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

[Oblio]

Without the consent of the laity, the actions of the 'council' of Florence were made impotent. So no, the Orthodox did not 'return' to the West.

 

[prodromos]

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

That may be the way things work in the Catholic church but it is not how things work in the Orthodox church.

The church is more than the bishops, it is all of the faithful together and it is against the whole body of the church that the gate of hell will not prevail. Orthodox bishops are accountable to their flocks, they are not lords over them.

John

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

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

You are now asking, instead of stating. That's the first step. Now go look into the matter, as I suggested.

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.

I don't know about all that. We Orthodox have always had the scripture, our liturgy is built from scripture and is comprised of scripture.

I think you are trying to export the Western European conflict over the whole globe- and that is rather myopic on your part.

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?

On the contrary, it is quite clear that it is you who needs to hit the books, scripture-wise. The reforms for Israel were always within the body Israel- the people were caled back to Israel, not to a new expression.

Every generation needs to be renewed. Schisms do not equal reform or renewal. As to whether the Protestant Reformation created renewal or not, I abstain comment- it's not my concern.

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.

Yes, I quite agree, and fear not, I do not assume that your words are gospel- or even accurate, for that matter.

 

[DarkLord]

Equating the protestant split to the Great Schism is like comparing oranges to apples.

In the Great Schism, the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church was split into Latin Christianity and Eastern Chrisitainy. Both sides could trace themselves to the Apostles through Apostolic Tradition and have unity among themselves

In protestantism however, there is 36 000 split mainly due to the false doctrine of sola scriptura. I dont get it why its called a Reformation considering all it brought was chaos, lies and disorder.

May we reunite one day and be one as christ ahve desire.

 

[Splayd]

If I were to buy into the Catholic argument that our "division" is indicative of the fact that we're outside of the true church... I'd have to conclude that the Orthodox is the true church. After all, all of the "division" seems to have come from the Catholic side of the schism.

 

[DarkLord]

The West has spawned 30,000 denominations? Wow. Actually, Martin Luther and private judgment theology spawned the 30,000 different denominations by breaking away with the Catholic Church. Indicting the Church for these defections is quite a charge. When Luther introduced sola Scriptura, the floodgates opened. That is precisely why Jesus Christ endowed His Church with the charism of infallibility which would be secured in his earthly representative when he officially taught the Church on matters of faith and morals. Only the Catholic Church has remained in tact, as one Church, and in matters of faith and morals. Even the Orthodox church has splintered. And we both know from whom the Orthodox church came.

The Catholic Church stands alone in teh face of sexualy immorality and contraception.

 

[Splayd]

You can't have your cake and eat it too DarkLord.

If Luther is proven to be wrong because of the subsequent "splits" that occured on his side of the Catholic/Luther split, then it follows that Catholics must be wrong because of the subsequent splits on their side of the Catholic/Orthodox split.

 

[DarkLord]

U misunderstand.

33AD: Catholic Church
107AD: Catholic Church
1054AD: Catholic Church
1600: Catholic Church
2006AD: Catholic Church

Throughout history, the catholic church has existed. Protestantism is merely 4 centuries old. And there is no 'Protestant Church' because it continually split and divide among itself.

 

[Splayd]

No I get what you're saying. Orthodoxy can say the same... but if I take on board your arguments like "splitting" - you make a better case for Orthodoxy than Catholicism.

Of course - you probably don't see it, but then you've got a vested interest. As someone who is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, when I consider your arguments I see a case presented for the Orthodox Church. You don't have to "correct" me. I've understood your case and that's how I read it.

Peace

 

[DarkLord]

As a protestant, to side the orthodox is twice condemning urself. For protestantism is no longer a heresy but a heresy of a heresy.

Orthodoxy is a church that has always been held sway by muslim powers unlike the latin church. The orthodox church and catholic church was reunited in the Council of Florence until Constaitole fell decade later.

Wikiepdia:

With finances running thin and pestilence spreading in the area, both the Latins and the Greeks agreed to transfer the council to Florence. Continuing at Florence in January 1439, the Council made steady progress on a compromise formula, "ex filio." In the following months, agreement was reached on the Western doctrine of Purgatory and a return to the pre-schism prerogatives of the Papacy. On 8 June 1439 an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. Apparently, the Great Schism was over. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod. Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

The union came but rejected for politcal reasons

 

[Splayd]

Oh I'm not siding either way because I don't accept your premise. I'm just noting that if your point (re: splitting) is pertinent, it makes a better case for Orthodoxy than Catholicism.

Anyway - we're increasingly deviating from the OP, so my apologies to all and I'll leave this aspect be.

 

[a_ntv]

U misunderstand.

33AD: Catholic Church
107AD: Catholic Church
1054AD: Catholic Church
1600: Catholic Church
2006AD: Catholic Church

Throughout history, the catholic church has existed. Protestantism is merely 4 centuries old. And there is no 'Protestant Church' because it continually split and divide among itself.

Ummmm...NO

We need both some historical understanding and faith understanding.

Otherwise we risk to give space to ideology in our faith.

From a historical point of view, we shall say that Early Church (the One Catholic Holy Apostolic Church) now lives BOTH in the the CC, as well in the EO, OO, ACOE Orthodox Churches.

From a faith point of view we shall understand that a True Church IS where a True Eucharist is (this was repeated by the CVII). That is the reason why the Assiran church of the East, who stayed along from the IV century, can have intercommunion with the Catholic Church, and most of protestant cannot

I'm extremply catholic, and in my personal faith path I realized the risk to ideolize my membership: it happens when be part of a Christian group, or to belong to a Church, became a more solid base than Him, found in the prayer and charity, by the Eucharist.
I do not say that a feeling of membership is bad: on the contrary: it is a good starting point, but it shall not becase as important to the more importan fact of religion.
But this understanding is a path, and the final act is anyway even a deeper attachment to our Mather Church, that is actually Catholic, Universal
Catholic, Universal: to contains all the diversities

 

[prodromos]

The West has spawned 30,000 denominations? Wow. Actually, Martin Luther and private judgment theology spawned the 30,000 different denominations by breaking away with the Catholic Church.

Luther broke away? I thought he was excommunicated. Perhaps if the Catholic hierarchy had listened to Luther's complaints and acted on them, instead of casting him out and setting him on a different course, there would be no Protestant churches.

Indicting the Church for these defections is quite a charge. When Luther introduced sola Scriptura, the floodgates opened.

Luther is your baby.

Only the Catholic Church has remained in tact, as one Church, and in matters of faith and morals.

You are young and perhaps ignorant of the schisms which have occurred over the years in the Catholic church such as the Old Catholics, the Sedevacantists such as SSPX, the various Conclavists who have gone beyond the Sedevacantists and have elected their own Popes. There are more, but these few are sufficient to show how empty your claims are.

The Catholic Church stands alone in teh face of sexualy immorality and contraception.

So why are huge numbers of Catholics in North America using contraceptives in apparent disregard of their churches teaching?

Orthodoxy is a church that has always been held sway by muslim powers unlike the latin church.

Complete and utter rubbish. The same faith is held in Moscow as is held in Constantinople and the Muslims have never been in power in Russia.

The union came but rejected for politcal reasons

Rubbish! The only "union" which came about was because of political reasons. It was rejected by the Church because it was not in accord with the faith she had received and stood firm in.

John

 

[Splayd]

Luther broke away? I thought he was excommunicated. Perhaps if the Catholic hierarchy had listened to Luther's complaints and acted on them, instead of casting him out and setting him on a different course, there would be no Protestant churches.

Absolutely! I was teaching Catholic students about Luther last year (strictly by their program) and couldn't help but wonder how it might have been if the Catholics had dealt with it better. I mean I'm not saying Luther was necessarily blameless but I wondered:

What's worse - if the Catholics are deluded about being the one true church OR if they really are and allowed arrogance, mismanagement and poor judgement to split the church during the schism and the reformation etc..? So much of it all appears avoidable to me, if only they'd dealt with it with some humility.

But hey - I don't pretend to be an expert on the history. It's just how it looks to me and I'm prepared to be corrected as I dig deeper. Just as a sidenote - I probably sound like I'm trashing the Catholic church here. I apologise if I do because, in truth, I do enjoy a good relationship with her.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In the Great Schism, the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church was split into Latin Christianity and Eastern Chrisitainy. Both sides could trace themselves to the Apostles through Apostolic Tradition and have unity among themselves

In protestantism however, there is 36 000 split mainly due to the false doctrine of sola scriptura. I dont get it why its called a Reformation considering all it brought was chaos, lies and disorder.

1. I believe that there IS "one holy catholic and apostolic church." I don't think a division in a denomination or even a propensity to excommunicate has anything to do with it.


2. It is extremely likely that all ordained clergy - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox - have a chain of ordainations going back to the Apostles. NONE can prove it in any objective historic sense, but it's very likely. Why it matters is an altogether different issue.


3. I have FAR more in common with my Calvinist friend both of us using Sola Scriptura, than my Mormon and Catholic friends have both using Sola Ecclesia. Doing as the RCC insists does not lead to unity - each denomination appointing itself as the "sole teaching authority" and "the sole interpreterer" and "the sole arbiter" and "infallible" in all the above. No, such self-claims of denominations do not lead to unity among denomination. I think we disagree on this point.




Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Luther broke away? I thought he was excommunicated. Perhaps if the Catholic hierarchy had listened to Luther's complaints and acted on them, instead of casting him out and setting him on a different course, there would be no Protestant churches.Luther is your baby

1. That's what I've read, too.

2. I've always felt a bit of a puzzel here - on the one hand, Catholics will insist that their particular denomination essentially is the Church of Christ and that insititutional unity is critical and that it's their responsibility to make/keep the Church one, but then the who big splits (1054 and 1523) are totally not their fault - they had NOTHING to do with it. I think you can't have it both ways.

3. While I'm not the historical expert that many here are, my own reading of the Reformation leads me to conclude that both "sides" handled this very badly, and the polemics (very, very common in that day) just added to the mess. In spite of Luther's often bad language, what I've read is that he always considered himself to be Catholic, lemented the insititutional division, and loved that church. Oh, well. Anyone who has spent any time in the RCC knows it is extremely authoritarian, and together with it's views of itself (Tradition, infallibility, dogma, etc) makes it particularly resistant to reform. Issues had built up - like the San Andres earthquake fault - and the POWERS THAT BE in the RCC had kept that still for longer than anyone would have imagined - but it finally moved, with a 9.0, and Luther just happened to be at the epicenter. It could just as easily have been someone else. I've read the 95 Thesis, I've read some Luther. As Reformers go, he must be considered fairly mild from the RCC perspective. I admit - as the attacks got under way, as a price was placed on Luther's head, as this began to spin - it might have moved Luther further in his "reforms" but I suspect the RCC and Luther are mutually to blame if such is true.

the schisms which have occurred over the years in the Catholic church such as the Old Catholics, the Sedevacantists such as SSPX, the various Conclavists who have gone beyond the Sedevacantists and have elected their own Popes. There are more, but these few are sufficient to show how empty your claims are.So why are huge numbers of Catholics in North America using contraceptives in apparent disregard of their churches teaching?

1. I actually applaud the desire of the RCC and EO to gloss over 1054. Whether unity is possible or not, I don't know. The issues between them began right from the very beginning, and whereas the East has remained pretty much where it was in 1054, the RCC has moved considerably - widening the gap, and by declaring some of those differences to be "dogmas" has likely burned the bridges behind them. But at least the attitude has cooled on both sides. In my conversation with an Orthodox priest, he decried the Catholic Church's split with the Church in 1054 (which, BTW, he noted as strong similarities with 1517), and he stated his doubt that reunification is possible. But he did note the warming attitudes and rejoiced in that. Me, too. I think Protestants are in a similar position. Trent and a number of actions since then has probably made unification impossible - the RCC has burning those bridges and built walls of separation - but I hope there can be a warming attitude. It already exists for me.

2. I see no evidence that there EVER was only one denominational institution.


Thank you for the discussion and for permitting me to add my thoughts...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[a_ntv]

.Luther is your baby.

There is no charity in that.
When the brother is in error, we all shall help him.

.
So why are huge numbers of Catholics in North America using contraceptives in apparent disregard of their churches teaching?

I'm sorry to remind you that the non-post-communist nation in Europe with the higher rate of abortion is the 99% EO Greece.
These argumentations are not worthy of a theological debate.

Absolutely! I was teaching Catholic students about Luther last year (strictly by their program) and couldn't help but wonder how it might have been if the Catholics had dealt with it better. I mean I'm not saying Luther was necessarily blameless but I wondered:

No: the mind of Mr Luther was not to reform the Church, but he wanted to cancel the Church.
Dialogue with Lutherans went on during all Mr Luther life, and the Council of Trent moved in lots of cases in the direction required by Luther.
But this man did not wanted to heal the Church: he wanted to destroy the Synagoque of Satan, as he called the Catholic Apostolic Church.
When he died, the dialogue with Melanton actually improved and they almost arrived to an agreement, but it was too late: the political side was too heavy

 

[prodromos]

There is no charity in that.
When the brother is in error, we all shall help him.

Granted. I have grown impatient with his attitude and not considered my words. It would have been nice to see the occasional correcting post from his Catholic brethren though.

I'm sorry to remind you that the non-post-communist nation in Europe with the higher rate of abortion is the 99% EO Greece.
These argumentations are not worthy of a theological debate.

I am fully aware of the deplorable situation in Greece, having lived there for many years. DarkLord, however does not appear to have any idea of the serious problems within his own Church while happily passing judgement on my own and others. There cannot be any fruitful discussion while he continues to sit in his ivory tower.

John

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The West has spawned 30,000 denominations? Wow. Actually, Martin Luther and private judgment theology spawned the 30,000 different denominations by breaking away with the Catholic Church. Indicting the Church for these defections is quite a charge. When Luther introduced sola Scriptura, the floodgates opened. That is precisely why Jesus Christ endowed His Church with the charism of infallibility which would be secured in his earthly representative when he officially taught the Church on matters of faith and morals. Only the Catholic Church has remained in tact, as one Church, and in matters of faith and morals. Even the Orthodox church has splintered. And we both know from whom the Orthodox church came.

The Catholic Church stands alone in teh face of sexualy immorality and contraception.

Yes, we both know from whence came the Orthodox Church: St Andrew (Constantinople); St Peter (Antioch); The Twelve (Jerusalem); St Thomas (India); etc.

To suggest that the Catholic Church is the lone bastion of biblical morality is demonstrably false. There is a clear sense of biblical and traditional sexual morality present in the Orthodox Church AND in many Evangelical churches.

Your triumphalism is either mis- or -un- informed. As for the question of contraception, you will not find it either condoned nor condemned scripturally. It is simply Rome's view on the issue of procreation, which Rome has prudishly and gnostically designated as the sole acceptable purpose of human sexuality- denying the goodness of sexual enjoyment given by God to a husband and wife in covenant to enjoy as a prefiguration of the joyous and unguarded intimacies we shall share in heaven.

There are not 30,000 denominations- there are perhaps several hundred. These began long before Luther.
Blaming the Protestants for the Reformation is out of step with the view of your own hierarchs. Are you more 'Catholic' than they?

 

[DarkLord]

Catholic is One ( There is unity WITHIN)
Orthodox is ONE (There is unity WITHIN)
Protestant is 36 000 (There is none whatsoever)

Majority of Protestant Churches has slacken in its contraception ban. Before 1930s, virtually every church preached against it but in the face of humanism, most protestant churches has failed in its TEACHINGS.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

'There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church' - St Augustine in 397AD (when the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church was still ONE)


Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his sperm on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God's command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting

The Scripture says so clearly and every church held that view till 1930. THe Catholic Church and EO stands alone.