Division is not a problem of Protestantism--it's a problem of Christianity

lilymarie · Nov 30, 2006

There were many "churches" since the beginning of Christianity until now.

Also, tons of early "sects" of Christiandom.

So yes, division is nothing new.

But Paul in the Holy Spirit tells us and leaders not to lay junk upon the foundation which has already been laid as though by an expert builder, and that foundation is Christ and his gift of the promise of The Holy Spirit.

I think it's the religious ceremonial factors that are not necessary to agree upon.

However, I don't forsee any unity as we have two different Bibles going here. I definately reject the apocrypha and the Infancy Gospel of James which the RCC and some Orthodox (or perhaps all?) base their faith upon.

We have two different religions, but there is only one Christ.

There doesn't have to be unity in religious practices because it's sifting the focus off of Christ and His desires for humanity. These religious practices bring too much muck and muddle to Christ and the Gospel message, and I have no want of them in my life. There are meaningless rituals... but people are never meaningless.

It's time to face the truth that unity only lies within the spiritual church of Jesus Christ and doing the will of The Father in Heaven, as each is called to serve in love for their neighbor and fellow man.

Behold, I bring you tiddings of great joy, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

That's a big part of the Gospel message right there.

God is far, far greater than any church building. He is everywhere our heart is.

And, the Kingdom of God is "within us". Amen.

So, I see no need for unifying something that is a material belief.

Also, again, with two Bibles, and now the modern liberal catholics and anglicans with their gender neutral wording Bibles are the ones causing the current riffs today.

Check the wikipedia for the catholic versions of the Bible -- the NAB and The New Jerusalem Bible.

With this stuff happening in these churches hierarchies... I want nothing to do with catholicism, but I want all my life to do with Christ.

Unity lies in Christ, not rituals.

And unity lies for me with those who teach from the true scriptures, not the pseudo-apocrypha or the infancy Gospel of James.

Even Romans 14:5 proves there were all types of worship. (And also Romans 14:5 is backed up with another scripture which says pretty much the same thing -- "Let no one judge you regarding 'a' Sabbath Day, or a religious feast, or a New Moon Festival, etc...) I'm in the camp where I believe everyday is alike in the Romans 14:5 verse. I believe every day is The Lord's Day.

Romans 14:5
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

Splayd · Nov 30, 2006

I, for one, think the "division" amongst Protestants is highly exaggerated.

Some Catholics are charismatic, some aren't but because they all have a Catholic sign out the front, they're considered in unity.
Meanwhile, if some Protestants are charismatic and others aren't, it's considered division because they haven't different signs out the front.

Repeat the exercise for high, low, conservative, liberal etc...

Now, when we consider different opinions, I've actually encountered a broader spectrum of ideas from within Catholicism than from Protestants anyway. Go figure ?

I agree with the OP that division is not a problem reserved for Protestants, but I'm not sure it's a problem of Christianity so much as it's a problem of humanity.

CaliforniaJosiah · Nov 30, 2006

Kinda off topic, but picking up on the last post...

When I was active in my Catholic parish, I found MORE diversity of opinions among the members than in any Protestant church I've been a part of.

OFFICIALLY, Catholics agree on OFFICIAL teachings because they aren't allowed not to. It has to do with authority. The RCC is a very authoritarian denomination. But I've seen those surveys about Catholics and birth control, abortion rates among Catholics. I've heard LOTS of conversations among Catholics away from the church and any priests - and I know all that authoritarianism in the denomination doesn't keep the "order" the Pope might think it does (actually, I strongly doubt he thinks it does).

Thank you for the discussion and permitted my one cent.

Pax!

- Josiah

.

Trento · Nov 30, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Kinda off topic, but picking up on the last post...

When I was active in my Catholic parish, I found MORE diversity of opinions among the members than in any Protestant church I've been a part of.

OFFICIALLY, Catholics agree on OFFICIAL teachings because they aren't allowed not to. It has to do with authority. The RCC is a very authoritarian denomination. But I've seen those surveys about Catholics and birth control, abortion rates among Catholics. I've heard LOTS of conversations among Catholics away from the church and any priests - and I know all that authoritarianism in the denomination doesn't keep the "order" the Pope might think it does (actually, I strongly doubt he thinks it does).

Thank you for the discussion and permitted my one cent.

Pax!

- Josiah

.

I doubt that he does too because there are plenty of
schematics
(tares) within the Roman Church.
Within the Catholic Church, the most diverse forms of Catholicism, the Latin and Eastern Rite, share the same government, the same "religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body." In other words, Canon Law for the Eastern Rite and Canon Law for the Latin Rite come from the same single government, chaired by the same Vicar..According to St. Paul if you take Communion in an unworthy manner you will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord. They are not united with the body if the are guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.
That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died." To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. Those who divide Christ will answer to Him.

dave90 · Nov 30, 2006

lilymarie said:
There were many "churches" since the beginning of Christianity until now.

Also, tons of early "sects" of Christiandom.

So yes, division is nothing new.

But Paul in the Holy Spirit tells us and leaders not to lay junk upon the foundation which has already been laid as though by an expert builder, and that foundation is Christ and his gift of the promise of The Holy Spirit.

I think it's the religious ceremonial factors that are not necessary to agree upon.

However, I don't forsee any unity as we have two different Bibles going here. I definately reject the apocrypha and the Infancy Gospel of James which the RCC and some Orthodox (or perhaps all?) base their faith upon.

We have two different religions, but there is only one Christ.

There doesn't have to be unity in religious practices because it's sifting the focus off of Christ and His desires for humanity. These religious practices bring too much muck and muddle to Christ and the Gospel message, and I have no want of them in my life. There are meaningless rituals... but people are never meaningless.

It's time to face the truth that unity only lies within the spiritual church of Jesus Christ and doing the will of The Father in Heaven, as each is called to serve in love for their neighbor and fellow man.

Behold, I bring you tiddings of great joy, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

That's a big part of the Gospel message right there.

God is far, far greater than any church building. He is everywhere our heart is.

And, the Kingdom of God is "within us". Amen.

So, I see no need for unifying something that is a material belief.

Also, again, with two Bibles, and now the modern liberal catholics and anglicans with their gender neutral wording Bibles are the ones causing the current riffs today.

Check the wikipedia for the catholic versions of the Bible -- the NAB and The New Jerusalem Bible.

With this stuff happening in these churches hierarchies... I want nothing to do with catholicism, but I want all my life to do with Christ.

Unity lies in Christ, not rituals.

And unity lies for me with those who teach from the true scriptures, not the pseudo-apocrypha or the infancy Gospel of James.

Even Romans 14:5 proves there were all types of worship. (And also Romans 14:5 is backed up with another scripture which says pretty much the same thing -- "Let no one judge you regarding 'a' Sabbath Day, or a religious feast, or a New Moon Festival, etc...) I'm in the camp where I believe everyday is alike in the Romans 14:5 verse. I believe every day is The Lord's Day.

Romans 14:5
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

you reject James? why?

Chacci · Nov 30, 2006

stray bullet said:
Only bishops can attend councils

This is not entirely correct. Other clergy have been involved, as well as laity... for example Deacon Athanasius in the First Ecumenical Council. Also look at the Russian Orthodox Abroad Sobor that recently occured. There were priests as well as laity involved.

Asking for your prayers,
Chacci

Yeznik · Nov 30, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
The basic premise of Protestantism is Jesus Christ.

From there, I suppose it would be Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Fide. That's typically what defines Protestantism (although all 3 are widely and deeply misunderstood in Catholicism).

Sola Scriptura isn't even a doctrine, much less a basis. It's an epistemological approach to the norming of doctrines. But, yes, it is a "stumbling" block of sorts in our interdenominational discussions with Catholics (and Mormons and maybe Orthodox - I don't know enough about Orthodox). For Protestants, a dogma unconfirmed by Scripture might be embraced as a valid 'pious opinion' but not as doctrine or dogma. Protestants are not apt to accept as verification "because I'm correct and I say this is correct and so it's correct." Protestants accept Tradition as ESSENTIAL in hermeneutics but not self-authenticating.

For you Sola Scriptura may not be a doctrine put other Protestants will whole heartedly disagree with you stating that it is a doctrine, but again which brings me back to the point I made in Protestantism there lacks a consensus of doctrines, canons and councils, in which all Protestants can agree on. The reason why the ancient Churches can dialogue in regards to doctrines, canons and creeds is because we have all at one time or another have made common declarations with each other.
For all ancients Churches Christianity is not defined as, as person reading the bible, and believing in Jesus, because we all know that JWs and Mormons say that they read the bible and believe in Jesus but we all know that they are far from being Christian.

The explanation that you are presenting, as valid as it is in Protestantism, has the methodology of Sola Scriptura.

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Actually, I hold Tradition in highest esteem and consider it essential. I just don't place Tradition above God's Holy Word. It may be a small notch below, but it's below. God is Lord of me, I'm not lord of Him. My words are subject to His, not the other way around.

I agree with you that this is fundamental to why consensus often is lacking. We tend to use two different systems of norming, two different ways to determine which teacher is correct. It's why I tend to address this issue so much - it IS the "problem."

IMHO, as long as self arbitrates self according to the canon of self and self predeclares self as infallible in both, then no progress can be made. Catholics and Mormons insists on such because of their concept of the church, but everyone else sees that as circular, self-authenticating and a complete circumvention of all accountability.

Let me make another point, in regards to the self authenticating the self. The Armenian Church and can authenticate a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church due to having a common declaration at one time. So if these 2 selves authenticate each other we can conclude on a specific declaration there is a single viable doctrine. If we use the Protestant approach of authentication we cannot conclude to a single doctrine due to a common declaration, additionally, what gets created is the self authentication between the reader and Scripture. But there exists a lot more of self authentication in Protestantism, in example; Calvinism, Lutheran, Armininian, Zwiglian, Wesselyan etc, to each had their own conclusion in regards to Scripture and interpretation, also these are four individuals that have had the greatest influence in Protestantism, but here in lies the issue, its an individual that has made the doctrine and the declaration. In the ancient Churches its a council.

CaliforniaJosiah said:
This is true to a certain degree. Any Protestant who has ever actually seen the official Catechism of the RCC is likely to be completely blown away!!!!! It's HUGE!!!!! The Catechism in Lutheranism is like 10 pages long.

SOME Protestant congregations and denominations are pretty "loose." That may be the result of humility (let's hope) but more likely of a wrong concept of ecumenism and some sloppy theology. I've been to some Protestant churches, asked for their statement of faith, and been told, "Oh, we just teach what the Bible teaches." Ahha, LOL! BUT, I think most Protestants are simply less willing to pin everything down in strick dogmatic terms. When I took my class for membership in the RCC, there was LITTLE I actually felt was WRONG, but some things where it was clear this is simply the spin of the RCC and little more.

[FONT=&quot]What normally raise my concern about Protestantism are loose denominations, under the name of a non-denominational church. Point being, the JWs say that they teach what the bible teaches. I truly dont believe that the bible teaches anything without a teacher, even if the teacher is I. And if the bible was such a simple book to understand Gods Will, then how come there are so many different interpretations of Scripture in Protestantism? I will also state that the RCC, EO, and OO may disagree with one another, but, we still can come to a point that we have a commonality. If Protestants are less willing to pin down everything, at what point do Protestant stop pinning down? [/FONT]

CaliforniaJosiah said:
To a degree, I agree with your point. Yes, Protestants are apt to say "Show me!" Protestants are very sensitive to all those warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray. We note the command to "test the spirits to see if they are correct." We note our Saviors commendation of those to tested the claims of the 'apostles' and noted they were false, of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. Protestants have had those nice Mormon guys knock on our door - and we didn't "buy" it just cuz they said so.

Thank you for some insightful points.

Pax!

- Josiah

.

I would like to say in regards to Protestants saying Show me. I tell people in Christianity I applied to Saint Peter School of board less surfing, but I go accepted to Saint Thomas School of doubting everything. Protestants would also need to understand that there have been Christians for the last 2000 years who have been sensitive to the same warnings.

In Christ,

Yeznik

Rdr Iakovos · Nov 30, 2006

lilymarie said:
There were many "churches" since the beginning of Christianity until now.

Also, tons of early "sects" of Christiandom.

So yes, division is nothing new.

But Paul in the Holy Spirit tells us and leaders not to lay junk upon the foundation which has already been laid as though by an expert builder, and that foundation is Christ and his gift of the promise of The Holy Spirit.

I think it's the religious ceremonial factors that are not necessary to agree upon.

However, I don't forsee any unity as we have two different Bibles going here. I definately reject the apocrypha and the Infancy Gospel of James which the RCC and some Orthodox (or perhaps all?) base their faith upon.

Dear one, we Orthodox base our faith upon Jesus the Christ, not on any particular writing. We accept the works which you errantly refer to as apocrypha (they were never 'hidden' to the Eastern Church.) as authorative and canonical. That you do not is nothing to us, anymore than it is something to us that Mormons add books. IRT the proto-evangelion of Saint James, we consider it to be a late addition, notfrom the hands of James or a biographer, but rather a collected story of authentic details. That being said, its contents are to us tradition with a small t, IOW not dogmatic.

We have two different religions, but there is only one Christ.

Since there is only One Church, One faith, One baptism, you herein either excluude us or yourself. Since I know that I am part of the Curch, I invite you to do so also. Since I know that will likely offend you, I suggest then that you chose your words more carefully, so as to not stand self-condemned.

There doesn't have to be unity in religious practices because it's sifting the focus off of Christ and His desires for humanity. These religious practices bring too much muck and muddle to Christ and the Gospel message, and I have no want of them in my life. There are meaningless rituals... but people are never meaningless.

It's time to face the truth that unity only lies within the spiritual church of Jesus Christ and doing the will of The Father in Heaven, as each is called to serve in love for their neighbor and fellow man.

Behold, I bring you tiddings of great joy, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

That's a big part of the Gospel message right there.

God is far, far greater than any church building. He is everywhere our heart is.

And, the Kingdom of God is "within us". Amen.

So, I see no need for unifying something that is a material belief.

Also, again, with two Bibles, and now the modern liberal catholics and anglicans with their gender neutral wording Bibles are the ones causing the current riffs today.

Check the wikipedia for the catholic versions of the Bible -- the NAB and The New Jerusalem Bible.

With this stuff happening in these churches hierarchies... I want nothing to do with catholicism, but I want all my life to do with Christ.

Unity lies in Christ, not rituals.

The irony of this is that you have your own rituals, to which you appear to be blind. I've been Evangelical Charismatic, I want no part of those culturally-drivcen rituals and feel-good bless-meism either- but this does not ean that I do not have unity of purpose and intent with Evangelicals. I just can't stomach the bubblegum music and one man bible study. I want worship done in the manner it was done in the synagogues, in the catacombs, and in the homes. Such ancient worship was liturgical and sacramental- there is absolutely no denying this.

And unity lies for me with those who teach from the true scriptures, not the pseudo-apocrypha or the infancy Gospel of James.

Even Romans 14:5 proves there were all types of worship. (And also Romans 14:5 is backed up with another scripture which says pretty much the same thing -- "Let no one judge you regarding 'a' Sabbath Day, or a religious feast, or a New Moon Festival, etc...) I'm in the camp where I believe everyday is alike in the Romans 14:5 verse. I believe every day is The Lord's Day.

Romans 14:5
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

You've blown these out of context, but this thread isn't about the nature of early Christian worship- it IS about division. Division exists by choice, as you clearly demonstrate. It also exists astride ignorance and misinformation, as you also demonstrate (no offense intended, but you have demonstrated an ignorance of that which you decry and eschew)
James

Yeznik · Nov 30, 2006

lilymarie said:
There were many "churches" since the beginning of Christianity until now.

Also, tons of early "sects" of Christiandom.

So yes, division is nothing new.

But Paul in the Holy Spirit tells us and leaders not to lay junk upon the foundation which has already been laid as though by an expert builder, and that foundation is Christ and his gift of the promise of The Holy Spirit.

I think it's the religious ceremonial factors that are not necessary to agree upon.

However, I don't forsee any unity as we have two different Bibles going here. I definately reject the apocrypha and the Infancy Gospel of James which the RCC and some Orthodox (or perhaps all?) base their faith upon.

We have two different religions, but there is only one Christ.

There doesn't have to be unity in religious practices because it's sifting the focus off of Christ and His desires for humanity. These religious practices bring too much muck and muddle to Christ and the Gospel message, and I have no want of them in my life. There are meaningless rituals... but people are never meaningless.

It's time to face the truth that unity only lies within the spiritual church of Jesus Christ and doing the will of The Father in Heaven, as each is called to serve in love for their neighbor and fellow man.

Behold, I bring you tiddings of great joy, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

That's a big part of the Gospel message right there.

God is far, far greater than any church building. He is everywhere our heart is.

And, the Kingdom of God is "within us". Amen.

So, I see no need for unifying something that is a material belief.

Also, again, with two Bibles, and now the modern liberal catholics and anglicans with their gender neutral wording Bibles are the ones causing the current riffs today.

Check the wikipedia for the catholic versions of the Bible -- the NAB and The New Jerusalem Bible.

With this stuff happening in these churches hierarchies... I want nothing to do with catholicism, but I want all my life to do with Christ.

Unity lies in Christ, not rituals.

And unity lies for me with those who teach from the true scriptures, not the pseudo-apocrypha or the infancy Gospel of James.

Even Romans 14:5 proves there were all types of worship. (And also Romans 14:5 is backed up with another scripture which says pretty much the same thing -- "Let no one judge you regarding 'a' Sabbath Day, or a religious feast, or a New Moon Festival, etc...) I'm in the camp where I believe everyday is alike in the Romans 14:5 verse. I believe every day is The Lord's Day.

Romans 14:5
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

Ok., I got to ask, what infancy gospel do the RCC or the EO have, because I got "their" bibles and its not in there.

stray bullet · Nov 30, 2006

Chacci said:
This is not entirely correct. Other clergy have been involved, as well as laity... for example Deacon Athanasius in the First Ecumenical Council. Also look at the Russian Orthodox Abroad Sobor that recently occured. There were priests as well as laity involved.

Asking for your prayers,
Chacci

I meant in terms of authority, sorry

youdahman · Nov 30, 2006

Or perhaps it will prompt you to study a little bit so as not to appear foolish the next time around.

You honestly think that Luther was in agreement with what the orthodox church teaches? Uhhhh. Didn't some of hte things luther rebelled against were both held by the catholic and orthodox church

But if God did inspire Luther, then your group is deeply opposed to the 'prophet of God' for SDAs are a country mile apart from Luther's views.

Did God use Luther or the Reformation to set the standard of what Christianity should be? Perhaps it was to put the word of God in the hands of hte people and things like freedom of conscience and not the bondage and superstition the church wanted from its followers.

Or would you propose that God onces again sent a reform in the SDA movement, and that everyone else was "(edited) in error?"
If so, we have a pretty good idea why division runs so deep in the Protestant movement: Jesus, the original protester (ahem) set the standard for each successive 'true prophet.'
Lord love a duck

I guess you aren't familiar with the bible, you know how God's people always fall away. But you're going to tell me the last 2000 years God's people have been perfect and in no need of reform or help?

Ah, a novel interpretation, eh? EVERYONE ELSE is part of the Beast.

My comment was just that, a comment

No one interpreted anything, why are you trying to assume what i say is gospel. I am but just another sinner giving his point of view.

DarkLord · Dec 2, 2006

But didnt Christ say that his the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church?

And that Church founded by the Apostles is the Catholic Church

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

Many heresy split from the Catholic Church

Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

The catholic Church is united even after 2000yrs in doctrine. There will be difference in worship style but we are ONE in TRUTH and DOCTRINES

"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..." Origen, On John, 5 (A.D. 232).

The Church must be built on Peter. The novel idea of the rock being Christ or Confession was borned 15 centuries after Christ death.

"And besides, also, one only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed, though all the world should seek to make war with it; but it is victorious over every most impious revolt of the heretics who rise up against it. For her Goodman hath confirmed our minds by saying, 'Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.' " Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, 12 (A.D. 321).

After 2000yrs we are still ONE while protestantism after 4 centures is 36 000

If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

Who deserted who?

AND FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THE CC ISNT THE TRUE CHURCH...READ THIS:

MARTIN LUTHER:

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christs Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.

Splayd · Dec 2, 2006

DarkLord said:
But didnt Christ say that his the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church? But saying the Catholic Church fell into error is calling christ a liar

Hang on. What about the Orthodox? I disagree with your premise (ie: that one denomination has to have always been on track) but nevertheless, why would your claim that it was only the Catholic church that remained free from error be more credible than an identical claim from the Orthodox?

Also - what does the fact that there are differences between them mean exactly? Christ let the gates of hell prevail against half of the church? The Orthodox were never a part of the church anyway or they were but they left immediately prior to the gates of hell prevailing against them? What exactly is inferred here because I can't make heads nor tails of this argument as it's currently and consistently presented by Catholics?

DarkLord · Dec 2, 2006

1) Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church due to a number of politcal reasons.

2) Reunfication took place.

Wikipedia:

At the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Bishop Joseph,
Patriarch of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy, in hope of reconciliation with the West and the aid of Roman armies in their conflict with the Ottoman Empire.

After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, and since the Byzantine Empire desperately needed the military aid of the West, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion.

Now briefly, officially and publicly, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in communion. So, the Council of Florence helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be one in its faith, its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in its culture, customs and rites. Although theologically the Church had to be uniform, the addition of the Filioque did not seem at the time to violate that uniformity.

The promised Western armies were too late to prevent the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. From that time onward, the Turks fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. The Patriarch of Constantinople now had to carry out the will of his Muslim overlord; the Church was no longer free.

Although the filioque controversy had been officially resolved for both Orthodox and Catholic, (partly because of the historical situation) the resolution at Florence was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

So the orthodox did return back for a short while before constantipole fell.

33AD - Catholic Church
107AD - Catholic Church
1054AD - Catholic Church
1600AD- Catholic Church
2006AD - Catholic Church EXIST

The gates of hell has no prevailed against us

artybloke · Dec 2, 2006

See, this is why I don't come on General Theology often:

The Catholics and the Orthodox gang up on the Prods, the Prods gang up on everyone else. Everyone ends up shouting about what doctrines are right, this that and the other, the Pope, the Bible, Tradition-schmadition, and frankly

who [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing cares?

All those who love Christ will find Christ.

prodromos · Dec 2, 2006

DarkLord said:
1) Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church due to a number of politcal reasons.

2) Reunfication took place.

Wikipedia:

At the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Bishop Joseph,
Patriarch of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy, in hope of reconciliation with the West and the aid of Roman armies in their conflict with the Ottoman Empire.

After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, and since the Byzantine Empire desperately needed the military aid of the West, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion.

It was a false council. There have been several of those throughout the history of the Church. You have much to learn grasshopper

John

DarkLord · Dec 2, 2006

But ur Emperor and ur Patriach went there...if teh leaders accepted the council shouldnt the people too?

prodromos · Dec 2, 2006

youdahman said:
You honestly think that Luther was in agreement with what the orthodox church teaches? Uhhhh. Didn't some of hte things luther rebelled against were both held by the catholic and orthodox church

Since you obviously have no idea, it would be a good idea for you to actually do some relevant study before making such statements.

God bless you in your enlightening
John

CaliforniaJosiah · Dec 2, 2006

DarkLord said:
1) Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church due to a number of politcal reasons.

An Orthodox priest stressed to me that it was the Catholic Church that left the Orthodox Church, mostly over theology and the claims of the papacy.

Reunfication took place.

?

DarkLord · Dec 2, 2006

Wikipedia:

At the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Bishop Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy, in hope of reconciliation with the West and the aid of Roman armies in their conflict with the Ottoman Empire.

After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, and since the Byzantine Empire desperately needed the military aid of the West, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion.

Now briefly, officially and publicly, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in communion. So, the Council of Florence helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be one in its faith, its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in its culture, customs and rites. Although theologically the Church had to be uniform, the addition of the Filioque did not seem at the time to violate that uniformity.

The promised Western armies were too late to prevent the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. From that time onward, the Turks fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. The Patriarch of Constantinople now had to carry out the will of his Muslim overlord; the Church was no longer free.

Although the filioque controversy had been officially resolved for both Orthodox and Catholic, (partly because of the historical situation) the resolution at Florence was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

So the orthodox did return back for a short while before constantipole fell

Division is not a problem of Protestantism--it's a problem of Christianity

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare

Just some guy

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

dave90

Guest

Regular Member

Yeznik

Guest

Well-Known Member

Yeznik

Guest

God Made Me A Skeptic

Regular Member

Regular Member

Just some guy

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency