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

[DarkLord]

My friend....Emperors in ROME????

The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally placed on 4 September 476, when the Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic invaders, although the major power centre of the Empire had by then transferred to the Eastern Roman Empire. Known to modern-day historians as the Byzantine Empire, - Wikipedia

There is no Emperor in Rome since 400s. U are accusing the West of crimes which cannot be true because tehre is no emperors in rome. The emperors were in the byzantine empire which is where traditionally orthodoxy originated from. The refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff is due to the rivalryy between both states.

I think u have confused the Byzantine Emperor fer the CC. The CC had no emperor fer 6 centureis b4 the schism. The EO had an emperor up to the 1400s when the Muslims destroyed it.

The CC and the EO differ on the role of the papacy. We are brothers and both can trace thier roots to the Apostles

I am more than happy to quote biblical verses and show Church fathers support on the Petrine Supremacy...just PM me. IS too big a favour to ask OrthodoxyUSA to quote me the EASTERN fatehrs who supported otherwise....my sources are too Latin-centred

However i am surprised to see the Protestant judging who is the be correct? Considering the fact that they arosed from Western Catholicism and that thier practice is at best unbiblical.

1) The failure to submit to authority ( IN EO, there is Patriach, in CC there is pope)

2) Rejection of all Eucnimal Councils

3) Not ebing able to trace themselves to the Apostles

Look at Church Fathers...they believed in AUTHORITY
Quote to me any Father who disagreed with the need of a INSTUTIONALISED CHURCH.

U agreed with Ignatius but failed to read his early line abt BISHOPS!!!.

St Ignatius Quotes:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as ye would the apostles. . . . Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.

But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity.

He was against sola scriptura and was for authority...he lived in apostolic times. Wad does this sae abt ur doctrine?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My friend....Emperors in ROME????

The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally placed on 4 September 476,

I'm surprised to learn you think there were no popes before 476, but okay....

And who was altogether eager to fill that power gap?

The CC and the EO differ on the role of the papacy. We are brothers and both can trace thier roots to the Apostles

I trace my roots to the Apostles, too. And with the EO, I disagree on the role of the Pope.

I am more than happy to quote biblical verses

Quote away.
Just leave out any commentary.
Let's see what GOD says rather than what the RCC self-claims.

As to your request for the Orthodox brothers and sisters to provide support for the Infalliblity and the Supremecy of the Roman Pontiff (not first among EQUALS), um, I think you are asking for a lot.


But I think you might have misunderstood me. I only indicated that IF one accepts the institutional view of Christ and Christianity (WHICH I DO NOT), then clearly the EO has a better "claim" than does the RC denomination.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rick Otto]

"But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity."

>AGREED!

"He was against sola scriptura and was for authority...he lived in apostolic times. Wad does this sae abt ur doctrine?"

It says your doctrine is elevated above scriptural truth, and that by your traditions (redefining the authority He was "for"), you make that truth of no effect.
Here is explicit scriptural evidence of His attitude toward the authority of truth itself above the "personsages of respect" you advocate as final arbitrators of truth:
Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
47: And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48: And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
49: And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50: And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Here Jesus snatches the exclusive authority trying to be wielded, right out the hands of presumably,an apostle, in favor of anonymous* truth. God is on the side of truth, not those who would hold it in unrighteousness.

*anonymous in the denominational sense, not to say God is anonymous.

 

[NewToLife]

This - added to the ever widening differences in theology and practice - put the two on a collision course that FINALLY broke with 1054 when the West split off. To ME, the whole concept of the Papacy was largely a political effort to give support to the primacy of the Pope over the other Bishops and especially the East.

I think, in fairness, that a lot of this was due to the Roman Church's attempts to eliminate abuses. The Cluniac reform movement seems to have been the real author of the monarchical model of the Papacy that emerged just prior to the great schism but it wasnt developed to serve some desire for power but because it was seen as an effective way for Rome to assert orthodoxy in the west. I think the problems this caused with the East were an unforeseen side effect of an ecclesiology intended simply to maintain the faith.

Its interesting to note that the same reformers also got into conflict with the Northern European Holy Roman Empire over issues of authority, protestantism of course later also started out in Northern Europe.

 

[Oblio]

The failure to submit to authority ( IN EO, there is Patriach, in CC there is pope)

Just to be clear, a Patrirach is NOT a EO Pope, nor do we submit to the authority of a Patriarch (who is actually the Metropolitian of an ancient See) but rather to our Bishop (unless of course our Bishop is the Patriarch or Metropolitan). A Patriarch in matters of theological authority is a Bishop, no more, no less, nor does he exersize such outside his Diocese. He does exercise authority over other Bishops administratively, but this is outside the realm of theology, faith and praxis.

 

[GenemZ]

The CC and the EO differ on the role of the papacy. We are brothers and both can trace thier roots to the Apostles

Does anyone today have contact with the Apostles?

So....

Let's see.

We have letters from these so called direct contacts. And, you base what you believe upon what these direct links claimed in their writings. Hmmmmmmm.

So? We are to hold what these ones wrote in interpretation thousands of years ago? Above the very writings of Scripture which came directly from the hands of the Apostles???

Sounds like no one has thought this through clearly. As fine as these early fathers may have seemed and been, they still could make errors. We can witness to it today in any walk of life. Someone is a great success, and the ones to follow (who knew the successful man) can not carry on with the same ability nor insight. Yet? We are to place their commentary above the original writings of the successful insightful man??????

Sounds like someone is not clear here. One can not place commentary on the same level as what the commentary is commenting on. But, your church has. Some of the things that they wrote remind me of a first year Bible student's thinking. Devotional and filled with emotional opinions. Someone may have been a direct link with Apostle Paul. But, that did not give them the mind and insight that God gave Paul. That is to be found in the Word of God, and only to those whom the Spirit will reveal insights and truths to. It has nothing to do with knowing the Apostles first hand. It has to do with knowing the Holy Spirit!!!

John 16:13 niv
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
​

That principle still stands today! With your church's system, it ended with the writings of the early fathers. It has formed into an immutable set and determined system of rituals and traditions.

Paul prayed for all the church the following prayer....

Philippians 1:9 niv
" And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."
​

Paul did not say.... "You will get your insight from direct contact with me."

No! he did not say that.

We must do, is grow in the grace and knowledge of God's Word.

2 Peter 3:18 niv
"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. "
​

After gaining in accurate understanding of God's Word, then the Spirit will lead us into INSIGHT! Today!

Your church's system stops all insight with the first fathers writings. Yet, Paul's prayer was for all in the church! He never said all insight comes by having direct contact with himself.

Your church seems to think its the case. That we must have a direct link with the Apostles before we can understand the Bible. Hey? Did they have direct contact with Moses? Yet, they could understand the Scriptures that the early church began with. Because the Holy Spirit is the one that teaches us. That is. If we do not grieve the Spirit. If we do not quench the Spirit.

Pastors and teachers can only supply accurate teachings (sound doctrine) or false teachings. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches the believer what to believe. Religion cuts one off from the life in the Spirit. Religion pumps up the emotional experience and claims that its spiritual. Spiritual is revolutionary. It may even tell us that we are not to heed our emotions, for they betray us concerning the truth! Spirituality will open our eyes to what religion really is. That's the essence of why we do what we do. Why we can not agree.

Matthew 16:24 niv
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
​

We must deny self when need be! Religion pleases the emotions - "religious experience." Truth demands that we die to our own preferences and leanings, and then allow for the implanted new life found in the Truth of God's Word to take root and to produce fruit. Fruit that we can not produce in our natural abilities.

Religion always asks that we implement our natural ability for obedience. Religion will always demand works that the religion prescribes. Its a merit system... Be it Allah, or the name of Jesus Christ being used to draw people to religion. Religion is not alive. It remains the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Yet, the Church that is alive has matured and grown in many ways in the understanding of the LORD through God's Word. It is now light years ahead of religion. But, religion can not see that. Because that is the way religion is.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[a_ntv]

I think, in fairness, that a lot of this was due to the Roman Church's attempts to eliminate abuses. The Cluniac reform movement seems to have been the real author of the monarchical model of the Papacy that emerged just prior to the great schism but it wasnt developed to serve some desire for power but because it was seen as an effective way for Rome to assert orthodoxy in the west. I think the problems this caused with the East were an unforeseen side effect of an ecclesiology intended simply to maintain the faith.

Yes, in fact the increase of the papal authority on the XI century was not at all in reference to the East (that was already marginal), but as attempt to defeat the Church from the German Empire.
The question was easy: who had the right to appoint bishops? the German Emperator or the Pope?
The East was not at all a good model: the right to appoint the patriarch/bishops was of the Bizantine Emperator, that for that was called Vicar of Christ by the Bizantine Orthodoxes.
The German Emperator wanted the same right. The pope in the VIII-X century had to be accept that, but later he refused such a right to the German Emperator, and he succeded in doing it by using the Bizantine title of Vicar of Christ: that was a victory in separation from state to church.
North Europe did not accepted that easily, and the discontent went on till the reformation.

Just to be clear, a Patrirach is NOT a EO Pope, nor do we submit to the authority of a Patriarch (who is actually the Metropolitian of an ancient See) but rather to our Bishop (unless of course our Bishop is the Patriarch or Metropolitan)

Please consider that ALSO in the Catholic Church the authority is of the local bishop. Local bishops are NOT papal officiers but are the head of the diocese, not only on jurisdictional and sacramental matter, but also as 'teaching': each bishop has his own cathedra. Many bishops are united in the Episcopal Conference of each country, that is in fact the governance of each church. The ministry of the pope is to be the union point, and his jurisdiction has place where the matter is over the bordr of the diocese, or as last appeal.