, conservatism and stability.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,189


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #136 on: October 21, 2012, 03:24:32 PM »

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.
So you're going to compare the murderous acts of the Orthodox against the murderous acts of the Latins as if it were some kind of game? The point I'm trying to make is that we've had rotten fruit fall off both the Orthodox and the Roman trees.

They are both retarded.And yes you might be having a point here.We might not be the Church, but the Old Believers.Or chances are that there might not be a church at all and that Christianity is false.
I have a point, yes, but you're totally not getting it.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #137 on: October 21, 2012, 03:37:43 PM »

the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

In re your other about Baptists and Orthodox assigning different meanings to the term saved, you are correct, but the discrepancy lies in this - that the Chistian's salvation consists of its beginning (when he is born again), its continuation (as we are sanctified), and it end (when we will be 'just men made perfect', as Hebrews has it). We Evangelicals tend to use the word "saved" to refer to the first, whilst Orthodox tend to use it of the entire process. One could say, with truth, "I have been saved from the guilt of sin; I am being saved from the power of sin; I shall be saved from the presence of sin." All three are true, but in common, and admittedly rather inaccurate but commonly understood parlance, we Baptists tend to use the word with the first meaning: but of course we believe the others too, but might more probably use the words "sanctified" and "glorified".

I hope this helps.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 235


« Reply #138 on: October 22, 2012, 03:35:23 AM »

the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

Which all sounds quite lovely and tolerant, but in fact was never the view of the Church during the time of the New Testament Church. When they had a dispute, they did not split into a new denomination. Instead, they held a Council, as demonstrated in Acts 15.

The Early Church Fathers expound greatly on the true Church and differentiate it not just by belief but also by communion with the Church that traced its linage to the apostles. There was never a time in the Early Church when Christians believed in the "invisible Church".

Quote
"It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (St Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 4:26:2).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #139 on: October 22, 2012, 11:02:17 AM »

the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

Not meaning to be critical, but isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #140 on: October 22, 2012, 11:07:07 AM »

isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?

It could mean that, or it could mean that the denominations per se are part of His church. I just want to clarify, so that we understand what each is saying.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,282



« Reply #141 on: October 22, 2012, 11:11:34 AM »

So the Church consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit but who all believe and teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #142 on: October 22, 2012, 11:24:35 AM »

isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?

It could mean that, or it could mean that the denominations per se are part of His church. I just want to clarify, so that we understand what each is saying.

Fair enough. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #143 on: October 22, 2012, 11:27:08 AM »

teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.

Do I detect a faint whiff of sarcasm here? I hope not. Anyway, it is our very faith in him that saves, so I do not think people who teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about what, say, the Nicene Creed teaches about Him are really the ones we are talking about.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #144 on: October 22, 2012, 11:58:00 AM »

It's not about our faith in Him is about His faith given to us, it's not about getting Him into your life by your faith it's about getting into His life by the way He constructed while incarnate here on earth, so if your not teaching His way or your not on His path then no your not part of The Church. Just like in the genesis story when God spoke and created reality when the Logos was incarnated he created a new reality and NOT living by the reality that HE constructs is the original sin.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #145 on: October 22, 2012, 01:38:43 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


In re your other about Baptists and Orthodox assigning different meanings to the term saved, you are correct, but the discrepancy lies in this - that the Chistian's salvation consists of its beginning (when he is born again), its continuation (as we are sanctified), and it end (when we will be 'just men made perfect', as Hebrews has it). We Evangelicals tend to use the word "saved" to refer to the first, whilst Orthodox tend to use it of the entire process. One could say, with truth, "I have been saved from the guilt of sin; I am being saved from the power of sin; I shall be saved from the presence of sin." All three are true, but in common, and admittedly rather inaccurate but commonly understood parlance, we Baptists tend to use the word with the first meaning: but of course we believe the others too, but might more probably use the words "sanctified" and "glorified".

I hope this helps.

Yes but Baptists have an entirely different ontological approach towards the concept of how and why folks are saved in the first step of the process.  You are correct, Orthodox believe Salvation is a gradual process over a human lifetime, indeed an eternity.  However, where there is a concrete difference between Baptists and Orthodox is the why and how aspects of Salvation.  Baptists folks on a penal God and Salvation to avoid punishment for sins, and further with this exclusionary sense.  To be "saved" is almost a condescending judgment against those who are not.  In Orthodox Baptism is the first step in this process of Salvation, but that begins in infancy for many and most folks there.  It is hard for Orthodox to speak of having been "saved" in any real sense then in comparison to a time when they weren't saved.  We live a life in this process of Confession/Reconciliation and Holy Communion, so often and frequently we are indeed being saved when we confess our sins.  However, we are not really comparing it to a time when we weren't saved.  Rather, we are healed.  Sin wounds, it doesn't kill immediately.  Just like a poor diet and abusive life-style will inevitably kill a person, a lifestyle of sin will spiritually wound a person towards death!  So the process of Salvation is like the biological processes of healing and recovery.  This is why we can't speak of being saved or not saved, because we are always in the process of healing.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #146 on: October 22, 2012, 02:04:54 PM »

Hi Ashman618. Always nice to see another Eastern Catholic here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,282



« Reply #147 on: October 22, 2012, 02:20:55 PM »

teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.

Do I detect a faint whiff of sarcasm here? I hope not. Anyway, it is our very faith in him that saves, so I do not think people who teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about what, say, the Nicene Creed teaches about Him are really the ones we are talking about.

No sarcasm, I assure you. Just trying to understand how people who believe in such different Jesuses can be members of the same church?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #148 on: October 22, 2012, 04:24:45 PM »

You to Peter J, And may the Lord bless and have mercy on are inquiry into Orthodoxy! Smiley
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #149 on: October 22, 2012, 05:17:14 PM »

people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,190


« Reply #150 on: October 22, 2012, 05:22:45 PM »

The Creed is a statement of Orthodoxy (read: the statement itself is Orthodox), David Young, not a guarantor that everyone who professes it has the right faith. I hope you understand the distinction.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:28:45 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #151 on: October 22, 2012, 05:25:32 PM »

people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?

I'm sure they wouldn't disagree with any of that. (Although I think it would make a greater impression on them if you had quoted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is an ecumenical creed, rather than the Apostles' Creed. But we don't need to get into that.) It's other matters ...
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:28:15 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #152 on: October 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM »

The Nicene Creed is a statement of Orthodoxy (read: the statement itself is Orthodox), David Young, not a guarantor that everyone who professes it has the right faith. I hope you understand the distinction.

Good post.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #153 on: October 23, 2012, 01:34:55 AM »

of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  Wink
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,580



« Reply #154 on: October 23, 2012, 05:51:58 AM »

of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  Wink

The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them. In this  case, the most vague translation (i.e., 'of one being') is the most appropriate.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #155 on: October 23, 2012, 06:47:12 AM »

of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  Wink

The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them. In this  case, the most vague translation (i.e., 'of one being') is the most appropriate.

That's what the Romanian literally says in the Creed where we write 'consubstantial'. However, I think that in English capitalising 'Being' makes it read slightly differently and I'm not sure for the better. To me it reads almost as though the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God because they share in this same Being rather than that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God because they are of one being with the Father - but that might just be my personal reaction. Anyway, I think I prefer it uncapitalised but otherwise it seems perfectly correct.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,282



« Reply #156 on: October 23, 2012, 09:39:44 AM »

people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?

Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,491



« Reply #157 on: October 23, 2012, 09:49:46 AM »


Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible". If you were to go through the Creed point by point, you'd probably find acceptance, though not necessarily mutual interpretation on all points.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #158 on: October 23, 2012, 10:03:01 AM »


Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible".

Why creeds are bad
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,282



« Reply #159 on: October 23, 2012, 10:17:32 AM »


Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible".

Why creeds are bad

Love it! (I've actually had similar conversations with non-denoms, btw.) laugh
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #160 on: October 23, 2012, 11:03:32 AM »

I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible". If you were to go through the Creed point by point, you'd probably find acceptance, though not necessarily mutual interpretation on all points.

I think this is true. They might well think that the creeds are tainted by a Roman provenance, but would probably never have read them. They would in fact agree with everything in them, except for putting a different meaning on the preposition 'eis' (as discussed at immense length with the regrettably now absent GreekChef) in "one baptism for (eis) the remission of sins."
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #161 on: October 23, 2012, 11:52:47 AM »


The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them.

Shh, Cavaradossi.

We know, we're doing this on purpose. Don't mess this up for us Neo-Orthodox ok?

(i.e., 'of one being')

How about we compromise with "same being" (homoousios) or "with-being" (consubstantialem)?

We must begin interpreting classical prefixes and suffixes according to how we use them in modern English. It's totally phenomenological and will sell like crazy.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:56:02 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.502 seconds with 190 queries.