Unbiblical teachings from the church.

[jamiec]

No, they are not denominations. lol

Protestants have FORTY THOUSAND denominations, each claiming superiority over the others. Even non-denominational churches are a denomination of independent bodies who are not accountable to anyone.

I think that number is a misconception & exaggeration, based on careless reading of the book that stat is taken from. As this article explains.

"What does the 40,000 figure really mean?

First of all, it’s always important to do a fact check. The World Christian Encyclopedia, one of the two sources from which the 40,000 number is taken, has a very specific definition of ‘denomination’ for the purposes of its study. As you can see here, they define a denomination as an organized Christian group within a specific country. So, for example, although there is only one Roman Catholic Church, over 200 Roman Catholic ‘denominations’ are listed – one ‘denomination’ for each national body of Roman Catholics.

So it is quite misleading to say that there are 40,000 denominations worldwide, if by that we mean that there are 40,000 organised bodies of Christians who are divided against each other.

The actual number of denominations is a far smaller number (they count 300 major ecclesiastical traditions worldwide, grouped into 6 ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs), and even across denominations there is significant partnership and unity...."

The complete article can be read here: 40,000 Denominations Worldwide – Christianity Divided? - The Ben Smart Blog

The figure of 40,000 is a blunder. Not only that, but the catholicity and unity of Protestantism are routinely overlooked by those who use and repeat this figure. (So, often, are the tensions & disunity within the CC.) Love of truth (something constantly mentioned in Catholic apologetic) requires Catholics to be scrupulously honest and fair-minded when discussing other Christians.

 

[jamiec]

Well we could compare the atrocities that took place in the Orthodox Church after the schism to those that took place in the Roman church if you like but you might not like the results. Or we could list the apostolic churches that sided with Rome as opposed to the ones that opposed Rome and adopted the name Orthodox which would be all of them except for Rome. We could also compare the number of patriarchates who sided with Rome, which would be zero except for the bishop of Rome himself, as opposed to the rest of them who sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox.

Nothing good ever comes of atrocity-swapping, or of opening up old wounds. STM far better to build one another up, than tear each other down (Whatever its faults, which are not absent, I think the modern Ecumenical Movement is a great improvement over the old days in which Christians spent time ripping each other to shreds.)

 

[prodromos]

It wasn't "everyone else". Most rites have united with the Pope. It was largely the Eastern bodies who broke ranks and only recently have began to fellowship Rome.

Provably false. Although Rome had been going her own way for a while, it all came to a head when Cardinal Humbert and his companions slapped the bull of excommunication onto the altar during the liturgy at Hagia Sophia, which if you have read it, is a litany of false accusations. A council of bishops at Constantinople subsequently excommunicated the three legates but did not seperate from the Church. Rome did that by upholding the excommunication and later putting one of the three legates on the papal throne.

You'll also note that they fell into obscurity upon rejecting Christ's appointed Bishop over the Church.

No, the Orthodox Church suffered extreme persecution, from Islam, communism and Rome. It never fell into obscurity.

Today, you can travel throughout the free world and in nearly every major city there are at least two Catholic churches.

You will find that is largely due to different ethnic groups who didn't get along. The Polish would not worship with the Germans and vice versa.

There are also over 1.3 BILLION Catholics on the planet. That's makes Catholicism the largest unified religious body on the planet.

The vast majority of those Catholics are in South America where the Catholic Church rode in on the coat tails of the conquistadors. The Catholic faith there is largely syncretic with the pagan faiths formerly held there. You may recall the Amazon conference with the Pachamama, or veneration of Santa Muerte.

We also run more hospitals, clinics, charities, orphanages, clothing closets, soup kitchens, shelters, and charities than any other organization or government on earth.

Good for you.

As Jesus promised, the gates of Hell have yet to prevail against the Church Christ appointed Peter earthly head over...

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Your Church is different from that described in Revelations. There are 12 thrones on which the Apostles sit, not one throne where Peter sits. Since the Church is one, the earthly Church will reflect the heavenly. Rome fails in that regard.

 

[The Liturgist]

God's Word (the Bible) didn't just drop out of Heaven. It was written in letters that were copied and circulated throughout various regions. It was our Councils of Rome, Nicea, and Carthage that complied, translated, and established the Holy Canon, the New Testament you read.

Actually, the Council of Carthage and the Decretum Gelasianum merely accepted for the Roman Church the 27 book New Testament canon finalized by St. Athanasius the Great, who was the Pope of Alexandria and, before becoming Pope of the See of St. Mark* , was the Protodeacon of St. Alexander of Alexandria and was the main prosecutor of Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

In the fourth century, the Roman Church was extremely conservative, liturgically and in other respects, and so naturally resisted the heresy of Arius, but did not send any bishops to the Council of Nicaea, only a pair of legates. Also at the time the Bishop of Rome had not adopted the style of Papem, or Pope; it was used exclusively by the Bishops of Alexandria until the year 538 (having been adopted in Alexandria in 237).

Note that this is not intended to knock the Roman church in any way; they provided support for St. Athanasius when he was exiled to Trier, which for an Alexandrian Greek would have seemed like the end of the Earth, for at the time it represented the outer frontier of the Western Empire which was, during his exile, beginning to crumble, and would after his repose in the early 370s, shortly before the repose of St. Basil the Great, which was quite a blow for St. Gregory Naziansus, who was St. Basil’s best friend and a great admirer of St. Athanasius, memorializing the great Alexandrian saint by declaring that the name of Athanasius was synonymous with virtue.

The fact is simply that it was St. Athanasius who made the final cut, making the controversial decision to keep the Apocalypse of St. John, also known as Revelation, and certain other books, which other elements in the church associated with Antioch, Alexandria’s historic rival and together with Alexandria and Rome, one of the three Petrine Sees (since St. Mark according to Catholic and Orthodox tradition was the protege of St. Peter, and those three churches were the main centers of Christianity, and were collectively affirmed to be autocephalous in Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea, with Canon VII granting the same privileges to the newly rebuilt Jerusalem, and of course Constantinople, or New Rome, quickly joined the club, creating the Pentarchy which nominally lasted until the Great Schism of 1054, although after the Islamic conquest of Egypt, the Holy Land and eventually, Antioch.* For purposes of a comparison as to what the Bible could have looked like, consider the much more limited New Testament canon of the Peshitta, that omits 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse. This is still the canon printed in those versions used by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, and to my knowledge, by the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro Malabar Catholic Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church (specifically by the monastic bishop Mor Thomas of Harqel, at the request of Patriarch Mor Athanasios I Gammalo) added the missing books from the Athanasian canon and this Western Peshitta, also known as the Harklean Peshitto, completed in 616 AD, is also in use in the Maronite Catholic Church (where its use is limited as unfortunately Aramaic no longer survives as a vernacular language among the Maronites, although a small number of Syriac Orthodox and most Assyrians speak it), and the Syriac Catholic Church.

It should be noted that it is quite possible, based on the writings of Origen, that St. Athanasius promulgated and made official an unofficial canon popular in Alexandria (where Origen was still regarded as a saint in the fourth century, albeit a movement blaming him, incorrectly I think, for the Arian disaster, led by St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius the Bishop of Salamis, and opposed by St. Lucifer the Bishop of Cagliari and to a lesser extent the Cappodacians, who, while not identifying, as some did, as Origenists, did compile an anthology of his best, and least controversial works, the Philocalia (with a “c”, not to be confused with the Philokalia, later anthology of texts on prayer, monasticism and mystical theology from the fourth through sixteenth centuries, by monastics such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory Palamas, compiled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth).

However, regardless of the origin, or Origen, of the 27 book canon, if you will forgive an Adamant pun or two, it was St. Athanasius who made it official in one of the four largest churches of the Fourth Century. When Rome then adopted that canon, it eventually wound up taking over. Discussions of including 1 Barnabas or the Shepjerd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of St. Peter stopped, and there was no talk of omitting Revelation, or Jude, or Hebrews, or James, until the Reformation, and no talk at all as far as I am aware of deleting 2 Peter or 2 John and 3 John, or the Pastoral Epistles.

St. Athanasius also compiled an Old Testament canon, but this was much less influential even within the Alexandrian church, and my understanding ( @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko correct me if I am wrong ) is that the Coptic Orthodox Church uses for the Old Testament basically the same canon as the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, based on a translation of the Septuagint into Bohairic Coptic, which superseded an earlier Sahidic Coptic translation.

* in the three centuries prior to the Great Schism it was mainly a tug of war between Rome and Constantinople, with the cable breaking when a Papal legate unexpectedly slapped a writ of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during the Liturgy of Preparation and fled the city, despite the efforts of some young deacons to catch up with him in order to beg him to reconsider - this event set in motions a disastrous chain of events which separated the Orthodox and Catholic churches and led to the Protestant reformation and the 40,000 denominations you mentioned (I believe the number is closer to 50,000, but it is distorted by a proliferation of “non-denominational” Evangelical, Calvinist, Pentecostal and “Bible Church” fellowships which have the attributes of a denomination, as well as by denominations which are merely part of a larger theological group and have similar or identical beliefs and are in communion with each other, for example, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America, or even, I would argue, based on differences in liturgy and theological emphasis, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation stemmed from the Great Schism because, as you may recall, the Waldensians aside, the first really large enduring Protestant church was what we now call the Moravian Church, the reform movement started by Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, who are venerated as martyrs by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. After the Archduchy of Austria conquered Prague and the surrounding region, which had been Eastern Orthodox, the vernacular liturgy and communion in both species were discontinued, and St. Jan Hus simply sought to reintroduce this. Hence the de minimus nature of most of the early followers of Hus, especially the Utraquists, who changed almost nothing other than to offer the chalice to the laity. The only extremely different movement was the Taborites. Severe persecution led to the surviving Moravians fleeing to Germany where they settled on the estate of Count Zinzendorf, a Pietist who also had an extreme devotion to the wounds of our Lord, and this mixture of Roman Catholic inspired mystical theology, reminiscent of The Little Flower and St. Catharine of Sienna, among other saints, and Protestant theology in the form of Pietist Lutheran doctrine, led to the Moravian Church as we know it today, but it started off as an attempt to simply restore Orthodox practices.

The Roman Catholic Church to its credit did not allow that mistake again and forbade the Latinization of Orthodox Christians conquered in military campaigns or who converted for other reasons, instead forming the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which retain their historic liturgical rites, with minor changes in the case of the Chaldeans and Syro Malabar Catholics and the Syriac and Ethiopian Catholics, but almost no changes in, for example, the Armenian or Byzantine Rite Catholics, other than the obvious adding of the Pope to the Diptychs.

Lutheranism was obviously inspired by the success of the Moravian movement, and was even more successful, and political factors contributed to it, and Calvinism, and then Anglicanism came about when the Church of England, which had separated from Rome for purely political reasons, decided to embrace an eclectic mix of Protestant theology. The schisms multiplied from there.

Interestingly, the Orthodox churches have had very few schisms, and nothing like the Protestant reformation. Most schisms in Orthodoxy have occurred in protest to changes to the liturgy, for example, the Russian Old Believers who objected to the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon, and more recently the Old Calendarists who object both to the Revised Julian Calendar implemented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate around 1920, and also to ecumenism, which they regard as a “pan-heresy.” The only incident where multiple non-Orthodox sects emerged was in the aftermath of the Nikonian schism; because this occurred in 1666, it caused a fervor about the perceived end of the world and led to the formation of a Jewish-influenced denomination, the Molokans, who either converted to Judaism or embraced Jewish laws and customs, the Doukhobors, a Unitarian sect which later migrated en masse to Canada, funded by Leo Tolstoy, who shared their belief system, and some darker cults including the Skoptsky, or Mutilators, who castrated themselves, and the Flagellants and Immolators. However, there has never been a spontaneous Protestant church to emerge among the Orthodox; Protestantism has been imported into Orthodox countries and inculturated, but it remains a purely Western phenomenon in terms of its origin.

 

[Lost4words]

Sola scriptura.....indeed.....

1,000 of denominations with 1,000's of different interpretations of scripture! So much for 'Sola Scriptura!'

 

[The Liturgist]

Provably false. Although Rome had been going her own way for a while, it all came to a head when Cardinal Humbert and his companions slapped the bull of excommunication onto the altar during the liturgy at Hagia Sophia, which if you have read it, is a litany of false accusations. A council of bishops at Constantinople subsequently excommunicated the three legates but did not seperate from the Church. Rome did that by upholding the excommunication and later putting one of the three legates on the papal throne.

No, the Orthodox Church suffered extreme persecution, from Islam, communism and Rome. It never fell into obscurity.

You will find that is largely due to different ethnic groups who didn't get along. The Polish would not worship with the Germans and vice versa.

The vast majority of those Catholics are in South America where the Catholic Church rode in on the coat tails of the conquistadors. The Catholic faith there is largely syncretic with the pagan faiths formerly held there. You may recall the Amazon conference with the Pachamama, or veneration of Santa Muerte.

Good for you.

Your Church is different from that described in Revelations. There are 12 thrones on which the Apostles sit, not one throne where Peter sits. Since the Church is one, the earthly Church will reflect the heavenly. Rome fails in that regard.

Indeed. It should also be noted that the Orthodox Church used to run vast networks of hospitals but Communist and Secularist governments seized them. However, the tide is turning. For example, the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America has a charity called The Order of St. Ignatius, which has some impressive accomplishments to its name, including building housing in Tijuana which saved the lives of a large number of homeless teenagers who would otherwise have perished during the rainy season.

The Coptic Orthodox Church, which is Oriental Orthodox but has very close relations with the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Church of Sinai (just as the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox have very close relations), operates extensive orphanages in Egypt which care for Christian children, because the cruel Islamic law which is unfortunately enforced even on Christians in Egypt, which is more tolerant of Christianity than most Muslim countries, prohibits adoption. These efforts are coordinated with the Alexandrian Greek Orthodox.

Also, one final note: the first modern hospital as we would recognize it was opened, along with a hospice, free of charge, in Caesarea in Cappadocia, by St. Basil the Great, who financed these facilities along with a hostel for travelers, using his church’s prudently managed treasury.

 

[Strong in Him]

An "ecclesia" is a word with a meaning. Merriam-Webster defines it accurately...

Never mind Merriam-Webster, you previously said that Ecclesia meant a "called out body".

Christ died to establish an actual Ecclesia. That is a called out body formed with the purpose to govern.

I agreed with you - I said that Christ's followers are called out from the world.
We are not to show our separateness by shutting ourselves away, but by our behaviour, morals and priorities. Holy, means set apart.
Christ's followers belong to him, not to the world. He created us, saved us, has called us and given us his Spirit. ALL who are Christ's followers are part of his called out people. ALL who belong to him, serve him and have him living in their lives through his Spirit.

Not sure why you keep likening it to a book club.

Jesus founded the Church, not Peter. Peter was merely appointed to be the earthly authority to act in Christ's absence.

By all means believe that if you want to - as long as you acknowledge that the church is built on Christ, not Peter.
Christ founded it, is the foundation and corner stone, died for it and sends the Spirit to empower it. The church is the bride of Christ, not the bride of Peter.

Which testifies that God can use anyone, does it not??? Also, note... this was before Pentecost and Peter's full infilling with the Spirit.

Of course God can use anyone.
That this was before Pentecost doesn't matter, because Catholics on these forums have said that the Catholic church started in Matt 16:18.
Peter was not perfect, even after Pentecost - whereas Christ is. That's why He will always be the firm, unmoveable foundation stone.

Yes, James was appointed Bishop over Jerusalem, not the entire Church. Paul was a missionary evangelist who appointed elders over the churches. However, only Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.

Whatever that phrase means, it does not mean that Peter, alone, decided who should and who should not be in the Kingdom.
The Kingdom of God is anywhere that God is acknowledged, and allowed to rule, as king. Entry into the Kingdom is through re-birth, being born again, John 3:3. The Holy Spirit leads people to Jesus and brings them to new birth and new life in Christ - not Peter.
The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin and leads them to Jesus so they will be forgiven.
Peter did not, himself, decide that Gentiles should hear the Gospel and become believers, the Holy Spirit revealed it to him by a vision. After which he said that "God has NO favourites", Acts of the Apostles 10:34.

Nowhere does Jesus give such authority to any other Apostle.

I don't know what you believe that means, but ALL Apostles had authority in the early church - not just Peter.
As I said, if there was a debate, they sent for the Apostles, Acts 15.
The Apostles performed signs and wonders among the people, Acts of the Apostles 5:12.
It was the Apostles who chose deacons, Acts 6.
When Saul was converted, Barnabas took him to meet the Apostles, Acts of the Apostles 9:27.
This book is called acts of the Apostles, not Acts of Peter.

I could go on and on and on... It is a historical fact that the vast majority of Christian theologians have observed the authority of St. Peter and his successors.

Maybe.
But whatever authority he had is/was not greater than the authority given to all believers.
All believers are to preach the Good News, make disciples and baptise, Matthew 28:19-20.
All believers are part of the body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 12:27.
All believers are to confess their sins to one another, James 5:16.
Peter himself says that believers are a royal priesthood; God's own possession, 1 Peter 2:9.
He says that believers are living stones, with Jesus as the foundation, 1 Peter 2;:4-5.

Nowhere does he say "and I am head of the church", or "only I can give you permission to enter the kingdom", or "I, alone, have the authority to forgive" - quite simply, because it wasn't true.

All those verses are firmly believed in and embraced by the Catholic Church,

I'm sure they are.
They are firmly embraced by all believers.
All who are IN Christ are his children. All who belong to Christ have eternal life.

Again, you're not reading the Bible. The Bible firmly records Christ giving Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,

Yes.
And you're not listening to what I am saying. Nowhere does the NT, or Peter, say that Peter is head of the church. Someone wants to believe; let's ask Peter if he will allow it. Someone wants to be filled with the Spirit; only Peter can pray that this will happen. Paul/Philip/John/Barnabas etc want to go to a certain place to preach the Good News; they need Peter to give them permission.

I'm saying that Christ gave the "keys to the kingdom" to ALL the Apostles, not just Peter - as they ALL preached and taught about the Kingdom and how to be born again.
Read the NT; that's what happened.

Even in Acts 15 we see the Church gathered to resolve the issue of circumcision regarding new Gentile converts. The meeting was in heavy debate until Peter speaks and brings it to order. Upon St. Peter speaking, they all become silent and listen to the testimonies of Paul and Barnabas,

Yes - and it was James who concluded that a letter should be written to the Gentiles, and what it should say.
When Peter was rescued from prison he said "tell this to the believers, and to James."

Actually... the Bible does teach that Mary is Queen of Heaven. This deserves a post all of its own to break down biblically. I'll follow up with it. You might disagree... but you'll never be able to say this teaching isn't found in Scripture.

Yes, I will; because it isn't.

Oh I don't doubt that there are verses which have been interpreted to show that Mary is "queen of heaven", but nowhere is it taught.
Jesus never referred to his mother as "queen of heaven".
In the upper room before Pentecost, Mary was there, praying with the others. No one said "let's ask the queen of heaven when the Spirit is going to come", or "let's ask the queen of heaven to lead this prayer meeting".
Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us - not the queen of heaven.
Peter himself, the apparent head of the church, never mentions the queen of heaven. Neither does John, into whose care Mary was given at the cross - although I've no doubt you are going to tell me of a reference in Revelation which "proves" this doctrine.

That's buffet bar Christianity. Take what you like and leave what you don't. True and historic Christianity is far far more robust and authoritative than that.

Yes, it's the Gospel, which is accepted by ALL born again believers.
Beliefs about Mary, Peter, baptism, speaking in tongues etc etc are not the Gospel.

In another thread, I asked a Catholic what there is in the Gospel that they believe that we don't.
I never got an answer. I suspect that might be because he didn't want to admit that Protestants believe in the same God, the same Christ, the same Spirit, the same Gospel as Catholics do. That would mean he would have to concede that we are saved, born again and children of God, just as Catholics are. Which would also mean that Protestants did not only have "part of the truth", as he had previously stated.

Martyrdom is an entirely different subject.

Sorry, but you've either misunderstood, or are ignoring, my point.

If believers were asked - at gun point - whether they were Christians and confessed Christ as Lord, there would be no time, and it would be irrelevant, to say, "yes - but only we are the true church built on Peter/that group over there don't have the whole truth/those people never tithed" etc etc.
The minute we said "yes", we'd be dead - Catholics and Protestants would both have died confessing Christ, and him alone. In Revelation, martyrs are those who died for Christ; refusing to worship the beast and accept its mark. Jesus said that we are blessed when we are persecuted, killed and hated for HIM - not for Peter, Mary, church attendance, baptism or anything else.
Deny that Peter is head of the church - it doesn't matter, or affect your salvation.
Deny that Jesus is Lord, Saviour, giver of eternal life and so on - and there IS no salvation.

Some are saved in spite of their broken relationship to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All believers belong to THE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church
Holy, because we are set apart from the world, are in Christ and belong to Christ.
Catholic because this means "universal"
Apostolic because it is built on the teachings of the Apostles - including Paul - who taught the words and teachings of Christ. It is not built on A human being, but on Christ.

And yes, people can be saved even without belonging to a church - which shows that it is Christ who saves and admits people to the Kingdom; not any human being.

 

[Strong in Him]

Ah, but Scripture solidly affirms Mary as the sinless Queen of Heaven.

So you've been taught.

Scripture does not, anywhere, address, or refer to Mary in this way.
The angel did not say "Hail Mary, queen of heaven".
The early church never appealed to Mary to intercede for them, have a word with her Son or anything else. Even when we read that Mary was in a prayer meeting, Acts 1, there is no suggestion that she led it. No one said "let's get the queen of heaven to speak to us/pray for us/decide church practice/appoint bishops/convert these people" etc etc. Mary is not mentioned again after Acts 1.

The only time the phrase "queen of heaven" is used in the Bible is when Jeremiah condemned the ungodly practice of burning incense to the queen of heaven, Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah 44:17-26.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't need priests because the veil was specifically rent from top to bottom. Anyone can go right in.

The Roman Catholic Church, and other churches who call their presbyters priests, do not deny the priesthood of all believers. In fact, the word Priest is just an old Anglicization of the Greek word meaning Elder. It was later sloppily used by some translators, including the translators of the KJV, to refer to the Kohanim of ancient Israel, and the sacerdotal priests of other religions, who are better referred to as Hierus or Sacerdos.

The Christian Presbyter, or Elder, is someone ordained to lead a congregation in prayer, to read sacred scripture and preach the Gospel, and to perform the Sacraments, Ordinances, or Mysteries as the Eastern Orthodox call them, most notably, Baptism and Holy Communion, but also, depending on the denomination, the annointing of the sick with oil (which is commended in the Epistle of James), Holy Matrimony and Auricular Confession.

The word Bishop is an Anglicization of Episkopoi, a Greek word meaning Superintendent or Overseer. Their role in churches with an episcopal polity like the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Georgians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Antiochians, Albanians, Poles, Finns, Aleuts and several other ethnicities), Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, Indians, Ethiopians and Eritreans), Methodists, some Lutherans, Moravians, the Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans (including the Church of England, the Episcopal Church USA, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the conservative Anglican Church in North America) to supervise a group of churches, usually organized into a region, most commonly called a diocese or eparchy, but also known in some churches as a district, conference or synod. They also ordain people to any ecclesiastical office, from Reader, to Subdeacon, to Deacon, to Priest, and to Bishop (traditionally, Bishops are ordained by at least three bishops, except in exigent circumstances).

We see the prototypical priests and bishops in the New Testament, as well as prototypical ordinations (of St. Matthias, the replacement for Judas Iscariot, and of the Seven Deacons, most notably St. Stephen the Protomartyr, St. Philip the Deacon, and Nicolas the Deacon, who founded the Nicolaitan heresy which was hated by our Lord as they believed in sharing all property in common ... and regarded their eives as property to be freely shared ... in common. Obviously such a cult is incompatible with the Christian religion. However, the actions of Nicolas were more than compensated for by those of St. Stephen, wjo was the first adult to willingly die for his faith in Christ, and St. Philip, whose actions with Frumentius planted the seeds that would eventually blossom into the conversion of Ethiopia to Christianity in the early fourth century, shortly after the conversion of Edessa, Armenia and St. Constantine, and around the same time as the conversion of Georgia by St. Nino, an Armenian princess who is venerated as “Equal to the Apostles” in the Eastern Orthodox Church for converting Georgia to Christianity.

The actual function of a deacon is to assist the Priest during the Liturgy, and usually includes reading the Gospel, and assisting in the distribution of the Eucharist. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, they also chant the Litanies; in the Russian-Ukrainian Slavonic Orthodox tradition, it is popular to ordain deacons with Basso Profundo voices who add a majestic character. Litanies are sequences of prayers petitioning God for mercy. The three most famous examples are the simple threefold Kyrie Eleison, Christie Eleison, Kyrie Eleison from the Roman mass and some Lutheran and Anglican services, the Eastern Orthodox Litany of Peace, so called because it begins with “In peace let us pray to the Lord,” with each petition being answered by the congregation singing “Lord have mercy” in their vernacular language, or Greek. In the Roman Catholic Church, where there is a deacon, there traditionally was a Subdeacon, in the beautiful Traditional Latin Mass, the role of the Subdeacon being to read the Epistle. Subdeacons also exist in the Eastern Orthodox Church and serve the same function. Readers read scripture, and in some churches are laity and not ordained.

Sure it's good to confess before men certain sins, etc but only our Father can forgive sin through Christ, he is the only intercession we need.

Auricular confessions in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Lutheran churches, and the Anglican churches, and other churches which hear them (the above not being an exhaustive list) are made to Christ, with the presbyter acting as a witness and providing spiritual advice or issuing a penance in the Western tradition. In the Eastern tradition I have been to confession in the OCA and ROCOR, and it is made extremely clear the confession is to Christ and not the priest, however, the spiritual benefits provided by the priests, who did not penance me, were enormous. I was substantially relieved of bereavement over the repose of my beloved father when confessing on All Saints Day, and on another occasion a different confessor helped me to overcome a lifelong fear of hearses. Now, they no longer bother me, whereas I used to regard hearses with pure horror.

Praying to Mary is another one and so on. There's just too many traditions that make void the true word of God.

There is nothing in Scripture which prohibits making intercessory prayers to the Christians who have won the race and comprise the Church Militant. I pray the Hail Mary nightly, and frequently seek the intercession of the woman who was selected, based on her piety, and who agreed to become, the Mother of God, through which the Divine Logos put on our Human Nature and became incarnate, as a man, so that He could offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and trample down death by death, despoiling Hell before rising from the grave and setting a path for our own resurrection and the life of the world to come.

I do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, because worship and adoration are reserved to God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but I do love and venerate her, along with the other saints, just as I venerate members of my family, living and departed. One of the best things a Christian can do is to develop a relationship with the blessed virgin who gave birth to our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Strong in Him]

Something else just occurred to me to share for our non-Catholic friends.

The Protoevangelium. Many non-Catholics read the Protoevangelium and fail to realize that it is speaking about St. Mary and Christ from the very beginning immediately after man's fall.

Yes, of course; the serpent was told that the woman's offspring would crush him.
This is a prophecy that Christ, the Son of Mary, would defeat the devil on the cross.

But it is Christ who fulfils this prophecy and Christ who defeats the evil one.
Christ is Saviour and Victor.
Just because people are mentioned in prophecies from God does not mean they are to be honoured, deserve special honour or a special place in the church. Otherwise Judas Iscariot would be honoured in this way - as would the Pharisees and chief priests.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The Christian Presbyter, or Elder, is someone ordained to lead a congregation in prayer, to read sacred scripture and preach the Gospel, and to perform the Sacraments, Ordinances, or Mysteries as the Eastern Orthodox call them, most notably, Baptism and Holy Communion, but also, depending on the denomination, the annointing of the sick with oil (which is commended in the Epistle of James), Holy Matrimony and Auricular Confession.

Yes my best friend use to give talks on this kind of thing. Like some of the Protestant confusion over the term coming from the fact that Anglican priests besides being Presbyters, the word "priest" came into the language because of the use of the medieval english sound a like term of "prester" where our modern english term "priest" comes from. And some of that of course comes from Latin sacramental theology of mass as re-sacrifice, which probably is trying to get at the biblical and Orthodox term anamnesis but has different nuances, and is more open to be attacked because of some scriptures speaking how "Christ was sacrificed once for all".

Strong's Greek: 364. ἀνάμνησις (anamnésis) -- remembrance


Anamnesis - Coptic Wiki

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There is nothing in Scripture which prohibits making intercessory prayers to the Christians who have won the race and comprise the Church Militant. I pray the Hail Mary nightly, and frequently seek the intercession of the woman who was selected, based on her piety, and who agreed to become, the Mother of God, through which the Divine Logos put on our Human Nature and became incarnate, as a man, so that He could offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and trample down death by death, despoiling Hell before rising from the grave and setting a path for our own resurrection and the life of the world to come.

I do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, because worship and adoration are reserved to God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but I do love and venerate her, along with the other saints, just as I venerate members of my family, living and departed. One of the best things a Christian can do is to develop a relationship with the blessed virgin who gave birth to our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Yeah I may be doing a video on this in the future, (I am slowly working on being an official web content creator as an occupation that is going very slowly...) It comes up because of threads like this coming from some old Reformation ideas etc.


But my basic talk outline focuses on these biblical themes and doctrines which are contradicted if you really run with Protestant objections at full strength.



My actual rough draft outline notes under construction, complete with typos and nonsequitors etc.(Which will go through several edits and rewrites before I do the project whenever that is)

Working title (subject to change)
We are all alive in Christ, united together in one Holy Temple


\ the overused adage of conflict in Chinese, = danger opportunity (that good things can come from conflict).

\ true in church history. We have most of the NT because of heresy and problems of praxis. Not to mention all theology coming from Arianism, the Nestorian controversy etc.


I Attitudes and beliefs pro and con as a Protestant


\ Sometimes it is important to deal with controversial topics. Christ said I have not come to bring peace but a sword.

\ It is important to talk about touchy subects, so we are not peer pressured into compromising our message.


a) Dishonest weights and scales (people tend to have different ways of applying the Bible, this fits in with "Self Attribution theory in psychology) applying it strictly against their opponents, but following "biblical principles" for stuff they themselves actually want to believe in.

b) Law of unintended consequences


c) People can be spiritually lazy, external locus of control. (my synpathies to Protestant objections)


My reasons

“There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Shakespeare.


Basic Biblical themes and doctrines


Starting premise

\ In the Bible we know that living people can make intercession

\ Probably the best objection is the story of Lazarus. (This is widely regarded as a parable.) Even if it were to have actually happened would not fit some of the specifics that we will talk about later as far as the bosom of Abraham goes, and the harrowing of hell. Unrighetous dead are different than ones who died in the Faith.





1) Alive in Christ

\ Jesus also minimizes the importance of death



2) The Church is One or intended by God to be one (quote various passages from Paul, Jesus etc.)

\ Many Protestants act in a defacto way that there are actually two churches, one for the living and one for the dead. I don’t see that in scripture at all.




II The Divine Counsel


\ Go as a king of the universe is a really early concept of the Bible that is in fact. older than the oldest book in the Bible!

\ All Kings got their heavenly court (God starts with the angels before the earth is created, but ends up with us as a main part of the Bible).



\ The book of James the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man







\ Saint Paul’s passage about fine gold, and wood and hay and stubble being destroyed but gold lasting the furnace,



Bosom of Abraham


Harrowing of Hell



Great Cloud of Witnesses


Scenes from the Book of Revelation


Maccabeas


Soul Sleep doctrine of SDA and radical Protestants


Necromancy and bearing false witnesses


Historic witness of the Church

\ Many Protestants don’t fit what we see in the Bible either. When was the last time you saw someone heal the sick, or do an excorcism.

Having a form of godliness but denying the power there of.



Other issues I’m concerned with in conclusion

Phronema


Naïve Realism and making your own dogmas


Applying the historic doctrinal standard to counter charges


How much of this viewpoint represents not just the Reformation but the enlightenment


Personal Savior example very American view not found in scripture


Lex Orandi / Lex Credendi

\ All the Apostolic Churches have mentions of Mary and the saints as they begin the liturgy of the Eucharist.

My vague memories of Addai and Mari (because of my friends who are leery of such things but overlook what is in their own liturgy!)

"We seek the prayers of the saints, living and Triumphant, and of our Lady the blessed virgin, mother of our savior, may the Holy Spirit tabernacle in us as it tabernacle in her. " It is about the doctrine of theosis, but also seeking the prayers of the saints, while at the same time avoided terms like Theotokos that sparked the entire Nestorian schism and conflict.


The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeah I may be doing a video on this in the future, (I am slowly working on being an official web content creator as an occupation that is going very slowly...) It comes up because of threads like this coming from some old Reformation ideas etc.


But my basic talk outline focuses on these biblical themes and doctrines which are contradicted if you really run with Protestant objections at full strength.



My actual rough draft outline notes under construction, complete with typos and nonsequitors etc.(Which will go through several edits and rewrites before I do the project whenever that is)

Working title (subject to change)
We are all alive in Christ, united together in one Holy Temple


\ the overused adage of conflict in Chinese, = danger opportunity (that good things can come from conflict).

\ true in church history. We have most of the NT because of heresy and problems of praxis. Not to mention all theology coming from Arianism, the Nestorian controversy etc.


I Attitudes and beliefs pro and con as a Protestant


\ Sometimes it is important to deal with controversial topics. Christ said I have not come to bring peace but a sword.

\ It is important to talk about touchy subects, so we are not peer pressured into compromising our message.


a) Dishonest weights and scales (people tend to have different ways of applying the Bible, this fits in with "Self Attribution theory in psychology) applying it strictly against their opponents, but following "biblical principles" for stuff they themselves actually want to believe in.

b) Law of unintended consequences


c) People can be spiritually lazy, external locus of control. (my synpathies to Protestant objections)


My reasons

“There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Shakespeare.


Basic Biblical themes and doctrines


Starting premise

\ In the Bible we know that living people can make intercession

\ Probably the best objection is the story of Lazarus. (This is widely regarded as a parable.) Even if it were to have actually happened would not fit some of the specifics that we will talk about later as far as the bosom of Abraham goes, and the harrowing of hell. Unrighetous dead are different than ones who died in the Faith.





1) Alive in Christ

\ Jesus also minimizes the importance of death



2) The Church is One or intended by God to be one (quote various passages from Paul, Jesus etc.)

\ Many Protestants act in a defacto way that there are actually two churches, one for the living and one for the dead. I don’t see that in scripture at all.




II The Divine Counsel


\ Go as a king of the universe is a really early concept of the Bible that is in fact. older than the oldest book in the Bible!

\ All Kings got their heavenly court (God starts with the angels before the earth is created, but ends up with us as a main part of the Bible).



\ The book of James the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man







\ Saint Paul’s passage about fine gold, and wood and hay and stubble being destroyed but gold lasting the furnace,



Bosom of Abraham


Harrowing of Hell



Great Cloud of Witnesses


Scenes from the Book of Revelation


Maccabeas


Soul Sleep doctrine of SDA and radical Protestants


Necromancy and bearing false witnesses


Historic witness of the Church

\ Many Protestants don’t fit what we see in the Bible either. When was the last time you saw someone heal the sick, or do an excorcism.

Having a form of godliness but denying the power there of.



Other issues I’m concerned with in conclusion

Phronema


Naïve Realism and making your own dogmas


Applying the historic doctrinal standard to counter charges


How much of this viewpoint represents not just the Reformation but the enlightenment


Personal Savior example very American view not found in scripture


Lex Orandi / Lex Credendi

\ All the Apostolic Churches have mentions of Mary and the saints as they begin the liturgy of the Eucharist.

My vague memories of Addai and Mari (because of my friends who are leery of such things but overlook what is in their own liturgy!)

"We seek the prayers of the saints, living and Triumphant, and of our Lady the blessed virgin, mother of our savior, may the Holy Spirit tabernacle in us as it tabernacle in her. " It is about the doctrine of theosis, but also seeking the prayers of the saints, while at the same time avoided terms like Theotokos that sparked the entire Nestorian schism and conflict.


The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

I’d love to work with you on that. By the way, I love the liturgy of Addai and Mari, although my favorite Assyrian liturgy is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which is a unique composition, like Addai and Mari, only newer (I suspect it originally existed in an Antiochene configuration, and the anaphora was then modified to fit the East Syriac liturgical pattern; the current liturgiological state of the art on the Hallowing of Mar Nestorius is that this is an adapted version of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, named for Nestorius because it was sourced from Constantinople and the Assyrians do venerate hiim).

There is also an interesting East Syriac liturgy in the Maronite Church, the Liturgy of Peter (Sharar), which is an anomaly because Maronite liturgies are mostly West Syriac and largely correspond with Syriac Orthodox liturgies, because the church separated from the Syriac Orthodox in a schism believed to be due to the Maronites embracing monothelitism. This East Syriac liturgy has unfortunately been disused since the disastrous post Vatican II of the Maronite liturgy (most of the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches benefitted from Sacrosanctum Concilium and other acts of Vatican II, which removed imposed Latinizations and restored historic Orthodox texts, but for some reason the Maronite liturgy underwent the same devastating process as the Roman Rite and Ambrosian Rite, but unlike those rites, there are no traditional Maronite masses; anyone seeking that would need to find the much smaller Syriac Catholic Church or the Malankara Catholic Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church).

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I love the liturgy of Addai and Mari, although my favorite Assyrian liturgy is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which is a unique composition, like Addai and Mari, only newer (

Don't know much about him other than stuff I've read in some classic books like "the Bible and the Liturgy", and some other stuff written about the Assyrian church from various authors. My best friend really loves Theodore, and has a lot of his obscure writings published from Indian Church of the East people who are making books from Xeroxing and book binding old out of print manuscripts.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, I found this quote by Fr. Seraphim Rose on Sectarianism which seemed germane to this thread:

“A sectarian view is, like the name implies, sect: it is something
which is cut off. They will give you a piece of reality according to
their interpretation. When it comes to any complicated issue, they
will give you a very simple answer which is not satisfying to
somebody who’s capable of thinking very much. They will, if
anything comes up which seems to disprove their position or make
it foggy, they will say, “Devil’s work” or, “That’s evil,” or [if] you ask
them how they interpret the Scriptures, “literally.” They will give
you extremely simple answers to questions which are very
complicated. And you have to already be in that channel in order
to accept it. And you will become -- as we indeed associate with
sectarians -- some kind of group cut off from the rest of society,
keeping your own little view point, preserving yourself from
everybody else, having your own schools and thinking that you are
in the truth. But you will not have some kind of philosophy, world-
view, which will enable you really to understand what goes on in
the world, to explain those phenomena around you in a way which
does not do violence to reason, is not just an interpretation
according to a very whimsical interpretation of Scripture, but is
something which is solidly based, and is perhaps not convincing
right off to everybody, but at least respects reason which God gave
us, and does not have an overly-simplified view of whatever is
happening in the world, [a view that] whoever does not agree with
my philosophy is either a devil or a person who’s completely
deceived.”

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

It appears the OP was a drive by to "stir the pot" and not engage in a conversation.

 

[Strong in Him]

It appears the OP was a drive by to "stir the pot" and not engage in a conversation.

Yes, I thought that too.

The thread has got off topic from the OP, but it seems that he hasn't been back to answer those who replied to him.

 

[timothyu]

All three that I mentioned are the gospel. There are no “add ons”.

Jesus' only gospel was the Gospel of the Kingdom

 

[timothyu]

Amen. This is why I believe the Orthodox are just as Catholic as we are.

Considering when Constantine created a state church out of tribal Christianity, it was the greek east, not latin west that was predominant as the west had lost the civil war where Rome was the loser in the Roman empire. Even popes were not restricted to Rome.

 

[Christopher0121]

That doesn't make any sense. You've just agreed that Rome is the rebellious one did you not?

Rome would have to repent of her errors. We don't seek something we always had, and as St Cyprian explained, every bishop is the successor to Peter and the Apostles. Christ set up Peter as the "type" of the Apostles. Whoever confesses Christ as the Son of the living God and has been established as a bishop through the laying on of hands is "Peter".

I think where we disagree is the use of pronouns in Christ's appointment of Peter.

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

So, here... I can see Jesus specifically giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I cannot find where Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to any other person, or speaks of Peter as being a "type" of the Apostles. Can you show otherwise from Scripture?

Our icons are theology in colour. Western religious art has slowly lost its true purpose after the schism. For example the halo above the head of a saint in Western art has become a seperate object instead of being divine light radiating out from within in Orthodox iconography.

I know opinions vary regarding the stylization of icons. However, for me personally, I love the more Eastern style of icons. Here's my home altar...