Why is the EOC still seperated from the RCC?

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Okay, good to know. I met a Melkite Bishop in an Airport not too long ago. I greeted His as a Bishop. I told him I was Antiochian. He didn't seem to care.

Click to expand...

I know Bishop Nicholas. He's a good man, and a man of God.

Monk Brendan said:

The RC NEVER burned heretics. If you read a really good history of the Inquisition, you will see that the State did the burning, not the Church.

Click to expand...

Sorry no dice. Revisionist history.

Forgive me...

Monk Brendan said:

I know Bishop Nicholas. He's a good man, and a man of God.

Click to expand...

You only have one? And I met him?

Forgive me...

rockytopva said:

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

Click to expand...

Rocky, all of these churches (congregations) were still active and alive in 1920. It wasn't until a populations exchange arranged by the League of Nations moved people around that those churches closed.

AND I know a man whose brother was the pastor/priest of Thesseloniki until a few years ago. And yes, it is the same Church.

LittleLambofJesus said:

From what I understand, it was the governing authorities that did the executing, but perhaps at the behest of the Church?.
Take the example of our Lord Jesus's execution.
Pilate actually sought to release Him, but it was the corrupt murderous Jewish rulers/priets that wanted Him executed:

Jhn 19:
12
From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend.
Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”
15
But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?”
The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover..............

James actually accused them of "murder", not the Romans:

James 5:6
condemn, ye Murder/efoneusate <5407> (5656) the Righteous-One,
not He is resisting to Ye.

I can actually view them in Revelation:

Revelation 9:21
And not they reform out of their Murders/fonwn <5408>, nor out from their sorceries,...........
[Matthew 23:31-39/James 5:6]

Here is one site that speaks of executing of "heretics"

nity.stackexchange.com/questions/19368/when-was-it-first-said-in-christianity-by-a-church-father-that-heretics-must-be

The church typically did not execute heretics. Rather, the state, sometimes at the behest of the church or other times of a monarch desiring no discord amongst his subjects, would carry out such persecution and executions.

The earliest Christian heretics were not put to death by the Church, but rather by the Roman Empire. Note for example, the first "heretic" to be executed - Priscillian - was put to death not by the church, but rather the state. Furthermore, those responsible for getting the state to put him to death were subsequently excommunicated by the Pope for their actions.

In 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I laid down the rule that only the Catholic Christians could define orthodoxy within the confines of the Roman Empire.
As noted already, it was under his reign that the first heretic was put to death............

2Pe 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies,
even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

View attachment 206190

Click to expand...

We call that sidestepping where I come from...

In the west the Church was the government and the government was the Church.

No seperation of Church and State. Rome wanted to control everything.

Forgive me...

OrthodoxyUSA said:

You only have one? And I met him?

Click to expand...

Yeah, he's the only one. However, he recently elevated a parish to a Pro-Cathedral in North Hollywood, CA, and I think (don't quote me) that he is planning to put an auxiliary Bishop there.

Monk Brendan said:

Yeah, he's the only one. However, he recently elevated a parish to a Pro-Cathedral in North Hollywood, CA, and I think (don't quote me) that he is planning to put an auxiliary Bishop there.

Click to expand...

Ooohh... we had an auxiliary one time... caused bookoos of confusion.

Forgive me...

Monk Brendan said:

The RC NEVER burned heretics. If you read a really good history of the Inquisition, you will see that the State did the burning, not the Church.

Click to expand...

...therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Forgive me...

LittleLambofJesus said:

Yes.
Back in the 1st century Judea, it was the Jewish High Priest, a type of "Pope", and the highest authority in Judaism, along with the Sadduccess, Pharisees and Scribes.
[Perhaps equivalent to the RC Vatican today?]

Mat 26:3
Then the chief priests, the scribes,[fn] and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

They were always scheming to kill Jesus and Paul and even "anathematized" themselves to not eat anything until they kill Paul. Interesting word:

Acts 23:14
Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema/ana-qemati <331> we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing Paul."

Reve 22:3
and every anathema/kat-ana-qema <2652> not shall be still.
And the throne of the God and of the Lamb in Her shall be,
and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

331. anathema an-ath'-em-ah from 394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person):--accused, anathema, curse, X great.
334. anathema an-ath'-ay-mah from 394 (like 331, but in a good sense); a votive offering:--gift.
2652. katanathema kat-an-ath'-em-ah from 2596 (intensive) and 331; an imprecation:--curse.

History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews
*snip*
....The Hebrew word translated "utterly destroy" is 'cherem.' Both the people and the land of Canaan were 'cherem,' meaning FORCIBLY dedicated to God as withdrawn from His service and worship wherein He was not glorified, and by the hands of another, devoted to Him for destruction whereby He will be glorified. The equivalent Greek word is "anathema.".......

Click to expand...

Discovering the Judaism imbedded in Roman Catholicism are we?

Forgive me...

Monk Brendan said:

The RC NEVER burned heretics. If you read a really good history of the Inquisition, you will see that the State did the burning, not the Church.

Click to expand...

.
Right, and to the Jews the Romans Crucified Christ not the Jews.

Monk Brendan said:

Why do you disagree with me every time I post about Orthodoxy? It is obvious that you don't like Rome. And it is also obvious that you consider me an auslander when it comes to Orthodoxy, even though we pray the same prayers and believe the same things?

Click to expand...

Where did I disagree with you? I am simply giving your statement context so that others reading the thread can be properly informed.

Edit to add: Neither did you post anything about Orthodoxy.

Wow this thread sure blew up.

Forgive me, I see nothing productive in what I've read so far trying to catch up. I will most likely cease replying, unless it seems productive. Right now it isn't even edifying to read what is being said.

I will reply to this though, since it was addressed to me.

I attend a Greek parish. I am not Greek. However, a good bit of our parish are people who immigrated from Greece, and it is they who established the parish, and dearly love their Church. A few don't really speak English. A good many don't speak it that well, such that Greek would benefit them more.

However ... myself, being not-Greek, was quickly welcomed and made to feel like family. Likewise, I just became godmother to another young lady who kept coming because "we welcomed her like part of the family" in her own words. We have Russians, Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and about a half-dozen other ethnicities, including Americans.

The Liturgy is in both Greek and English, in order to reach everyone who attends. Some parts alternate week by week (the Litanies, will be in both languages, but they switch which parts are in which language week to week). Some are offered in both languages at every Liturgy. The Our Father is said in the languages of everyone present, usually about 7 languages.

The Orthodox Church is and has been led by the value of offering the Liturgy in the language of the people. So much so that we helped develop or extend alphabets for those cultures needing them (the reason Russian looks so much like Greek, I believe). One priest friend of mine has been working for years on translating everything into the language of the people he serves.

And I've visited a number of parishes, and always found the same.

Do I resent Greek being used in the parish I attend, for the sake of the Greeks who established it? Of course not! I'm surprised if anyone would applaud such a sentiment. All are welcomed, all are accommodated.

There is not much point in mentioning that this is a deflection, and it is not a charge one usually associates primarily with the Orthodox Church.

I love you as a brother in Christ, but these kinds of posts are beneath all of us, or should be.

God be with you.

And may the Lord have mercy on us all.

Monk Brendan said:

And that, of course, is why most of the Divine Liturgy in Greek churches is still Greek, even though the Greeks have been here for over 200 years.

And I can say the same thing about Russians, Romanians, Ukrainians, and so on, right down the long list of various flavors.

And God help the person who wants to learn and understand Orthodoxy. A lot of them will not allow them inside to church unless they are of that particular ethnic group.

A large percentage of Anglophones (people that use English as their first, or only language) in America would like to be able to understand what is being preached. I would, I know. If you want to evangelize, then you have to be understood. If most of America speaks English, then wouldn't it make sense to speak English during the Liturgy? Or have you forgotten Jesus commandment when He said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

If the original Christians had been as close minded about language, then only those that spoke Aramaic would be Orthodox, and Christianity would have failed.

Click to expand...

Monk Brendan said:

Rome had PRIMACY, not privacy.

Click to expand...

Forgive me ... typo. Obviously.

The only thing I see from the Eastern Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic perspectives are, the Administrations of the Church.

You guys are more concerned in who has the authority over, in, and through the church, how a sacrament is administered, how the liturgy is presented, etc, etc, etc.

Protestants disagree on an Interpretation of what a passage in the Bible means, but the Catholic and Orthodox only disagree with the Churches functions in the world and who should be in charge.

It's nice to see, there are accusations made on both sides, about both sides, and it's not just the viewpoint of Protestants as is usually said.

I find it amazing that throughout the whole discussion there hasn't been even one verse to back up either sides arguments, which makes my point, the discussion isn't about Belief, but who is in authority, and right.

Gal. 5:26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Eph. 4:29
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

1Cor. 14:26
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Gal. 5:15
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

concretecamper said:

More Context


Canon 3 from the Same Council

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synodanswered, It is our pleasure.

Click to expand...

So this is only a temporary canon. For as long as Pope Julius was alive. But guess what these canons of appeal are not limited to Rome. Synods enacted similar rules for the bishops of provinces.

Well, at the risk of simply opening more wounds, we do have differences of doctrine. I think I mentioned them earlier in this thread.

It's just that ecclesiology took center stage in this thread.

I'm not sure it would produce anything productive to go into doctrinal differences.

TBH, speaking for myself alone, the issue of authority would matter least if all, if we could trust that the faith would always be maintained as it was handed down to us from the Apostles. But I would say it has been demonstrated that putting everything in the hands of a single man with supreme authority puts that at risk. There is safety in council, the Holy Spirit working in all. This is why authority matters.

But doctrine, dogma, and practice are the real concerns.

JIMINZ said:

The only thing I see from the Eastern Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic perspectives are, the Administrations of the Church.

You guys are more concerned in who has the authority over, in, and through the church, how a sacrament is administered, how the liturgy is presented, etc, etc, etc.

Protestants disagree on an Interpretation of what a passage in the Bible means, but the Catholic and Orthodox only disagree with the Churches functions in the world and who should be in charge.

It's nice to see, there are accusations made on both sides, about both sides, and it's not just the viewpoint of Protestants as is usually said.

I find it amazing that throughout the whole discussion there hasn't been even one verse to back up either sides arguments, which makes my point, the discussion isn't about Belief, but who is in authority, and right.

Gal. 5:26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Eph. 4:29
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

1Cor. 14:26
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Click to expand...