One is in error, and I can prove it.

[NewToLife]

fair enough. The more you look into it though, the more muddled the picture gets, frankly.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree, I spent quite some time examining the question and was able to come to an answer, for me the experience was that the more I looked into the matter the clearer the picture became until I reached a point that I felt the answer to who was correct was obvious.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree, I spent quite some time examining the question and was able to come to an answer, for me the experience was that the more I looked into the matter the clearer the picture became until I reached a point that I felt the answer to who was correct was obvious.

I am hoping that if I continue looking, real truth might be under all the convolution.

My current line of thinking is this. One must be in error. IF one is in error, I feel based on study that it is more likely RCC that has it wrong, as compared to EO. (cue the RC protest here, but plain view of it is that RCC is further in left field as compared to EO.)

now, Looking at Orthodox, I still cannot fathom a church that "has it all right." I do not believe the promise of Christ states anything about error being kept from any one organization.

these points are what stick in my head.

1) the promise about the gates of hell do not state perfection. This is a claim of interpretation, the text does not state as such.

2) being able to trace "apostolic succession" back to the first century imparts nothing towards the assertion that there is no error. Any single one of the fallible men over the years could insert error. Having a long line of succession does nothing to preserve truth.

3) many teachings of the EO are extra biblical, and I have no assurance that they are not false, given the above 2 points. They all hinge on a promise that I do not believe was ever given.

4) I have seen God work very powerfully in the lives of people who have nothing to do with EO or RCC. If either were the "only" church, I would think I would see much less of this outside of the "one true church." I would also think that if so many people were seeking God earnestly, and depending on the Holy Spirit, and there WAS a "one true church" that they would be drawn to it indelibly. I believe God would be monsterous if he had those calling on his name earnestly, and not guiding them to his "one true church" if it existed.

5) The main thrust of the bible is salvation by grace, and that what God considers pure and perfect have nothing to do with ritual and liturgy. (personal observation, subjective.)

there are more, but these are some of the main points of my reasoning.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"If" The Holy Eucharist is what The Orthodox Church says it is, (we don't say others don't have it, just that we believe we do...) would you not wish to be a part of that community?

This is based on the premise that you believe that The Orthodox Church is correct about The Holy Eucharist.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

"If" The Holy Eucharist is what The Orthodox Church says it is, (we don't say others don't have it, just that we believe we do...) would you not wish to be a part of that community?

This is based on the premise that you believe that The Orthodox Church is correct about The Holy Eucharist.

Forgive me...

even if I did, I could not partake because of the other things I simply do not believe, so It's a moot point.

 

[repentant]

1) the promise about the gates of hell do not state perfection. This is a claim of interpretation, the text does not state as such.

Would you say that something false or evil entering the Church would mean that the "gates of hell" have prevailed against it? I guess it would depend on what you would consider the gates of hell doing to be able prevail. It very well could be said that anything false believed by the masses, would mean that hell prevailed against the Church.

2) being able to trace "apostolic succession" back to the first century imparts nothing towards the assertion that there is no error. Any single one of the fallible men over the years could insert error. Having a long line of succession does nothing to preserve truth.

And in here lies the difference between the EOC and the RCC. We (the EOC) do not believe that any one man is infalliable, so by saying this, we would not take the word of one man to insert anything, and create Doctrine. All Doctrines are placed (or were placed) by 100's of Bishops voting on the matter in Council, and not in a majority wins, but all would have to agree, then we the lay people would have to agree. So by this we can assure the the Holy Spirit working in the WHOLE Church, and not just one "infalliable" man, leads us. Just like in Scripture when the Apostles said, "It was good to the Holy Spirit, and to us". Because they all agreed.

3)

many teachings of the EO are extra biblical, and I have no assurance that they are not false, given the above 2 points. They all hinge on a promise that I do not believe was ever given.

No, you just have to know where to look, and also how to look.

4) I have seen God work very powerfully in the lives of people who have nothing to do with EO or RCC. If either were the "only" church, I would think I would see much less of this outside of the "one true church." I would also think that if so many people were seeking God earnestly, and depending on the Holy Spirit, and there WAS a "one true church" that they would be drawn to it indelibly. I believe God would be monsterous if he had those calling on his name earnestly, and not guiding them to his "one true church" if it existed.

No doubt. Ever heard the story of the Protestant missionaries who were martyred, and an angel came down to recieve their souls, the people who killed them saw it, and became Christian?

Not everyone will be drawn to the Church. There is to much delusion in the world. Also Jesus in Scripture points to people who called on His name, yet they didn't know Him, and in turn He did not know them. The question to ask, is who are those people?

5) The main thrust of the bible is salvation by grace, and that what God considers pure and perfect have nothing to do with ritual and liturgy. (personal observation, subjective.)

But where in lies the Grace? Things were very ritualistic in the Church in Acts. We also know that He established a Church into which His Grace was given. The Apostles pointed Elders in the various regions to lead the people so that the Church may grow. The Liturgy is an act of obeying Christ at the Last Supper.

I think a big prolem alot people have with the EOC and the RCC alike is submission to authority. Alot of people want to do what they want to do, and when they want to do it. Obedience is a lacking virtue in the modern world..

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Kind of had an epiphany (although, it wasn't exactly something hidden, just something that I never thought of before.)

Either the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church is Proveably in error. Which it is, if either of them TRULY have everything right (which I don't believe) I couldn't tell you, but one is definitely in doctrinal error.

It all hinges on one doctine too.

The Dogma of the immaculate conception. (I didn't post this in Mariology, as it isn't really about Mary.)

RCC espouses as Dogma the IC.
Orthodox denies IC.

They cannot both be right, therefore, one of the two "have it all right" churches is in definite doctrinal error over this single doctrine.

One down, one to go.

Congratulations, you've successfully proven your case, the one nagging problem is that we're not a "have it all right" church. The Orthodox Church claims, and can demonstrate the claim, that we are an unbroken tradition with the fullest deposit of truth. Needless to say, every Protestant church believes that they are the fullest deposit of (biblical) truth.

That being said, Mary either was Immaculately conceived, or not. Also, once saved always saved- or not. Premillenium, or not. You might say premillenialism isn't dogmatic- to which I'd point to the statement of faith of the Evangelical Free Church. Total Depravity, or not. etc.

From where we stand, all of these dogmatic declarations on matters not made clear in scripture are foolish

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Congratulations, you've successfully proven your case, the one nagging problem is that we're not a "have it all right" church. The Orthodox Church claims, and can demonstrate the claim, that we are an unbroken tradition with the fullest deposit of truth. Needless to say, every Protestant church believes that they are the fullest deposit of (biblical) truth.

That being said, Mary either was Immaculately conceived, or not. Also, once saved always saved- or not. Premillenium, or not. You might say premillenialism isn't dogmatic- to which I'd point to the statement of faith of the Evangelical Free Church. Total Depravity, or not. etc.

From where we stand, all of these dogmatic declarations on matters not made clear in scripture are foolish

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Congratulations, you've successfully proven your case, the one nagging problem is that we're not a "have it all right" church. The Orthodox Church claims, and can demonstrate the claim, that we are an unbroken tradition with the fullest deposit of truth. Needless to say, every Protestant church believes that they are the fullest deposit of (biblical) truth.

That being said, Mary either was Immaculately conceived, or not. Also, once saved always saved- or not. Premillenium, or not. You might say premillenialism isn't dogmatic- to which I'd point to the statement of faith of the Evangelical Free Church. Total Depravity, or not. etc.

From where we stand, all of these dogmatic declarations on matters not made clear in scripture are foolish

I fail to see the distinction between the RCC claim of perfect doctrine, and what I have hilighted above.

and for the second hilight, you can then understand how the blamelessness of Mary for instance are considered foolish to us as well.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There is a distiction between having "everything correct" and being the most correct that can be had.

Forgive me...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

There is a distiction between having "everything correct" and being the most correct that can be had.

Forgive me...

Exactly.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is a distiction between having "everything correct" and being the most correct that can be had.

Forgive me...

then does the Orthodox church state that it "might" be in error on any teaching?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

then does the Orthodox church state that it "might" be in error on any teaching?

That's kind of a strange question.

If we knew that we were in error on something we would correct it. Why would we continue something that we know is wrong?

We accept the fact that we are fallen, and do our best to follow Christ's instructions to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

See what I mean?

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

That's kind of a strange question.

If we knew that we were in error on something we would correct it. Why would we continue something that we know is wrong?

We accept the fact that we are fallen, and do our best to follow Christ's instructions to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

See what I mean?

Forgive me...

no, what I meant was, does the Orthodox Church acknowledge the POTENTIAL for error within it's teachings. Not that it DOES.

 

[repentant]

no, what I meant was, does the Orthodox Church acknowledge the POTENTIAL for error within it's teachings. Not that it DOES.

I would say that in Doctrines of Faith and belief, that we don't believe we our in error, nor can be. We have protected and taught the teachings of the Church since the beginning.

 

[Asinner]

no, what I meant was, does the Orthodox Church acknowledge the POTENTIAL for error within it's teachings. Not that it DOES.

Hi Uphill Battle

His Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, there would be errors. So, the answer is no.

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would say that in Doctrines of Faith and belief, that we don't believe we our in error, nor can be. We have protected and taught the teachings of the Church since the beginning.

That sounds remarkably like the claim of the RCC. At least, I can't discern between the two, it appears that both Orthodox and RCC claim that they have no error in teachings.

 

[Rick Otto]

with the picture we're given of the apostles themselves.
Pope Peter was in error & had to be corrected by latecomer Paul.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

no, what I meant was, does the Orthodox Church acknowledge the POTENTIAL for error within it's teachings. Not that it DOES.

Certainly... And we rely on the HS to correct us in times of need.

Look to the history within the Orthodox Churches, you will see that we have been in error and corrected things before.

For instance... When all the Bishops came to council in AD 325 at Nicaea only one person was there with the correct Christian doctrine... St. Anthanasius. He was only a Deacon at the time, everyone else was senior to him. By the time the council had ended St. Anthanasius had proven his point and all agree that it was the work of the HS. The council's decisions were then ratified by the entire Church including the layity as being what had been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning.

Thus correcting error.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The correctness of The Orthodox Churches lies in the fact that it submits itself to the HS for correction through concilar actions and ratified by the entire Church including the layity. Therefore we know that we are not mislead by an individual or a group but are listening for the direction of the HS as it speaks through the Church as a whole.

Forgive me...

 

[ScottBot]

Kind of had an epiphany (although, it wasn't exactly something hidden, just something that I never thought of before.)

Either the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church is Proveably in error. Which it is, if either of them TRULY have everything right (which I don't believe) I couldn't tell you, but one is definitely in doctrinal error.

It all hinges on one doctine too.

The Dogma of the immaculate conception. (I didn't post this in Mariology, as it isn't really about Mary.)

RCC espouses as Dogma the IC.
Orthodox denies IC.

They cannot both be right, therefore, one of the two "have it all right" churches is in definite doctrinal error over this single doctrine.

One down, one to go.

WRONG. The Orthodox don't deny it, they simply haven't canonized it as a doctrine.