the Orthodox Church

[Rhamiel]

well the Methodist Church is not Apostolic,
and for that second post, i was just pointing how the EO seems to lack a solid basis

 

[Musa80]

Out to win the "nice guy" award? Or the "you're next to go" vacation award? Or the "no beams in my eyes" award?

I know, just "stating the facts as you see them" award.

Well, in general I think Rhamiel is wrong on every point, cept for the Methodists. That said, I seriously doubt he's trying to be offensive to anyone. At least not intentionally. His posting style is just a bit more blunt than most.

 

[Rhamiel]

Well, in general I think Rhamiel is wrong on every point, cept for the Methodists. That said, I seriously doubt he's trying to be offensive to anyone. At least not intentionally. His posting style is just a bit more blunt than most.

sorry if i seem blunt, i should be more polite, ProScibe said that we should look at the facts and then you will see that the EO is the Church that has maintained the apostolic tradition
well i look at the facts and it seems like the EO does not have any real basis to anything solid, just whatever it wants, if it does not like something it declares it heretical, like it has done with counciles, patriarches, and traditions, if most of the EO agrees with it, then poof, it becomes truth

oh not to get off topic, but i thought you were catholic? when did you change back to anglican?

 

[Musa80]

oh not to get off topic, but i thought you were catholic? when did you change back to anglican?

Nah, I was an Orthodox catechumen for two years and then took the RCIA classes mostly to learn about the RCC. I've been attending an ACNA church but honestly, I'm about to head back to the Orthodox church where I belong. Seem a bit schizophrenic? Possibly, but discernment is a tricky thing and the Truth matters a lot to me.

And now back to your regularly scheduled GT thread.

 

[ProScribe]

how do you know that the Orthodox Church is the Church and not the Coptic Church, or one of the schimatic EO groups like the "Old Believers" or any of the other groups that became broke off from the EO?
if you do not like a council you call it a "robber council"
if you do not like a Patriarch you say he is not teaching the true faith
the EO seems to have no rock, no basis, you say that the laity has to accept a tradition for it to be true, so you do not even trust your own magisterium. on the other hand you recognize that at times most of the Church in the east has been gnostic at one time, and only a few kept the true faith...
the EO just seems so arbitrary

I agree it gets a bit complicated.

What you may suggest about the Eastern Orthodox Church could easily be countered with the specific idea that the Roman Church was the only See that broke away from the rest of the Apostolic Sees in the history of Christendom. Thus, the Roman Schism which is primarily the apparent isolation of the Vatican and the Vatican does not speak for the rest of the world history concerning the Orthodox Church. ((READ THE BOOK: THE ORTHODOX CHURCH)) by Timothy Ware. (the 1054 schism was always a hobby for me to eclucidate and explain.)

 

[Rhamiel]

also, how do we know that the EO is the truest form of Orthodox Christianity and not the Old Believers or Old Calanderists or any of the other schismatic groups that formed up? wait the Calanderists were not all schismatic right?

 

[ProScribe]

Nah, I was an Orthodox catechumen for two years and then took the RCIA classes mostly to learn about the RCC. I've been attending an ACNA church but honestly, I'm about to head back to the Orthodox church where I belong. Seem a bit schizophrenic? Possibly, but discernment is a tricky thing and the Truth matters a lot to me.

And now back to your regularly scheduled GT thread.

Actually, I've checked out the RCIA classes several times. Truthfully, I think I've done enough research and study to pass the RCIA program with flying colors unfortunately the RCIA people probably don't even care if your "Catholic" or not.


Yet, in the Orthodox Church both priests made sure I was properly catechized and chrismated in the Faith.

 

[Rhamiel]

I agree it gets a bit complicated.

What you may suggest about the Eastern Orthodox Church could easily be countered with the specific idea that the Roman Church was the only See that broke away from the rest of the Apostolic Sees in the history of Christendom. Thus, the Roman Schism which is primarily the apparent isolation of the Vatican and the Vatican does not speak for the rest of the world history concerning the Orthodox Church. ((READ THE BOOK: THE ORTHODOX CHURCH)) by Timothy Ware. (the 1054 schism was always a hobby for me to eclucidate and explain.)

insted of defending the Eastern Orthodox Church you just attack the Catholic Church, interesting
i thought the Orthodox believed that all the Bishops are equal? and there was more then one bishop in western Europe at the time of the 1054 schism, it seems to be a split between latin speaking christians and greek speaking christians
why so much emphasis on the Pentarchy if all bishops are equal?

 

[ProScribe]

also, how do we know that the EO is the truest form of Orthodox Christianity and not the Old Believers or Old Calanderists or any of the other schismatic groups that formed up? wait the Calanderists were not all schismatic right?

I don't know Lets' ask Bishop Basil +

 

[Musa80]

how do you know that the Orthodox Church is the Church and not the Coptic Church, or one of the schimatic EO groups like the "Old Believers" or any of the other groups that became broke off from the EO?

Errm how do we know the RCC is the Church and not the Lutherans, or the other 1000's of schismatic groups that she has spawned? Not really a line of argument you should probably be taking.

if you do not like a council you call it a "robber council"

And it seems the RCC never met a council it didn't like. Of course they accept them easy enough, they just don't actually adhere to them. See filioque.

if you do not like a Patriarch you say he is not teaching the true faith

And if you don't like a Patriarch you call him an Anti-Pope and call for a mulligan.

the EO seems to have no rock, no basis, you say that the laity has to accept a tradition for it to be true, so you do not even trust your own magisterium.

The EO doesn't have a magisterium and for good reason. There is no such thing in Christ's church.

on the other hand you recognize that at times most of the Church in the east has been gnostic at one time, and only a few kept the true faith...

And the few that kept the faith brought them out of it. At times your magisterium has led the RCC into error, and there isn't a thing that can be done to bring them out of it. All the power lies in the hands of one man who wouldn't admit he was wrong on a doctrinal issue if Christ Himself came down to point it out.

the EO just seems so arbitrary

Ahem. Likewise.

 

[ProScribe]

insted of defending the Eastern Orthodox Church you just attack the Catholic Church, interesting
i thought the Orthodox believed that all the Bishops are equal? and there was more then one bishop in western Europe at the time of the 1054 schism, it seems to be a split between latin speaking christians and greek speaking christians
why so much emphasis on the Pentarchy if all bishops are equal?

Hmm. no I wouldn't attack the Catholic Church because before the Great Schism of '54 the whole one holy catholic and apostolic Church was One.

 

[ProScribe]

i thought the Orthodox believed that all the Bishops are equal?

We do. All Bishops are considered equal except for the Ecumenical Patriarch who seems to be developing into the position of the Orthodox Pope. But not likely

why so much emphasis on the Pentarchy if all bishops are equal?

There were the 4 pillars of the Pentarchy existening in the apostolic churches that have a legitimate apostolic sucession and confess the Creed.(the Orthodox recite the Creed without the Filioque clause) The other pillar was the Roman Church which had schismed or separated (the Roman see) from was considered the ancient Pentarchy.

That's why you have certain doctrinal and ecclessiology issues that make reunification a long and far-fetched notion. If I recall correctly, most the Orthodox do not and likely will not accept the doctrines of Primacy and Papal Supremacy and other doctrines of the RCC.

. . . *(stretches typing fingers)*

 

[Rhamiel]

Errm how do we know the RCC is the Church and not the Lutherans, or the other 1000's of schismatic groups that she has spawned? Not really a line of argument you should probably be taking.


And it seems the RCC never met a council it didn't like. Of course they accept them easy enough, they just don't actually adhere to them. See filioque.

And if you don't like a Patriarch you call him an Anti-Pope and call for a mulligan.

The EO doesn't have a magisterium and for good reason. There is no such thing in Christ's church.

And the few that kept the faith brought them out of it. At times your magisterium has led the RCC into error, and there isn't a thing that can be done to bring them out of it. All the power lies in the hands of one man who wouldn't admit he was wrong on a doctrinal issue if Christ Himself came down to point it out.

Ahem. Likewise.

we can know where the true faith is, because we just need to see where the Bishop of Rome is, and that finality gives us support when we do things like reject councils, because we do not say councils are the highest authority, or when we excommunicate bishops and even Patriarchs, well that is still not the end, in the EO you just have Patriarchs who excommunicate eachother and it could take deacades before it justs straightened out, as in who is going to get the backing by the other bishops

 

[Rhamiel]

We do. All Bishops are considered equal except for the Ecumenical Patriarch who seems to be developing into the position of the Orthodox Pope. But not likely

well then you can not say it as "one bishop left the other 4"
because there was more then one bishop in the Western Church and more then 4 Bishops in the Eastern Church at the time of the Schism

 

[ProScribe]

well then you can not say it as "one bishop left the other 4"
because there was more then one bishop in the Western Church and more then 4 Bishops in the Eastern Church at the time of the Schism

In reality, it begs the question why are u Catholic and not Orthodox??

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In reality, it begs the question why are u Catholic and not Orthodox??

I am torn betwix the 2

Philip 1:23 For I am being pressed from out of the two. The desire having into the be up-loose and together to Christ to be much rather better.

Textus Rec.) Philippians 1:23 sunecomai gar ek twn duo thn epiqumian ecwn eiV to analusai kai sun cristw einai pollw mallon kreisson

 

[Standing Up]

Well, in general I think Rhamiel is wrong on every point, cept for the Methodists. That said, I seriously doubt he's trying to be offensive to anyone. At least not intentionally. His posting style is just a bit more blunt than most.

Blunt is cool. But let's be factual.

No group thinks the other is anything but splintered, apostasized. Each and every one has fallen by the wayside, according to each and every one.

 

[Rhamiel]

In reality, it begs the question why are u Catholic and not Orthodox??

why does that beg the question why i am Catholic? i am just trying to understand the paradigm that the EO are working from, are all Bishops equal or not? when you talk about the authority of the Pope you talk about them all being equal, but when you talk about the Schism it seems there are only 4 Bishops in the whole world??? it is just inconsitant

why am i catholic? i believe that that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, I am sorry if i have seemed disrespectful to the Orthodox Church, i really do love your Church and am greatful for the good work it has done proclaiming the Gospels to soooooo many people all over the world
I think that Christ left the Church as a visible sign for the world, so they can see that Christ saves, now lets say it is 1628, i am some poor illiterate pesant, am i going to be able to read many history books and study which Christian Church is the true Church? EO, OO, RC, Anglican or any of the breakaway groups from those three? God would leave a sign for that person, something easy to see, something that even simple people can understand, that sign is the office of the Pope, if you are in communion with the Pope you are part of the Church that Christ founded, if not, then you have seperated yourself from the Church. Now if you read many books on theology and history and the writtings of the early church fathers, i think you will come to the same POV (though many people read these things and do not come to the same POV) but it is not needed

 

[ProScribe]

Isn't the Capital City of Eastern Orthodoxy located in Constantinople?

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is in Foreign land of Turkey

HAH Barthomelew is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch

. . .

 

[mark46]

Yes, let us be blunt.

It is not the churches that call each other apostates. It is their elder brother followers. The leaders of the various churches have been working and praying with one another for decades, recognizing their differences, and accepting one and another as brethren in Christ.

Blunt is cool. But let's be factual.

No group thinks the other is anything but splintered, apostasized. Each and every one has fallen by the wayside, according to each and every one.