Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[Light of the East]

No denominations = non-denominational

catholic church = the collective individual christians and is not a denomination

Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox = two denominations

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

No.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism were THE Church until the sad split of 1054. They are still the only Church. They just need to be put together again.

 

[Albion]

No.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism were THE Church until the sad split of 1054. They are still the only Church.

No matter how one words it, "they" are not "the" Church. "They" are two separate denominations and split from each other in essentially the same way as every other denomination did.

 

[Light of the East]

No matter how one words it, "they" are not "the" Church. "They" are two separate denominations and split from each other in essentially the same way as every other denomination did.

That which constitutes the Church is 1.) succession back to the Apostles. This is one of the five principles of a covenant relationship. 2.) valid Sacraments. None of the other 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today have valid Sacraments, and most Protestant and Fundamentalist denominations flat out deny them.

You believe what you want to defend your own personal refusal to join THE Church and stop being a Protestant.

 

[Albion]

That which constitutes the Church is 1.) succession back to the Apostles. This is one of the five principles of a covenant relationship.

While I am sympathetic in a way (and ought to be so, considering that my own church body has and values Apostolic Succession), I'm not sure that this point is anything but arbitrary.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism were THE Church until the sad split of 1054. They are still the only Church. They just need to be put together again.

Sounds like two different denominations to me. One believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and the other believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Two different denominations. Perhaps the other 40,000 other groups are still "The Church" that just needs to "be put back together again".

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Perhaps the other 40,000 other groups are still "The Church" that just needs to "be put back together again".

Sounds reasonable enough. And, BTW, most of the alleged other 40,000 differ on less than separates the RCC and EO.

 

[Standing Up]

I can't explain the Immaculate Conception because no such thing is taught in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a distinctly Western approach which creates anthropological problems for the Orthodox. +Fr. Thomas Hopko, writing on the things which will have to change if union between East and West is to be accomplished said this is one that will have to go.

The other, the ever-virginity of Mary, is existent in the writings of the Early Fathers. Apparently Her perpetual virginity was known by the Apostles. They would have seen or known about Her relationship with Joseph and passed that information on to the next generation.

There are also other non-canonical clues, such as the description of Mary in the Gospel of Thomas in which it speaks about Her being dedicated to God as a Temple Virgin. This would have placed Her under a vow of permanent celibacy. "Marriage" was arranged for these women as a way of sponsorship for them, not for procreation or the raising of a family. So this history goes back a long way, as opposed to the Immaculate Conception, which was declared doctrine by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus. in 1854.

The apostles knew James the Lord's brother after the flesh. Think of the tension we see in Acts over who to follow. Origen admits this (brothers after the flesh), but instead decides to follow the Protoevangelium of James. EV isn't apostolic.

Immaculate conception will have to be explained away in order for RC and EO to meld.

Odd you'd reject IC due to its late history, yet not apply that timeline standard to Ark of the Covenant. Again, it was Christ in the flesh as the ark. Not Mary, until later.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Mary held within her the Rod of Jesse, which bloomed, the true bread of life, and the living Word.

I feel sad that nothing in scripture supports this interpretation. The LORD has been very straightforward and I don't why you believe He's this mysterious God who puts puzzles and passwords in his scripture waiting for people to figure it out. He's plain and if he needs someone to have wisdom to understand his words he says it. If He never said anything like that no bending, or twisting scripture will make it He said it.

So, we don't feel bad that there's no verse condemning the notion. I have a good example, He never wrote anywhere you should obey the Traffic lights but He said, Romans 13:1, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

He never wrote that Mary was the ark of the new covenant but he did say, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."

I know you that, but the Holy Spirit is ENOUGH...

Seriously, the ONLY People who are in heaven and have a scriptural confirmation are the saints who resurrected when the LORD gave up his Soul in

Matthew 27: 52-54, "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

The rest of the other Saints are asleep and awaiting the first resurrection in Rev 20:4. Otherwise, the resurrected ones are the cloud of witnesses and the elders in Revelation. So unless you are referring to people who died before the Lord Gave up his Soul in Matthew 27 .... man! who did you say hear your prayers again?

I will still run with my argument as Long as mary and the canonized take up intercessory obligations because of being considered Holy and having the rights or roles just as Christ.... they are taking up the Obligation that was officially given to His Holy Spirit ...Period

 

[Standing Up]

That which constitutes the Church is 1.) succession back to the Apostles. This is one of the five principles of a covenant relationship. 2.) valid Sacraments. None of the other 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today have valid Sacraments, and most Protestant and Fundamentalist denominations flat out deny them.

You believe what you want to defend your own personal refusal to join THE Church and stop being a Protestant.

Again with the understanding of what developed centuries after and apart from the apostles.

Col. 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1 Cor. 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 

[Light of the East]

While I am sympathetic in a way (and ought to be so, considering that my own church body has and values Apostolic Succession), I'm not sure that this point is anything but arbitrary.

I'm still quite curious (I asked you once before, perhaps you missed it) why you don't convert. Anglicanism is so close to the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, why not go all the way back to the beginning? I'd be interesting in what's holding you back.

 

[Albion]

I'm still quite curious (I asked you once before, perhaps you missed it) why you don't convert. Anglicanism is so close to the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, why not go all the way back to the beginning? I'd be interesting in what's holding you back.

Since the Anglican church is the oldest church in the Gentile world (according to several Roman Catholic councils), the idea of converting for that reason doesn't even make sense to me. But I'm willing to discuss any other considerations you think ought to be taken under advisement by me.

 

[Light of the East]

The apostles knew James the Lord's brother after the flesh. Think of the tension we see in Acts over who to follow. Origen admits this (brothers after the flesh), but instead decides to follow the Protoevangelium of James. EV isn't apostolic.

Immaculate conception will have to be explained away in order for RC and EO to meld.

Odd you'd reject IC due to its late history, yet not apply that timeline standard to Ark of the Covenant. Again, it was Christ in the flesh as the ark. Not Mary, until later.

It's not just the late history. The dogma of IC was not developed by the Church as a whole in an ecumenical council. Whenever truth had to be understood, such as in the Arian Controversy, the Church met in council and prayed, studied scripture, and discussed Holy Tradition to come up with the mind of God on it.

The pronouncements of a single individual do not meet this requirement, therefore, they are not binding on us Orthodox.

 

[Standing Up]

It's not just the late history. The dogma of IC was not developed by the Church as a whole in an ecumenical council. Whenever truth had to be understood, such as in the Arian Controversy, the Church met in council and prayed, studied scripture, and discussed Holy Tradition to come up with the mind of God on it.

The pronouncements of a single individual do not meet this requirement, therefore, they are not binding on us Orthodox.

Councils are useful, but only in so far as they align to what apostles have left us (the new testament). Otherwise, you've nailed the head of the problem.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You know, I think I recall Sarah doing something rather similar when God told her she was going to have a child.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm still quite curious (I asked you once before, perhaps you missed it) why you don't convert. Anglicanism is so close to the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, why not go all the way back to the beginning? I'd be interesting in what's holding you back.

Me too.
I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet my olive seed rosary it was just good judgement.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No, what's pathetic is that you have zero comprehensive ability. You don't seem to understand that a person can have a completely willing heart, which is the essence of faith, and yet be confused and ask questions. One does not cancel out the other.

Certainly, one does not cancel the other out!

You know, I think I recall Sarah doing something rather similar when God told her she was going to have a child.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

We all question stuff every day regarding our state, the state of others, what we believe, why we believe it, our outlooks change; this is part of our ongoing journey of faith.

 

[keltoi]

Certainly, one does not cancel the other out!

Did I ever say it did? Nope, so the insults and jibes thrown by LOTE are just that, insults and jibes.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Both of you are passionate about your faith.

Let's try respectful discussion. A good way to do that is to listen and stick to the facts (which may be seen differently by each of us). Let's each of us try the perspective that each position; mine, yours, and everyone's are valid to the person that holds them; let's try and understand "why".

As Joe Friday in Dragnet says; "Just the facts":

 

[keltoi]

Both of you are passionate about your faith.

Let's try respectful discussion.

It seems to me that respect is a term used loosely here. I'm just about done with this site because of it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Remember, criticize the post and not the poster. Just because someone tears apart your post does not mean it is a personal attack.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk