OC division or unity with the RCC?

[concretecamper]

You are more than welcome to try to show your contention to be true. Use more than one sentence.

you expect me to do your homework for you....too funny. I gave you the Council and time frame...dig away.

 

[Albion]

you expect me to do your homework for you....too funny. I gave you the Council...dig away.

Yeh, I do expect people who make point blank claims about history being wrong--but are unable or unwilling to provide even a scintilla of a reason for saying it--to come up with something when asked. And that's not even a request for a little bit of, you know, evidence!

 

[PaulCyp1]

Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised its first leaders "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". It is these divine guarantees of truth in teaching that has enabled His Church to remain one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world for 2,000 years. If His Church ever taught anything untrue, Jesus would become either a liar, or a misguided man who didn't know what he was talking about. So now you are asking if some manmade church that was founded 1,200 years after Jesus founded His Church, and changed some of the teachings of His Church, might somehow be correct?? Thereby making Jesus wrong?

 

[concretecamper]

Yeh, I do expect people who make point blank claims about history being wrong--but are unable or unwilling to provide even a scintilla of a reason for saying it--to come up with something when asked. And that's not even a request for a little bit of, you know, evidence!

I would describe this response as LAZY.
or
After thinking about it, scared of what the Council might say.

 

[Albion]

Keep this in mind--no research will turn up something that did not happen. And that is what you would be facing if you attempted to support your claims.

 

[concretecamper]

Keep this in mind--no research will turn up something that did not happen. And that is what you would be facing if you attempted to support your claims.

Lazy response after Lazy response....
If my student replied like this after I pointed them in the right direction, they would fail miserably.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy."

Orthodox definition of Catholicity:
"The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic)."
from: Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

RCC view -
Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Catechism notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'”
from Papal Supremacy in the Bible and Church Fathers

So then apparently -- two different denominations with different views on some doctrines.

The Bishop of Rome is a man made tradition. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Chief Cornerstone and the Apostles are the foundation.
Blessings

 

[BobRyan]

Lazy response after Lazy response....
If my student replied like this after I pointed them in the right direction, they would fail miserably.

So you are voting in favor of researching "something that did not happen" - or you are against the idea of claiming "something did not happen" before researching it?

oh no wait! here is your exchange ..

==================

Albion said: ↑
That's right, but my point was that there wasn't any acceptance of that claim at any time prior to the Great Schism of 1054 when a formal split occurred.

your point is historically wrong...again.

And you prove that by showing no evidence at all?

The first claim is that nothing is there... Did you want all the historic documents of all of time for the "proof of nothing there".???

In the classic nothing-there vs something-there debate - it is up to the something-there side to show "something there" because "nothing" is always easy to present - it is a claim for nothing.

"Something" on the other hand - must exist to be true.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised its first leaders "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth"

1. "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth" (John 16 for those interested) was spoken for all church members in all of time as Jesus reminds us in John 17 it is "for them and all who should believe through their word".

2. There was never a promise that no division would arise - in fact in Acts 20 Paul predicts that it most certainly would happen.

3. Israel also had "forever" promises which they false assumed would mean they could never be "cut off" as we see that it was already done by the time of Romans 11.

 

[BobRyan]

It is these divine guarantees of truth in teaching that has enabled His Church to remain one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world for 2,000 years.

History shows that it has fractured so many times -- the largest one being that of the case of the OC vs the RCC

Prior to Vatican II

"if a Catholic married an Orthodox in an Orthodox ceremony, with no dispensation, the Catholic Church considered the marriage invalid."

 

[GingerBeer]

So then apparently -- two different denominations with different views on some doctrines.

This is news to you? It was set in concrete around 1054 AD. It should not be news. Not to anybody who reads history.

 

[BobRyan]

This is news to you? It was set in concrete around 1054 AD. It should not be news. Not to anybody who reads history.

It might be "news" to those who keep getting the odd "message" on this board that there have been no fractures in the RCC structure other than the protesting Catholics of the protestant reformation.

 

[GingerBeer]

It might be "news" to those who keep getting the odd "message" on this board that there have been no fractures in the RCC structure other than the protesting Catholics of the protestant reformation.

And the protesting Orthodox. Scripture never gives any guarantee that the Church will not suffer heresies and divisions just that Christ will remain with the church always until the end of the ages.

 

[concretecamper]

"Something" on the other hand - must exist to be true.

We all appreciate the attempt to help one who is floundering, but I gave you the Council and timeframe. All you need to do is look at the canons that came out of this Council. Geez

 

[Not David]

And the protesting Orthodox. Scripture never gives any guarantee that the Church will not suffer heresies and divisions just that Christ will remain with the church always until the end of the ages.

You are the one who needs to read a History book.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy."

Orthodox definition of Catholicity:
"The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic)."
from: Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

RCC view -
Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Catechism notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'”
from Papal Supremacy in the Bible and Church Fathers

So then apparently -- two different denominations with different views on some doctrines.

I think a few things I believe are important to consider in this discussion are, where did the pentarchy stand in this matter? Four of them sided against Rome’s claim leaving only the bishop of Rome in support of his own claim. Second, and I really hate to mention this but, it was a mere 130 years after the East West Schism when the Roman pope officially sanctioned the inquisitions which afterwards remained sanctioned by 98 more Roman popes lasting for 686 years. The Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these popes during this time. So it would seem that the Roman church was under attack by corrupted officials during this time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

I never understood what Constantine has to do with deciding who has supreme authority over the church. He was the Emperor of Rome not the Emperor of the church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

you expect me to do your homework for you....too funny. I gave you the Council and time frame...dig away.

That’s like me saying once a person is saved they can never lose their salvation and you ask where did you get that from and I reply it’s in the Bible. Then you ask what verse and I say look it up for yourself. If your going to make a claim you should at least back it up by quoting your source. What you might consider to be a statement that supports your view may not actually support it at all. Meanwhile the other guy is forced to search for something that may not even exist. Your the one who evidently found it so you should be the one to present it as evidence to back your claim.

 

[concretecamper]

Meanwhile the other guy is forced to search for something that may not even exist

Haha, the Council I referenced existed. It's like telling me to prove Nicea in 325 AD actually was held. Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning sounds?

 

[BobRyan]

I never understood what Constantine has to do with deciding who has supreme authority over the church. He was the Emperor of Rome not the Emperor of the church.

All the bishops were relatively equal until Constantine vacated Rome and turned his Lateran Palace over to the bishop of Rome .

"Pontifex Maximus" was a title for the leader of a pagan priesthood until the Roman emperor subsumed that title. Julius Caesar became pontifex in 73 BC and pontifex maximus in 63 BC.

220 A.D. Tertullian used the title in a derogatory way to refer to the bishop of Rome 220

"In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The "Pontifex Maximus," that is the "bishop of bishops," issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication." O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, "Good deed!"... Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!— Tertullian, "​

"From the time of Theodosius I (r 379–395), the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff, but the title was later applied to the Christian bishop of Rome"