OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 08:26:39 PM *
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 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is RCC so attractive?  (Read 10716 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #495 on: January 09, 2014, 01:53:28 PM »

It's attractive for me on two fronts.
....
and convenience; it's large, powerful and influential.
Power comes and goes.

Meh, still half of the world's Christian population are Catholic.
Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,307


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #496 on: January 09, 2014, 02:06:59 PM »

It's attractive for me on two fronts.
....
and convenience; it's large, powerful and influential.
Power comes and goes.

Meh, still half of the world's Christian population are Catholic.

By "Catholic", do you mean (1) Weekly Mass-going, fully-obedient-to-the-Magisterium Catholics; or (2) anyone calling him/herself a Catholic?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #497 on: January 09, 2014, 02:28:38 PM »

It's attractive for me on two fronts.
....
and convenience; it's large, powerful and influential.
Power comes and goes.

Meh, still half of the world's Christian population are Catholic.

By "Catholic", do you mean (1) Weekly Mass-going, fully-obedient-to-the-Magisterium Catholics; or (2) anyone calling him/herself a Catholic?

I mean statistically. I know many people who are Catholic don't believe or attend.
Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,035


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #498 on: January 09, 2014, 03:09:37 PM »

It's attractive for me on two fronts.
....
and convenience; it's large, powerful and influential.
Power comes and goes.

Meh, still half of the world's Christian population are Catholic.

By "Catholic", do you mean (1) Weekly Mass-going, fully-obedient-to-the-Magisterium Catholics; or (2) anyone calling him/herself a Catholic?

I mean statistically. I know many people who are Catholic don't believe or attend.

True for most if not all Christian denominations including orthodoxy.  Just had to add that
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 03:10:44 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #499 on: January 10, 2014, 06:31:21 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 06:34:04 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #500 on: January 10, 2014, 06:32:26 AM »

It's attractive for me on two fronts.
....
and convenience; it's large, powerful and influential.
Power comes and goes.

Meh, still half of the world's Christian population are Catholic.

By "Catholic", do you mean (1) Weekly Mass-going, fully-obedient-to-the-Magisterium Catholics; or (2) anyone calling him/herself a Catholic?

I mean statistically. I know many people who are Catholic don't believe or attend.

Catholics just 'obey'

I know a great many who aren't all that well versed in the church anyway. A number believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,035


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #501 on: January 10, 2014, 07:02:50 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 07:05:17 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #502 on: January 10, 2014, 07:39:48 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.
Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #503 on: January 10, 2014, 08:40:48 AM »

One of the few things that remotely attracted me to Roman catholicism was Carthusian monasticism. 
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #504 on: January 10, 2014, 08:42:10 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists
Then why have internet apologetics? That is the reason for Catholic Answers.

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.
No. When I was considering moving from Catholicism to Orthodoxy FOUR different friends of mine, independent of each other gave me references to quote mine sites. Immediately I was impressed by the sheer volume of quotes from ECFs that seem to support the Catholic position.

However I am grateful to God that he guided me in this. I was aware of www.ccel.org where I could look at these quotes in context.

Some quotes I couldn't independently verify, so I ignored these. Others were complete misquotes, for example they cite Athanasius as saying "Rome is the apostolic throne"* when he in fact says "Rome is an apostolic throne"
History of the Arians Part V. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.35

* two sites by way of example:
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm/

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/primacy.htm/

Some are out of context. For instance John Chrysostom is quoted as saying that Peter is the keeper of the keys. Whilst this is true, the same saint also says that the apostle John is also the keeper of the keys.

If one were to simply read the Catholic part quote one would be impressed by the power given to Peter and not know that the same power is held equally by another apostle.

This goes on and on. Peter is the choirmaster (quoted from John Chrysostom). True, but others are also called masters of the choir.
Butler gives several examples of the use of in order to prove Peter’s uniqueness.  
(Butler, S., Dahlgren, N., & Hess, D., Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Queenship Publishing Company; Santa Barbara, CA), p224)

Then some Catholic apologists have side-arguments to this that the singular is used by John Chrysostom only in regards Peter, and the plural to Peter and other apostles. However this whilst being true is also selective as Hesychius of Jerusalem uses the singular term when he calls James alone the coryphæus.  
Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p85.

There's a source book by Giles Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454 which is an entire book of these part quotes. But then that's its purpose. However interestingly as aside I have spent some time trying to find out who Giles is, including contacting the publisher. This man seems to be a phantom.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others
The RCC in South Africa cannot be taken in isolation. People there who are converting aren't probably converting to the "RCC of SA" but the RCC, as a whole. They would see the pope and pageantry of the Vatican, etc.




Not just my four friends, but in the 10 years since debating this with Catholics the amount of times they simply refer to these quote mines in lieu of argument is staggering.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #505 on: January 10, 2014, 08:49:14 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

This is in fact one of the things that confirmed me  in my rejection of the RCC. I thought that if a church has to rely on such deception then it is not a true Christian church.

They use all other weird arguments. One is that (aside from Jesus) Peter is mentioned more times than anyone else in the NT. This itself is a 'fact' but the conclusion "Peter = Pope" is not borne out by that fact. And one could simply say "Peter is MORE important than Mary because he's mentioned more times than her" - I'm sure Catholics don't devote that many prayers to Peter.

the argument from statistics immediately becomes self-defeating.

Another argument being that Peter is named first in lists of apostles. “Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).”    
again two different Catholic sources use this argument:
The Primacy of Peter at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Patrick Madrid claims that Peter was always listed first in apostle lists, which is false. Madrid, P., (1999) Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy (Basilica Press; Rancho Santa Fe, CA), p26; making for an ironic title because Peter is NOT always listed first


obvious exceptions indeed! But why are they exceptions?

One Catholic apologist, John Salza attempts to explain these exceptions away. Salza notes that 1 Corinthians 3:22; “whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas.” Unfortunately Salza gives supposition as an explanation. He states that “Paul is actually listing these names in ascending order.”  
Salza, J., (2007) The Biblical Basis for the Papacy (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division; Huntington, IN), pp18-19.

It is circular reasoning in that he argues that it’s in ascending order because he assumes Peter is first. Therefore if Peter is really first then this, a listing with Peter last must be in reverse order. There is no reason to suppose that this is so. It is further flawed because if it were truly a list in reverse order it then makes Apollos who is mentioned second, the second in importance. Paul’s helper is greater than Paul!

Yet again I should note that Catholics simply cite these people as references without actually testing what it is they have to say
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 08:50:39 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,307


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #506 on: January 10, 2014, 09:13:27 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

This is in fact one of the things that confirmed me  in my rejection of the RCC. I thought that if a church has to rely on such deception then it is not a true Christian church.

To be fair, I don't think such deceptive techniques are dogma.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #507 on: January 10, 2014, 09:18:20 AM »

There are plenty of distortions in popular Orthodox polemical material. Orthodox apologists are often so eager to distance themselves from the RCC that they distort Orthodoxy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,035


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #508 on: January 10, 2014, 09:54:01 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Look sometimes i see Catholics quote things that are genuinely out of context. However I see many orthodox too who simply use the "out of context " claim as a cop out to confronting an explicit quote. It goes both ways.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 10:01:45 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,035


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #509 on: January 10, 2014, 09:56:22 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists
Then why have internet apologetics? That is the reason for Catholic Answers.

The forums aren't for apologetics although they have apologetics subsections.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #510 on: January 10, 2014, 10:17:26 AM »

It seems to me that there have always been different competing understandings of the Roman papacy at play. So to search the past for some uniform and monolithic position across time and geography before some arbitrarily chosen schism date seems pointless.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,531


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #511 on: January 10, 2014, 11:03:03 AM »

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Two points:

1.  Who determines who is "the wrong Catholic" when they all accept the authority of the Pope?  I would get different versions of Catholicism from "the Nuns on the Bus" and "the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales", but they're both in good standing with Rome. 

2.  Your quotes, which boggle your mind, have very often been debunked or explained in context, and yet you criticise these unnamed others.  Perhaps you are also a "wrong Catholic"? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #512 on: January 10, 2014, 11:36:41 AM »

There are plenty of distortions in popular Orthodox polemical material. Orthodox apologists are often so eager to distance themselves from the RCC that they distort Orthodoxy.

Thank you for saying that. I appreciate the voices of reason, so few and far between.  Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Auryn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic converting to Orthodox
Posts: 79



« Reply #513 on: January 10, 2014, 12:49:33 PM »

I was attracted to Catholicism because of its beauty.  There was no way I was going to become a Protestant (because history) so I became Catholic.  Unfortunately there is little beauty left in the Church because of the change to the Mass and the entire Catholic Culture has been pretty much wiped out.  Unless you are in a city with a Traditional Latin Mass community, there is not much Catholic about being Catholic. I didn't really care so much about other issues, I just accepted them.  But, after ten years in a terrible Mass, and the plain hypocrisy of how the hierarchy 'interprets' Catholic teaching, I had to get out. 
Logged

If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,035


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #514 on: January 10, 2014, 01:19:02 PM »

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Two points:

1.  Who determines who is "the wrong Catholic" when they all accept the authority of the Pope?  I would get different versions of Catholicism from "the Nuns on the Bus" and "the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales", but they're both in good standing with Rome.

Forever misunderstanding me. When I say wrong, I mean the type of Catholics to converse to if you looking for a discussion on apologetics  

Quote
2.  Your quotes, which boggle your mind, have very often been debunked or explained in context, and yet you criticise these unnamed others.  Perhaps you are also a "wrong Catholic"?  

Oh please Roll Eyes . Very few of them have been debunked. We can search the forums now.  Most have been rock solid and either countered with other quotes or just ignored. The few attempts to debunk them have mainly been failures although I will admit a few , only few, have been debunked. Many times the surrounding context you guys try to bring to light has no bearing on the what the quote articulates.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 01:20:33 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,307


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #515 on: January 10, 2014, 01:32:52 PM »

But, after ten years in a terrible Mass, and the plain hypocrisy of how the hierarchy 'interprets' Catholic teaching, I had to get out. 

What sort of hypocrisy?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Auryn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic converting to Orthodox
Posts: 79



« Reply #516 on: January 10, 2014, 01:52:26 PM »

But, after ten years in a terrible Mass, and the plain hypocrisy of how the hierarchy 'interprets' Catholic teaching, I had to get out. 

What sort of hypocrisy?

They teach as if hundreds of years of teaching and dogma can just be ignored.  The dogma is no salvation outside of the Church, for example, yet Pope Francis teaches atheists can just follow their conscious and be saved.  The German bishops want to give communion to remarried Catholics even though that is clearly against Catholic teaching.  The Traditional Latin Mass was supposedly banned for fifty years and yet Pope Benedict said that was a lie and it could be said by any priest who wanted to say it without the permission of his bishop.  And don't even get me started on every Vatican II pope being put up for sainthood. 
Logged

If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #517 on: January 10, 2014, 02:26:34 PM »

Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

So, um...what are you doing in this post? Or most of your other posts?

Quote
"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic.


As though quote mining is qualitatively different when a Catholic does it versus when another Christian does it! Right. You're a riot, Wandile.  Cheesy

Quote
When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence.


Rarely do Patristic quotes actually say anything explicit in favor of the modern RCC ecclesiology or other matters that separate it from Orthodoxy. Even from Catholic sources/people, you find much reliance on parenthesis and ellipses that, when checked against what the original source material actually says in full and in context, generally makes the RC position seem much less supportable. Granted, I know that in general anything can be used to argue anything, but that's all the more reason to read primary sources, which many Catholics are loathe to do if not from RC-approved websites and the like (e.g., the Catholic Encyclopedia and such). So the whole thing becomes a big echo chamber and the RCs are convinced that they have the most "evidence" anyone could ever have, never stopping to think about (1) how their sources may be filtered or presented in such a way as to bias their conclusions, and (2) all the counterevidence they just out and out ignore or are unaware of because the RC apologists and apologetic websites never present it in the first place. 

Quote
fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

So what? Also, this is pretty funny as some sort of point coming from an RC when your church is (in)famous for poking and prodding and defining to death every last jot and tittle of things that most Christians don't bother with. Indeed, probably most Christians historically and currently don't bother to wonder how the Holy Spirit proceeds...because for hundreds of years we had the Creed in one form or another that allowed us to say a simple statement of belief that everyone could agree on...everyone, that is, until a certain church decided to add a certain phrase that eventually made procession an issue...hmmmmmmmmmmm....

Quote
Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness


Is that "ancientness" in actual Church history terms (like...monastery of Mor Gabriel ancient?), or RCC terms? Because even the "old" form of your Mass dates to maybe 1370 (in accordance with the council of Trent's order that the Mass promulgated there should be used excepting those whose forms were 200 years old or older by that point). Do you know how late 1370 is? The aforementioned Mor Gabriel monastery was about 1,000 years old by that point.

Nothing in modern RCism is ancient except for the Early Church Fathers selectively quoted from to try to make all of this seem like it is not a redaction of what came before (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with redaction in itself; heck, the liturgy of St. Basil as celebrated in my Church is itself a redacted version of the original Alexandrian liturgy of St. Mark). The difference is, of course, that given the RCCs peculiar ideas of the centralized power of the Roman Pope, and concomitant idea that doctrine may 'develop', the RCC has essentially eliminated its own past and now its partisans are in the unenviable position of having to pretend as though Church history begins sometime in the middle ages. It doesn't, neither in Rome nor anywhere else.

Quote
and strict adherence to moral law

When is Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi going to be considered a moral law so that Catholics will have to at least begin to pretend to pay attention to it? The RCC needs more of that and less patting itself on the back for attempting to abscond with St. Peter and title of "Pope" and all the other things by which it claims to be the true Church of God.
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #518 on: January 10, 2014, 10:10:39 PM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

This is in fact one of the things that confirmed me  in my rejection of the RCC. I thought that if a church has to rely on such deception then it is not a true Christian church.

To be fair, I don't think such deceptive techniques are dogma.

Given that the pope used the "Donation of Constantine" knowing it was a fraud then one might think that deception is a dogma
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #519 on: January 10, 2014, 10:19:13 PM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Look sometimes i see Catholics quote things that are genuinely out of context. However I see many orthodox too who simply use the "out of context " claim as a cop out to confronting an explicit quote. It goes both ways.

Claims of evidence somewhere else is also a usual tactic.

I've gone through works of luminaries such as Newman to popularists such as S. Ray - whose work is an atrocious distortion. I have referenced others here like Salza who makes a ridiculous argument to cover up for a falsehood.

(Reminder - Falsehood: Peter is always listed first in the naming of the Apostles)


It's interesting that Newman recognises no evidence in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch
"…it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope's authority"
Newman, J. H., (1909) An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Longmans, Green & Co; London), p149.

Newman goes on to state that just because Ignatius is silent on the issue it doesn't mean that the pope didn't exercise such power. Whilst this is true it instantly undermines any Catholic apologist trying to use Ignatius for the pope.

On another much misused ECF the Catholic encyclopaedia of 1911 offers this frank admission of John Chrysostom’s writings “...that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.”   
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm/
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #520 on: January 10, 2014, 10:20:27 PM »

The forums aren't for apologetics although they have apologetics subsections.

That's false. The banner of the site says it's for defending the faith!

"To explain and defend the faith"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #521 on: January 10, 2014, 10:42:35 PM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Look sometimes i see Catholics quote things that are genuinely out of context. However I see many orthodox too who simply use the "out of context " claim as a cop out to confronting an explicit quote. It goes both ways.

Well to mention a few... the ones below all of your posts.

Quote
They use all other weird arguments. One is that (aside from Jesus) Peter is mentioned more times than anyone else in the NT. This itself is a 'fact' but the conclusion "Peter = Pope" is not borne out by that fact. And one could simply say "Peter is MORE important than Mary because he's mentioned more times than her" - I'm sure Catholics don't devote that many prayers to Peter.

THIS!!!! I cannot tell you how mind numbing it is to go from 'Peter=Rock' to 'the Bishop of Rome is the Infallible Supreme Teacher, Guide of all Christians, the Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ and whoever believes otherwise is Anathema' (c.f., Vatican I) they never explain where they get from Peter to Pope. It's just an assertion, and it's never explained. There is no middleman explanation, apart from terrible Patristic and loose Scriptural ones.

Quote
Oh please Roll Eyes . Very few of them have been debunked. We can search the forums now.  Most have been rock solid and either countered with other quotes or just ignored. The few attempts to debunk them have mainly been failures although I will admit a few , only few, have been debunked. Many times the surrounding context you guys try to bring to light has no bearing on the what the quote articulates.

I have rummaged through the RC-Orthodox Discussion forum plenty of times just looking for a good argument. I on very rare occasion find one that isn't answered with paragraphs of other opposing quotes.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 10:51:24 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,531


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #522 on: January 10, 2014, 11:13:20 PM »

Forever misunderstanding me. When I say wrong, I mean the type of Catholics to converse to if you looking for a discussion on apologetics  

So what is the right kind of Catholic to discuss apologetics with? 

Quote
Oh please Roll Eyes . Very few of them have been debunked. We can search the forums now.  Most have been rock solid and either countered with other quotes or just ignored. The few attempts to debunk them have mainly been failures although I will admit a few , only few, have been debunked. Many times the surrounding context you guys try to bring to light has no bearing on the what the quote articulates.

The burden of proof is on you, if even you admit some of your proof has been debunked, to prove that the rest of your proof is reliable. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #523 on: January 11, 2014, 12:05:06 AM »

Through the history of RCC, I know that it is not the true Church of God .But why is it still so big and so attractive?


And how do RCC Christians view Her corrupted history?

Much of it relies on its 'bigness' which has a degree of self-support. People see its vastness and think that there's something to it.

I have found when debating Catholics on the church they rely on the 'authority' of sources, rather than checking facts for themselves. They rely on quote-mines.

There's simply knee-jerk responses to discussions along set patterns. Instead of dealing with evidence they simply throw more quotes/'evidence' into the discussion as if sheer weight works.

They also stifle debate - such as on catholicanswers where they have steadily eroded the ability of non-Catholics to freely discuss matters


Maybe because most Catholics don't strive to be internet apologists

"Quote mining" as you call it has yo be understood from the perspective of a catholic. When a quote says something's so explicit, its very hard not to use it as evidence. The fact is most Christians don't care about debating the crazy stuff we debate here. The average Christian probably does not even know about how the holy spirit proceeds etc.

Secondly the vastness of the CC is not so much its greatest appeal but its ancientness and strict adherence to moral law. Like here in South Africa , the CC isn't big, a few million, but people convert every year in because of said reasons amongst others

The quotes RCs bring are never 'explicit' they are always out of context, or on some occasions downright fabricated. The RCs that I've dialogued with anyway.

You've been conversing with the wrong Catholics. Honestly. I have tones of quotes that are so explicit that it boggles the mind to see some orthodox say "it means something else , its out of context" when even the surrounding context doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

Look sometimes i see Catholics quote things that are genuinely out of context. However I see many orthodox too who simply use the "out of context " claim as a cop out to confronting an explicit quote. It goes both ways.

Well to mention a few... the ones below all of your posts.

Quote
They use all other weird arguments. One is that (aside from Jesus) Peter is mentioned more times than anyone else in the NT. This itself is a 'fact' but the conclusion "Peter = Pope" is not borne out by that fact. And one could simply say "Peter is MORE important than Mary because he's mentioned more times than her" - I'm sure Catholics don't devote that many prayers to Peter.

THIS!!!! I cannot tell you how mind numbing it is to go from 'Peter=Rock' to 'the Bishop of Rome is the Infallible Supreme Teacher, Guide of all Christians, the Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ and whoever believes otherwise is Anathema' (c.f., Vatican I) they never explain where they get from Peter to Pope. It's just an assertion, and it's never explained. There is no middleman explanation, apart from terrible Patristic and loose Scriptural ones.

Quote
Oh please Roll Eyes . Very few of them have been debunked. We can search the forums now.  Most have been rock solid and either countered with other quotes or just ignored. The few attempts to debunk them have mainly been failures although I will admit a few , only few, have been debunked. Many times the surrounding context you guys try to bring to light has no bearing on the what the quote articulates.

I have rummaged through the RC-Orthodox Discussion forum plenty of times just looking for a good argument. I on very rare occasion find one that isn't answered with paragraphs of other opposing quotes.


One of the more remarkable Catholic arguments is that of sola scriptura. Most believe that this is a Protestant doctrine, but Catholics adopt it with regard the Gospel of Matthew.

Mathew explicitly gives Peter the keys. However in Mt 18:18 he gives the same powers to the other Apostles. "BUT!" Catholics object "He doesn't mention the keys here!" This is true, but one has to argue that the keys aren't implied, only if one takes a literalist argument - and there are many ECFs who note that the keys were given to the other apostles - that is, they understood Mt 18:18 as implying 'keys' were given


Catholics state a fact (even if it's a part quote) and then leap to a conclusion not borne out by that fact.


Fact: Peter's name was changed*
Their conclusion - Peter was pope!


*here's but two different Catholic apologists who cite this as significant
Ott, L., (1974), Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine (Tan Books and Publishers; Rockford, Il.), p280.

Langan, T., (1998) The Catholic Tradition (University of Missouri; Columbia, MO.), p98


But then Saul became Paul! I recognise that there’s no direct biblical evidence to suggest that the Lord changed Saul’s name to Paul, and Catholics certainly use this point (as another sola scriptura argument Catholics sometimes resort to) to suggest it is only Peter whose name was changed by Jesus. In other examples in the bible it is God who changed the person’s name (such as Abram to Abraham). It is thus suggested that when a name change happens, God is one who makes it happen. And thus despite the direct biblical evidence there are Church Fathers that accept that it was God who changed Saul’s name to Paul.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ." Why did God change his name, and call him Paul who was Saul? It was, that he might not even in this respect come short of the Apostles, but that that pre-eminence which the chief of the Disciples had, he might also acquire (Mark iii. 16); and have whereon to ground a closer union with them”
John Chrysostom – Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles - Homily I (Acts I. 1, 2.). Note here too that Paul is to be given the pre-eminence of Peter.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #524 on: January 11, 2014, 12:07:22 AM »

When arguing on Catholic answers shortly before being banned there people were making arguments from incredulity... that the RCC just must be the church, 'cause it's been around 2,000 years.

And, they also argued that Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church - therefore if the RCC isn't the church, then Jesus was a liar.

This assumes that the RCC is THAT church that Jesus was speaking of, and not the EOC.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
arnI
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 159



« Reply #525 on: January 11, 2014, 08:28:12 AM »

I admit that I listen to the EWTN Radio Open Line program occasionally because the questions and answers can be interesting at times.
Below is a paraphrase of how the apologist answered when a woman recently asked how she should respond to an Orthodox Christian that believes the Orthodox Church is the True Church:

1. That the Orthodox recognize that the Pope is "first among equals" among the early major Bishops. This is to support Papal Primacy.
2. That all the other Early Major Bishoprics succumbed to at least one heresy while Rome has not. So therefore the Roman Catholic must be the True Church.
3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.

The portion covering the Orthodox question starts at 12:00 and ends at around 16:00 at the below link:
http://ewtn.edgeboss.net/wmedia/ewtn/audiolibrary/ol_01062014.mp3

Seems to be rather weak arguments to counter our Orthodox claim, but it is delivered in only four minutes in his defense.
Logged

Grant me to see my own errors and not to judge my brother
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Annie Och
Posts: 4,107



« Reply #526 on: January 11, 2014, 12:12:18 PM »

3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.

Ignoring the "lacking the Pope" bit, I have seen the point come up that Catholicism still has Ecumenical Councils and EO/OO don't. It makes me wonder why they assume that holding them is necessary component of the Church. But I suppose it makes sense, what with all those Ecumenical Councils before Nicaea I defending the faith that have been binding on all souls everywhere since then.

The average EO I've seen grapple with the question don't tend to know how to react.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 12:13:35 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #527 on: January 11, 2014, 10:13:56 PM »

I admit that I listen to the EWTN Radio Open Line program occasionally because the questions and answers can be interesting at times.
Below is a paraphrase of how the apologist answered when a woman recently asked how she should respond to an Orthodox Christian that believes the Orthodox Church is the True Church:

1. That the Orthodox recognize that the Pope is "first among equals" among the early major Bishops. This is to support Papal Primacy.
I think they're being misleading. Primacy is not what Catholics believe in. They believe in Supremacy.


2. That all the other Early Major Bishoprics succumbed to at least one heresy while Rome has not. So therefore the Roman Catholic must be the True Church.
A pope was struck off the lists for support of heresy - from memory that pope was Honorius

3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.
Well that's circular-logic.

Only the church in Rome calls Ecumenical Councils for its own church!

However look at the first Ecumenical Councils. Called for by the emperor, presided over the emperor (or holding his Sacra, a representative). All held in the east.

The portion covering the Orthodox question starts at 12:00 and ends at around 16:00 at the below link:
http://ewtn.edgeboss.net/wmedia/ewtn/audiolibrary/ol_01062014.mp3

Seems to be rather weak arguments to counter our Orthodox claim, but it is delivered in only four minutes in his defense.
laugh
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 10:15:01 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #528 on: January 11, 2014, 10:17:11 PM »

3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.

Ignoring the "lacking the Pope" bit, I have seen the point come up that Catholicism still has Ecumenical Councils and EO/OO don't. It makes me wonder why they assume that holding them is necessary component of the Church. But I suppose it makes sense, what with all those Ecumenical Councils before Nicaea I defending the faith that have been binding on all souls everywhere since then.

The average EO I've seen grapple with the question don't tend to know how to react.


Starting with the model of the Council in Acts 15 - Ecumencial Councils normally met in reaction to a crisis. They met to remedy a matter of faith - they were not merely to change matters of discipline but to define matters of faith.

When we look at Catholic 'Ecumenical Councils' like Vatican II one wonders what crisis of faith caused them to call it. What great heresy was sweeping through the church? Same with Vatican I

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #529 on: January 11, 2014, 10:46:28 PM »

3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.

Ignoring the "lacking the Pope" bit, I have seen the point come up that Catholicism still has Ecumenical Councils and EO/OO don't. It makes me wonder why they assume that holding them is necessary component of the Church. But I suppose it makes sense, what with all those Ecumenical Councils before Nicaea I defending the faith that have been binding on all souls everywhere since then.

The average EO I've seen grapple with the question don't tend to know how to react.

The Roman councils are all unrelated to the first seven. Namely, that Christ's person is defined. The Council of Vatican I was about the Pope; Vatican II was about Ecumenism, Florence about East-West Schism, Trent about Protestantism etc. It seems more like Roman councils are more like shaping public policy than ecumenical in the sense of the early Church.

I admit that I listen to the EWTN Radio Open Line program occasionally because the questions and answers can be interesting at times.
Below is a paraphrase of how the apologist answered when a woman recently asked how she should respond to an Orthodox Christian that believes the Orthodox Church is the True Church:

1. That the Orthodox recognize that the Pope is "first among equals" among the early major Bishops. This is to support Papal Primacy.
I think they're being misleading. Primacy is not what Catholics believe in. They believe in Supremacy.


2. That all the other Early Major Bishoprics succumbed to at least one heresy while Rome has not. So therefore the Roman Catholic must be the True Church.
A pope was struck off the lists for support of heresy - from memory that pope was Honorius

3. That only the Catholic Church continues to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the the Orthodox have failed to convene an Ecumenical Council since the schism because the Orthodox lack the Pope to confirm what the Council teaches.
Well that's circular-logic.

Only the church in Rome calls Ecumenical Councils for its own church!

However look at the first Ecumenical Councils. Called for by the emperor, presided over the emperor (or holding his Sacra, a representative). All held in the east.

This. Furthermore, Honorius was condemned... by an Ecumenical council. Funny how Vatican I claims that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical councils and Honorius was anathematized by one.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 10:48:01 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #530 on: January 11, 2014, 11:09:42 PM »

It's so attractive because it's easier than Orthodoxy...
I am not sure about that. For example, is it a serious sin, gravely wrong, for an Eastern Orthodox not to attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday? What percentage of Eastern Orthodox in Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Moldova, attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday?
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #531 on: January 11, 2014, 11:46:44 PM »

It's so attractive because it's easier than Orthodoxy...
I am not sure about that. For example, is it a serious sin, gravely wrong, for an Eastern Orthodox not to attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday? What percentage of Eastern Orthodox in Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Moldova, attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday?

We might ask why RC mass attendance is so poor across the board even when you guys have this rule that it's a "serious sin" to miss weekly mass (I mean, I personally don't care, but it's not a crazy thing to wonder if you want to prod the Orthodox on this account). Other than Poland and Malta (not included at the link, but I've read stats as high as 84% in that country; bravo, Malta), there really isn't all that much for the RCC to be proud of in its worldwide weekly attendance statistics...anything hovering around a quarter of the people could be considered "high" when considered with the abysmal attendance in traditionally Catholic countries like France, Czech Republic, Slovenia, etc. I suppose Mexico is probably not completely lost yet, either, but the Protestants and secularists are really doing a number on the RC there, too, unfortunately. Sad

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for a fight. I don't think any communion should feel comfortable anywhere in the world, given how many claim affiliation without attending services beyond weddings and baptisms. Such is the world we live in.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 11:49:22 PM by dzheremi » Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #532 on: January 12, 2014, 12:28:10 AM »

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for a fight.
Oh sure.  That's why someone said that RCC is so attractive because it is easier than Orthodoxy. 
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,531


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #533 on: January 12, 2014, 12:32:03 AM »

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for a fight.
Oh sure.  That's why someone said that RCC is so attractive because it is easier than Orthodoxy. 

Then why not discuss it with that person?  Perhaps you are looking for a fight?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #534 on: January 12, 2014, 12:36:54 AM »

Funny how Vatican I claims that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical councils.
That would be funny, if it actually said this.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #535 on: January 12, 2014, 12:48:04 AM »

What makes it so attractive?  I don't know, but it sure helps when you guys talk more about the Catholic Church than you do Orthodoxy, attack it at every opportunity and can't or won't defend your own faith without distortions of truth (i.e., twisting what the Catholics says) and arguing amongst yourselves about what this or that Orthodox Church believes.  Or just outright attacks on Orthodox churches because of their cultural backgrounds revealing prejudice within your own ranks and showing Orthodoxy may not be as solid and bound together as you say it is. 

But hey, what do I know?  I just read your own contradictions and distortions when you post them. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #536 on: January 12, 2014, 01:37:48 AM »

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for a fight.
Oh sure.  That's why someone said that RCC is so attractive because it is easier than Orthodoxy. 

Then why not discuss it with that person?  Perhaps you are looking for a fight?
The fact is that the RC Church and the EO Church are both quite attractive, and also the OO Church. All three  Churches have their positives. If what is meant here by "attractive" is that the RC Church has more members than the EO or OO Church, this can be attributed to historical considerations.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 01:38:37 AM by stanley123 » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #537 on: January 12, 2014, 02:18:31 AM »

Funny how Vatican I claims that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical councils.
That would be funny, if it actually said this.
I think it has elements of this even if not explicitly stated



"This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

The pope is the president and summoned the council
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 02:30:21 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #538 on: January 12, 2014, 02:31:50 AM »

It's so attractive because it's easier than Orthodoxy...
I am not sure about that. For example, is it a serious sin, gravely wrong, for an Eastern Orthodox not to attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday? What percentage of Eastern Orthodox in Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Moldova, attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday?

Whilst it's a tragedy - low church attendance - I'm not sure if it's a sin within Orthodoxy to not attend. I could be wrong
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #539 on: January 12, 2014, 02:32:53 AM »

What makes it so attractive?  I don't know, but it sure helps when you guys talk more about the Catholic Church than you do Orthodoxy, attack it at every opportunity and can't or won't defend your own faith without distortions of truth (i.e., twisting what the Catholics says) and arguing amongst yourselves about what this or that Orthodox Church believes.  Or just outright attacks on Orthodox churches because of their cultural backgrounds revealing prejudice within your own ranks and showing Orthodoxy may not be as solid and bound together as you say it is. 

But hey, what do I know?  I just read your own contradictions and distortions when you post them. 

It's very easy to make generalist observances such as this.

Do you have anything specific?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.