You said that the Catholic Church was not unified at all for a span of 500 years. Unless that one example covered all of those 500 years then you cannot say that the example proved this. It is simple math. An example that cover a few years does not cover 500 years.One example was enough to prove your statement false. I don't understand why are having such a hard time admitting that.
What you call communion has little in common with what we call communion.
I think we all knew that.
We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.
Well, you are talking about Judaism, not Christianity.
And in the Jewish culture there was the highest respect given to the oldest. But God is not limited to our cultures. So he can choose Jacob over his older brother Esau, and He can choose David over his older brothers. God often chooses the simple over the wise and the young over the elder. He chose simple fishermen to start a movement that turned the Roman Empire upside down. Even recently, He had His mother appear to three peasant children in Fatima instead of appearing to theologians at the Vatican. He chooses the foolish to confound the wise.
Firstly, the above was not from the article but was a comment posted by a friend of the author.
Secondly, Vladimir Soloviev had a number of heretical views, and I'm not sure why Catholics like to quote him as some kind of authority because his views would be equally heretical in the Catholic Church despite Soloviev's fondness for the papacy.
And Protestants don't even have to do that. So does that not mean that Orthodoxy is less united than Protestantism?
Is the book of 1 Samuel in your Bible?
Was it fun?
No one is saying that you cannot own or read the Bible. But the Reformation started with the premise that the Catholic Church has a corrupted gospel of faith plus works. But the Reformers still want to use the Catholic Church's Bible. This is grossly inconsistent. If the Catholic Church has proved to corrupted the gospel then how you trust its Bible?Even if that were true, and I don't know that it is; so what?
You don't have to be a catholic to buy, own or read a Bible.
I recall studying this at a Protestant seminary (I was once a Baptist minister). Up until the end of the first century, all writings were done on papryus. Starting in the second century, they were replaced with the more durable parchments, and then later paper. But papyrus was easily decayed - only small fragments remain. If God had providentially introduced parchments just a century earlier then we would have the original documents fully preserved. That would have made it much easier to hold to sola scripture! But He did not do this. It is almost as if God wanted to make sure we did not have any of the original documents, so that we would have to depend on copies and copies done under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Could this mean that God is Catholic?I don't see how you can possibly know that.
You are thinking that the 1st century was like the 21st century. People worked sun up to sun down in the earlier centuries to raise families. We take for granted what we have today. Life is much easier - many of us have free time that they did not have back then. Making copies would be a gruesome hobby - something that the layman could not afford to take up. He had a family to raise and mouths to feed. Only a hermit or a monk could have done this. In fact, we even know of one person - St. Jerome, who lived in a cave by himself to dedicated his time to such an extensive work.If someone was convinced that the Lord wanted them to make copies of the documents, they would do it, and they would no doubt expect their wife to know, and honour, that.
Yes it does. Because no one had the time to do it. They were too busy feeding their families.No doubt because they had a lot of time on their hands; it doesn't mean that there was no one else at all who couldn't have done it.
When I say it is our book, I am not meaning that we have some copyright on it. It is in public domain by now. But up until the Reformation there were no Protestants. The Catholic Church was the custodian of the Bible. As the Jews were entrusted with the Old Testament oracles of God so was the Catholic Church entrusted with the New Testament. Not only did God entrust the Church to make copies, God entrusted the Church with the important task of determining which NT documents should be part of the Bible.That might be true, and no doubt that we owe a great deal to those who translated the Scriptures for us. But why does that make it YOUR book?
If you only have the Holy Spirit lead to individuals to interpret the Bible, then what happened when you have conflicting interpretations.It is interpreted, and applied, by the Holy Spirit; no one else.
But are these millions coming up with the same interpretation of the Bible? Do they all see predestination taught in the Bible? Do they all see free will in the Bible? Do they all see salvation being taught the same way in the Bible? Do they all believe that the Bible teaches that you must accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord? Do they all believe that the Bible teaches that you must accept Jesus as your Savior only? Do they all believe that a born-again Christian can never lose his salvation? Or do they all believe that a born-again Christian can his salvation? This is why there are over 25,000 schisms in Protestanntism. Check the history of your denomination. Unless your denomination was around at the time of the Reformation your denomination was split off from some other denomination.Your statement implies that I could not read the Bible without being in a Catholic church, or without the help of the Catholic church - yet I have been doing so for more than 50 years. Millions of others would say the same.
You would not own Pliny's original letters but you would own the translation you made of Pliny's letters.Catholics translating it into English does not mean it is a Catholic book - any more than me translating Pliny's letters means that I now own Pliny's letters.
None of the above could receive communion in an Orthodox Church. A Catholic cannot receive communion in an Orthodox Church. Only Orthodox can receive communion in an Orthodox Church. In Orthodox ecclesiology, this is indicative of all Orthodox jurisdictions being one and the same Church. Since Protestants (and Catholics) do not share the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, your argument is totally irrelevant. You may use a lot of the same words, but you understand them completely differently to us.I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.
It's called "hyperbole".You said that the Catholic Church was not unified at all for a span of 500 years. Unless that one example covered all of those 500 years then you cannot say that the example proved this. It is simple math. An example that cover a few years does not cover 500 years.
We have totally different understandings of ecclesiology and communion. An example of praxis in one cannot be used as the measure of the other. For you to co-opt a Protestant argument demonstrates just how bankrupt your own is.That is irrelevant. Bob is pointing out that he can go to worship in other churches just as you can. It does not matter that a Protestant form of worship is different than an Orthodox form of worship.
Orthodoxy does not practice "open communion". I know that you are aware of this so it seems you are just trying to provoke me. Fairly standard approach for someone who doesn't have a valid argument.And Protestants don't even have to do that. So does that not mean that Orthodoxy is less united than Protestantism?
So did Vladimir Lenin. They both left the Church. Nobody looks to Lenin as an authority on the Orthodox Church so it baffles me why you listen to anything Soloviev says.Soloviev grew up in Orthodoxy.
No he doesn't.He knows the weaknesses of it.
He is mistaken (about many things).He sees the unity of Orthodox churches as being a fake.
So he should have become Catholic. There was nothing stopping him since he had already left the Orthodox ChurchHe sees the need for a central magisterium.
The Orthodox Church will outlast the ego's of a couple of patriarchs. We've had complete heretics sitting on the patriarchal thrones in the past yet our theology has remained untouched by their errors. At present there is no concelebration between Moscow and Constantinople but I am still free to commune in the Russian Church, despite being under Constantinople's jurisdiction.But you ignored the fact that Orthodoxy is on the verge of a major split. Nevermind what Soloviev said! There are numerous articles on that on the internet. And this split of far worse that any other Church splits - even within Protestantism. At least those splits are on matters of doctrine, morality, or liturgy. It is understandable to not comprise on matters of truth, or at least what you perceive as being the truth. But Orthodoxy is going to split on politics! How worldly can you get!
We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.
What you call communion has little in common with what we call communion.
.
None of the above could receive communion in an Orthodox Church. A Catholic cannot receive communion in an Orthodox Church.
Your point is irrelevant in regards to the Orthodox Church.No doubt -- but those orthodox members can (and do) receive communion in the churches I listed. My point is that simply having permission to receive communion is not the same thing as being the same denomination/church.
Was it fun?
None of the above could receive communion in an Orthodox Church. A Catholic cannot receive communion in an Orthodox Church. Only Orthodox can receive communion in an Orthodox Church. In Orthodox ecclesiology, this is indicative of all Orthodox jurisdictions being one and the same Church. Since Protestants (and Catholics) do not share the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, your argument is totally irrelevant. You may use a lot of the same words, but you understand them completely differently to us.
Please, do not be like Donald Trump. It is not so easy to think of a worse current public figure in the USA.But I just want you to know that just because I am having fun does not imply at all that I do not mean everything I am writing. Consider me being like Trump. He is having a lot of fun but he means what says. Only I am not orange. Friends tell me my complexion is pastey-white.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?