How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

[The Liturgist]

If they continued in their erroneous belief after the Church had made it clear it was heresy, yes.

Indeed, which the Church did in 325. Then Eusebius of Nicomedia converted the heir of St. Constantine, Emperor Constantius, which began a persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire that lasted until 386 when St. Ambrose held his nerve when the orthodox emperor St. Theodosius was intimidated into trying to giving a Christian church in Milan over to the Arians. He made up for this by banning Arianism, but it lived on among the Gothic people who persecuted Christians for centuries before the heresy finally died, which happened in part due to the conversion of the remaining Visigoths to Islam.

 

[tampasteve]

Does that mean that the Coptic Church is not Christian, or those who agreed with Arius before 381 where not Christians?

Coptic Christians agree with the Nicene creed, they didn't split from the Church until 435 at Chalcedon. No, Arians are not Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Coptic Christians agree with the Nicene creed, they didn't split from the Church until 435 at Chalcedon

451, and I would note the RCC regards the Coptic Orthodox as separated brethren who can receive the Eucharist (and vice versa), like the Assyrians. However the Copts do not like the Assyrians, since the Coptic Orthodox aim to be the anti-Nestorian church par excellence.

There is also a Coptic Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Their bishops wear a hybrid of EO and Coptic vesture. That said, Rome and the Coptic Orthodox have pretty good relations. And there was also the miracle at Zeitoun.

By the way how have you been doing?

 

[Jerry N.]

How does that follow?

The Ethiopian Bible has around 7 extra books in the NT.

If they continued in their erroneous belief after the Church had made it clear it was heresy, yes.

So if they died before 381 they went to heaven, but they went to hell if they died after 381?

 

[tampasteve]

451, and I would note the RCC regards the Coptic Orthodox as separated brethren who can receive the Eucharist (and vice versa), like the Assyrians. However the Copts do not like the Assyrians, since the Coptic Orthodox aim to be the anti-Nestorian church par excellence.

There is also a Coptic Catholic Church in communion with Rome. But Rome and the Coptic Orthodox have pretty good relations.

By the way how have you been doing?

Ack, going off of memory didn't work out! Thanks for the correction. I was actually really close to the Coptic Church at one time, but it just didn't work out for a number of reasons. I am aware of the Coptic Catholic Church, but it isn't really on my radar other than knowing that it exists.

I have been doing really well, thanks for asking. Still sorting out my standing in the RCC, but I don't consider myself lapsed any longer, just impaired.

 

[The Liturgist]

he Ethiopian Bible has around 7 extra books in the NT.

Not true; the Broad Canon has supplemental material in the form of the Didascalia, an ancient book of church order similar to the Didache, which is within the pale. Rejecting the 27 book New Testament canon would require denying the canonicity of a book or adding a book universally regarded as heretical, like the Pistis Sophia or the Gospel of Judas.

There were several fourth and fifth century bibles that have survived that have Patristic writings like 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc, NT apocrypha in them like 1 Barnabas, Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians and so on, and this is not an issue since one can include extra canonical material together with the canonical Bible. What matters is what is in the lectionary or of doctrinal import, really.

 

[The Liturgist]

So if they died before 381 they went to heaven, but they went to hell if they died after 381?

No Orthodox is going to speculate on the soteriological status of the heterodox. We pray for them, we do not damn them.

In the case of Arius however, as an heresiarch, who did not repent, we still don’t know, but pray for us that we never have to find out.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I never said that, indeed I have maintained the opposite position, that the Church in compiling the Nicene Creed, the New Testament canon, and in preserving apostolic docfrines relies on the guidance of the Spirit. The teaching ministry of the Church is the means by which the Holy Spirit communicates, for the Spirit is able to speak through the hierarchy of the One Holy Catholic Church and Apostolic Church, however one defines it. This view is in full accord with the Nicene Creed.



False. Aside from the fact that all Orthodox churches agree on doctrine, additionally, all traditional liturgical churches (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, traditional Methodist, liturgical Calvinist, Congregationalist), which also represent most of the faithful, agree on most points of doctrine, including the Trinity, the Incarnation, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the status of Mary as Theotokos, the use of Icons, certain points of soteriology and eschatology, and importantly, worship on all days of the week and not just the seventh day, for Christ said “pray without ceasing,” and for this reason we are in the process of reunification.

Additionally, all Christian churches, including yours, agree on some doctrine, such as the Nicene Creed and the contents of the New Testament. So a church that rejects the Trinity, the Incarnation, the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament, the Apostolate of St. Paul, and the Nicene Creed is not, according to the ecumenical consensus, Christian. Thus we do not count Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Mormons, J/Ws, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals or related heretics as being within the fold of the Christian Church, since they reject the doctrines associated with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through the Nicene Creed (however one defines the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - the definition of Catholicity is disputed due to schism, and I have outlined before the different ways most Christians define it, yet you seem to insist that in all cases Catholic means the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Pope, which is ironically the same definition used by Roman Catholics, who ironically also conduct the most worship on Saturday.

We apparently have different definitions of God's church. I think the Bible does a great job of establishing what characteristics make up His church. But like most things, man has taken it upon themselves to do their will claiming its God's. At the end God will be the Judge of all things and I don't think this discussion is fruitful, so I am going to leave it as agree to disagree. I do wish you well. Take care.

 

[Jerry N.]

No Orthodox is going to speculate on the soteriological status of the heterodox. We pray for them, we do not damn them.

In the case of Arius however, as an heresiarch, who did not repent, we still don’t know, but pray for us that we never have to find out.

I’m trying to focus in on the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” idea, which I find troubling in relation the Nicene Creed, which took a while to be universally adopted. In that time and before, many people came to Christ for salvation that rejected the Nicene Creed or ignored it. It might be the statement of faith for this forum, but I don’t see it as a universal standard for being part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church for centuries of the history of Christianity. Does excommunication result in damnation? Where does heterodox end and heresy begin?

 

[The Liturgist]

in relation the Nicene Creed, which took a while to be universally adopted.

Not true, all churches adopted it in 325 AD. Later, some Nicene bishops like St. Athanasius were exiled by Constantius and his successors and replaced by Arians. However the entire ancient church accepted the Council of Nicaea without controversy.

I don’t understand why you think it was controversial, because there was no controversy until around ten years after the council had concluded, when Eusebius of Nicomedia embraced Arianism and converted Constantius and also using deception on the increasingly feeble St. Constantine, caused St. Athanasius to be arrested for murdering a layman (this initial exile of the Pillar of Orthodoxy to Trier in Germany ended after two years, because the Church of Alexandria was able to produce the layman St. Athanasius was falsely accused of having murdered).

Perhaps you are confusing Nicaea with another later council like Chalcedon or Nicaea II?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think you are making a little mistake by claiming that a Marian miracle is either from God or from Satan. We can also be skeptical or ignore it. We have very little knowledge about the spiritual realm. I contend that it is as diverse and complicated as the physical realm. Consider the following:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071022042328/http://www.interlupe.com.mx/nican-e.html

Mary is reported to say these words to Juan Diego in his native language: “33 and to bring about what my compassionate and merciful gaze is trying to do, go to the residence of the bishop of Mexico, and you will tell him how I am sending you, so that you may reveal to him that I very much want him to build me a house here, to erect my temple for me on the plain; you will tell him everything, all that you have seen and marveled at, and what you have heard.” (Underline added) To a Protestant, building a temple or church for anyone but God goes against the OT, and the Bible in general. Even though good things came out of it, doesn’t prove that it was from God. God is able to bring forth blessings from the worst of events. One doesn’t have to attribute the event to either Satan or God. All things have to be tested by Scripture, but there are many things it doesn’t address. Even the Catholic Church is skeptical about some Marian apparitions and makes no definitive decision (Prae oculis habeatur or Curatur). I realize that this isn’t one of those cases.

Anyway, the technique of only giving two choices is not quite right.

The error that you make is that Protestant thought is the arbiter of God. Scripture is a testimony of God, and is not God Himself. If you limit God strictly to scriptures, you commit the error of the Pharisees in John 5.

39- Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me 40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
41 I receive glory not from men. 42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?


Christ Himself does not limit God to the scriptures. Christ is a person, not a book. Scripture is a testimony, not a person.
Scripture itself in Paul’s letter to Timothy does not say that scripture is all there is. It says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Christ laments Jerusalem, He does not say oh Jerusalem, you who did not read the book. No!
He cries Jerusalem, you who slew the prophets
God sends people not books.
If we limit God to a book, we lose everything else God has given us. Scriptures says he gave some Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. These are people , not books. If we ignore the people sent to us, how can we claim to believe the book written about them?
Even the Bereans, so often used in support of scripture only, merely used the scriptures to validate Paul as an Apostle, they did not use scripture to discard Paul and go off on their own
Scriptures testify of Jesus and His Church. There is no justification to use them to discard the people that God has sent to us

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The error that you make is that Protestant thought is the arbiter of God. Scripture is a testimony of God, and is not God Himself. If you limit God strictly to scriptures, you commit the error of the Pharisees in John 5.

39- Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me 40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
41 I receive glory not from men. 42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?


Christ Himself does not limit God to the scriptures. Christ is a person, not a book. Scripture is a testimony, not a person.
Scripture itself in Paul’s letter to Timothy does not say that scripture is all there is. It says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Christ laments Jerusalem, He does not say oh Jerusalem, you who did not read the book. No!
He cries Jerusalem, you who slew the prophets
God sends people not books.
If we limit God to a book, we lose everything else God has given us. Scriptures says he gave some Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. These are people , not books. If we ignore the people sent to us, how can we claim to believe the book written about them?
Even the Bereans, so often used in support of scripture only, merely used the scriptures to validate Paul as an Apostle, they did not use scripture to discard Paul and go off on their own
Scriptures testify of Jesus and His Church. There is no justification to use them to discard the people that God has sent to us

Heres some more context to that passage

Mat 5:38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

If we do not believe and have Him and His word abiding in us, the Scriptures won't matter. The word of God needs to live inside us so we are doers of His word, not just hearers James 1:22. They read the Scriptures, but didn't believe Jesus even through the Scriptures testified of Him. He goes on to say this For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Like the testimony of Moses in the Scriptures of what was inside the ark of the covenant,


We are told very clearly, the word it to be the light to our path Psa 119:105 outside God;s word, there is no light Isa 8:20

 

[Jerry N.]

Not true, all churches adopted it in 325 AD. Later, some Nicene bishops like St. Athanasius were exiled by Constantius and his successors and replaced by Arians. However the entire ancient church accepted the Council of Nicaea without controversy.

I don’t understand why you think it was controversial, because there was no controversy until around ten years after the council had concluded, when Eusebius of Nicomedia embraced Arianism and converted Constantius and also using deception on the increasingly feeble St. Constantine, caused St. Athanasius to be arrested for murdering a layman (this initial exile of the Pillar of Orthodoxy to Trier in Germany ended after two years, because the Church of Alexandria was able to produce the layman St. Athanasius was falsely accused of having murdered).

Perhaps you are confusing Nicaea with another later council like Chalcedon or Nicaea II?

It is not the best reference, but AI says that it wasn’t universally accepted until the 11th century. All I wrote was that “it took a while,” using my rusty old memory. I am considering all of the people who accepted Christ without it or without submission to the authority of the council. This leads to the two more important questions: Does excommunication result in damnation? Where does heterodox end and heresy begin?

 

[Jerry N.]

The error that you make is that Protestant thought is the arbiter of God. Scripture is a testimony of God, and is not God Himself. If you limit God strictly to scriptures, you commit the error of the Pharisees in John 5.

39- Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me 40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
41 I receive glory not from men. 42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?


Christ Himself does not limit God to the scriptures. Christ is a person, not a book. Scripture is a testimony, not a person.
Scripture itself in Paul’s letter to Timothy does not say that scripture is all there is. It says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Christ laments Jerusalem, He does not say oh Jerusalem, you who did not read the book. No!
He cries Jerusalem, you who slew the prophets
God sends people not books.
If we limit God to a book, we lose everything else God has given us. Scriptures says he gave some Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. These are people , not books. If we ignore the people sent to us, how can we claim to believe the book written about them?
Even the Bereans, so often used in support of scripture only, merely used the scriptures to validate Paul as an Apostle, they did not use scripture to discard Paul and go off on their own
Scriptures testify of Jesus and His Church. There is no justification to use them to discard the people that God has sent to us

That is the whole point. Do we make Scripture the highest authority or the Roman Church? Protestants say the Scripture, and Roman Catholics say the Church. I seem to remember that was an important part of the Reformation.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is not the best reference, but AI says that it wasn’t universally accepted until the 11th century.

Well that answer makes no sense. If it was chatGPT please e-mail me the exact question and answer so I can debug it, otherwise let me know which AI said it so I can make a note of the hallucination as I don’t want to waste time trying to get my system design to run on LLMs which are either error prone or lack reliable context awareness (Grok 3 falls into the latter category - reliable answers but not enough stateful memory to hold complex context between prompts).

 

[Jerry N.]

Well that answer makes no sense. If it was chatGPT please e-mail me the exact question and answer so I can debug it, otherwise let me know which AI said it so I can make a note of the hallucination as I don’t want to waste time trying to get my system design to run on LLMs which are either error prone or lack reliable context awareness (Grok 3 falls into the latter category - reliable answers but not enough stateful memory to hold complex context between prompts).

It was Duck.ai which is probably Google.

You can find the information here too: Nicene Creed | Christianity, History, Councils, & Text | Britannica under History.

The question was “How long did it take for the Nicene Creed to be adopted?” and it gave Britannica as a reference.

 

[jas3]

It was Duck.ai which is probably Google.

You can find the information here too: Nicene Creed | Christianity, History, Councils, & Text | Britannica under History.

The question was “How long did it take for the Nicene Creed to be adopted?” and it gave Britannica as a reference.

Duck.ai gives me an answer of "three months" for that question. If I change "adopted" to "accepted" it revises its answer to AD 381 at Constantinople I.

Taking a few seconds to skim the Britannica article, the 11th century reference is specifically to Rome's addition of the filioque to the Creed, but not even Brittanica, which has a serious anti-Christian bias, is making the claim that it took until the 2nd millennium for the Creed to be universally accepted. Incidents like this make me really pessimistic about our ability to use AI responsibly in the future.

An extremely pedantic and antagonistic person might argue that the Arian barbarian tribes have to be taken into consideration and argue for a late 1st millennium date of acceptance, or say that the secret Baptists following their "trail of blood" never accepted it, but then we've left the realm of rational discourse.

 

[Jerry N.]

Duck.ai gives me an answer of "three months" for that question. If I change "adopted" to "accepted" it revises its answer to AD 381 at Constantinople I.

Taking a few seconds to skim the Britannica article, the 11th century reference is specifically to Rome's addition of the filioque to the Creed, but not even Brittanica, which has a serious anti-Christian bias, is making the claim that it took until the 2nd millennium for the Creed to be universally accepted. Incidents like this make me really pessimistic about our ability to use AI responsibly in the future.

An extremely pedantic and antagonistic person might argue that the Arian barbarian tribes have to be taken into consideration and argue for a late 1st millennium date of acceptance, or say that the secret Baptists following their "trail of blood" never accepted it, but then we've left the realm of rational discourse.

You are really good at this, thanks. I'll be looking for you response to the other questions, but it will probably be tomorrow.

 

[jas3]

You are really good at this, thanks. I'll be looking for you response to the other questions, but it will probably be tomorrow.

I'm not well qualified to answer either of your other questions and I worry that if I gave my own unqualified answers, it would give you the wrong impression, so I'll leave those for someone more mature in the orthodox faith to respond to.

I will say though that the line between heterodoxy and heresy is probably not well defined, and one shouldn't be comfortable existing in either state.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That is the whole point. Do we make Scripture the highest authority or the Roman Church? Protestants say the Scripture, and Roman Catholics say the Church. I seem to remember that was an important part of the Reformation.

Yes, it is an important part of salvation. Christ said He would build His Church, and He gave us people not a book. The book testifies of the Church
Christ said so directly to the Pharisees in John 5. You search the scriptures and think you have eternal life in them, but the scriptures testify of me and you don’t believe. That is as the Old Testament, which was a shadow of things to come.
The New Testament speaks of the Church that Christ built. She is still here, and people don’t believe. Why was the book written? So anyone can claim plain reading and become stubborn in error? The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, not the book.
Yes it is a contention of the reformation, but contention does not equal truth. The plain reading of scripture shows that Christ built a Church, the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, the Apostles were sealed with tongues of fire on Pentecost. The book did not receive the same benefits.

Our human mind does not like it, we think we know better and can do better, but is not self sufficiency the original lie of Satan? “You shall be as gods knowing good and evil”?
Is not humility the Christian path? Not my will but thine be done?
The choice seems pretty clear but not pleasant.
Humble and deny yourself and take up your cross to follow Jesus, or exalt yourself and start your own church or join one that another man or woman has started.

Me and my house will follow the Lord.