Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah but therein is the rub. The Chirch has preserved the Eucharistic doctrine in accordance with St. Paul's instructions. Also, the episcpate and presbytery surely are brethren; this is not a sacerdotal faith and our clergy are not Brahmins.
It seems to me as an Orthodox Christian that there are no threads on GT that would offend the sensibilities of Protestants as a whole, whereas seemingly one out of five threads is offensive to Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
True enough. For example,
1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
precedes the discussion about communion. It is addressed to brethren, not to priests,
On the contrary, I simply respinded to his raising the point of 1 Corinthians 11:19. The SDA does not agree with the theology of the councils of Ephesus, Constantinople III or Nicea II; this is uncontroversial. From content on their website it appears they do agree with Nicea at least in part, and I suspect they would concur with Chalcedon (my own church does not and thus incurs a range of anathemas from Chalcedonians).
Before we proceed further, it is neccessary to clarify the meing of Catholic. To that end, do you adhere to the Nicene Creed?
As a simple matter of fact, your own denomination embraces positions classed as heresies at Ephesus, Constantinople III and Nicea II, and by the Synod of Dositheus.
The acts of the councils in question and other related documents, which are readly available online, justify the decisions of the councils according to Scripture.
The acts of the councils in question and other related documents, which are readly available online, justify the decisions of the councils according to Scripture.
To that end, this forum is limited to Nicene Christians, which is a conciliar definition. I would assume the SDA does not object to the Council of Nicea; if you feel it does perhaps we should have this thread moved to Controversial Theology?
And it describes the event as a "memorial" not as an "on going sacrifice"
Protestants were called all sorts of names in the dark ages. This is not news. Even in Wycliff's days, and the time of the Waldenses, Albigenses and many others.
Yes well, your repeating Catholic slander and propaganda will no doubt keep slackers comfortably away from the website which actually provides useful and true information.:That website of course confirms that the Cathars were Gnostics, that is to say, theistic Satanists masquerading as Christians. The Waldensians to their credit were not, but were rather droven by the excesses of medieval Catholicism into a schism based on discredited theological errors. I very much like Waldensians as a historical group, but their theology was quite foreign to that of the first generation Protestants.
Now as evil as the Cathar sect was, and it was basically a cult, this does not warrant what was done to it. St. Ambrose of Milan and other pre-Schism Orthodox-Catholic bishops objected with extreme anger when Emperor Theodosius burned the Spanish heretic Priscillian at the stake; it is lamentable the late 13th century Roman church forgot about that incident, or chose to side with the Emperor over the most virtuous St. Ambrose and his colleague. What happened was wrong in the same sense that it would be wrong if modern day Christians began slaughtering Mormons.
What happened to the Waldensian families in the early 17th century, in the Piedmont Easter, was the very worst attrocity to be committed by the Roman church, IMO.
There were in fact no Proestants in the Dark Ages.
As it happens the Orthodox were not involved in the Inquisition
. I am not personally aware of any incidens where the Syriac Orthodox Church even killed a heretic; I do not think we ever did, which is more than many Protestant denominations can boast, and actually as far as I am aware a point of common ground between us and the SDA.
So since your church never killed anyone, and since mine never killed anyone. and since we clearly regard each other as being wrong, let us simply proceed on that basis without delving into various RC attrocities
BobRyan said: ↑
And it describes the event as a "memorial" not as an "on going sacrifice"
Rather, it refers to an anamnesis, which carries the meaing "put yourself in this moment," which indicates a direct participation in the One Eucharist.
You might well find it easier to argue your posiikn with a more thorough knowledge of RC and Orthodox sacramental theology, since otherwise we will just talk past each other.
For Cathars the Catholic Church represented a strand of Christianity that had gone badly astray in the fourth century. Cathars saw themselves as true Christians, retaining the Christian beliefs and practices of the Early Christian Church. In this they were of course a mirror image of the Catholic Church. It too saw itself as representing the One True Church, and saw any deviation from its teachings as heresy. In other words both sides saw themselves as True Christians, and the other side as deviants who had lost their way. Both sides saw the other as intrinically evil, and subject to the rule of of a satanic being. Specifically, Cathars saw the Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon, referred to the Book of Revelation. Click here for more on the Cathar View of the Roman Catholic Church.
Yes well, your repeating Catholic slander and propaganda will no doubt keep slackers comfortably away from the website which actually provides useful and true information.:
athars and local Catholics in the Languedoc seem to have lived happily together for over a century. We have no record of a single incident of friction between the two faiths before the early thirteenth century - indeed we know that Cathars and Catholics coexisted not just within the territories of the Counts of Toulouse and Foix, and of the Viscount of Beziers andCarcassonne, but within each fief, each town and even within many families. It was surprisingly common for even Catholic priests to have become Cathar believers.
The papacy became increasingly allarmed as the power of the Catholic Church diminished along with tithes and a range of other Church taxes. The Church successively tried small punitive military expeditions (as at Lavaur), a preaching campaign and a series of public debates between Cathars and Catholics. The military expeditions of the twelvth century were successful but too small scale to have a significant impact. The preaching campaignes and public debates on the other hand were utter failures. All of these initiatives had been driven by the Cistercians, though the followers of Dominic Guzmán (an Augustinian Cannon) had also engaged, in preaching and public debating, but withan equal lack of success.
As the failures mounted, popes had tried on a number of occasions to mobilise full scale crusades against the Cathars, but without success. in 1207 the murder of a Cistercian papal legate provided a new more concrete justification for a crusade. Previous attempts had failed largely because the King of France was fully engaged fighting the Plantagenate Kings of England. By 1207 the pressure had been reduced (King John having lost most of his continental lands). The King of France allowed some of his senior vassals to answer the call for a crusade. The head of the Cistercian Order, Arnaud Amaury, the Abbot of Citeau, another papal legate, was appointed to lead the Crusade, handing over military command only after the massacre of Beziers and the surrender of Carcassonne.
The Crusade succeded militarily, killing an unknown number of Cathars and Catholics alike. But Catharism still enjoyed extensive support among the broad population of the Languedoc. To extirpate the faith entirely a new approach was needed. Dominic Guzmán's followers had formed a new order, formally recognised in 1216. Properly called the Preacher-Brothers they are more commonly called theDominicans. This new Dominican order acting on the authority of papal legates formed the kernal of new papal Inquisition, an approach formally approved later by the Papacy - so that Dominican Inquisitors were answerable directly to the pope (rather like a new set of papal legates).
The Dominican Inquisitors proved highly effective, but were widely hated. In response to widespead complaints by Lords and nascent city councils alike, Dominican Inquisitors were supplemented by representitives of the Franciscan Order (presumably to soften to approach). In practice the Franciscanswere not always sympathetic to the Dominicanapproach, and at least one was himself charged after he had lead popular opposition to Dominican excesses and alleged corruption.
For Cathars the Catholic Church represented a strand of Christianity that had gone badly astray in the fourth century. Cathars saw themselves as true Christians, retaining the Christian beliefs and practices of the Early Christian Church. In this they were of course a mirror image of the Catholic Church. It too saw itself as representing the One True Church, and saw any deviation from its teachings as heresy. In other words both sides saw themselves as True Christians, and the other side as deviants who had lost their way. Both sides saw the other as intrinically evil, and subject to the rule of of a satanic being. Specifically, Cathars saw the Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon, referred to the Book of Revelation. Click here for more on the Cathar View of the Roman Catholic Church.
Wycliff, Huss, Jerome -- would differ.
Then they have no reason to complain that such facts of history are still facts of history.
Nice to know. Perhaps you also know if the Orthodox church in Syria was one of those groups claiming that Christians that keep the Bible Sabbath are "spies for Israel" as was said in Syria about the Seventh-day Adventist church around the time of the 1970's and 80's.
Sorta like the "Adventists don't accept the Nicene Creed statements" suggestions floating around on this thread.
If it is true that Roman Catholic views in favor of transubstantiation should be dismissed on this thread - (as if this were a discussion in a Syriac Orthodox hosted/specific forum) - I can see your point.
But if this is an open forum where both Roman Catholics and all others are welcome to participate as they have been - then the historic events associated with the rise of this idea - should be considered even if there was no church in Syria leading out in it at the time.
But I agree with you that I am not naming the Syrian Orthodox church as having conducted the inquisition or as being in communion with the Catholic church. You are free to state that case however you like.
Which is only to say that everyone, whether as individuals or as denominations/churches/groups, think they have it right-or else they'd believe otherwise.And of course the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" make similar statements when it comes to Rev 17
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?