What exactly is the "Church"?

[Erose]

Yes, it is frequently used in that manner. Thus, your statement concerning "Rome" having to convince only one member of the Orthodox Church falls quite flat. If all Roman Catholics were polled on the issue there would be a substantial minority who would be against it. Thus it would remain the hot theological football it has always been and negotiations with Constantinople's patriarch would continue to go nowhere.

Actually it would be a very small minority against it, depending upon the terms obviously. The Catholic laity are much more for re-unification than I would say the other side is. Orthodoxy isn't trashed in Catholicism like Catholicism is trashed in Orthodoxy. It just doesn't happen.

 

[prodromos]

Actually it would be a very small minority against it, depending upon the terms obviously. The Catholic laity are much more for re-unification than I would say the other side is. Orthodoxy isn't trashed in Catholicism like Catholicism is trashed in Orthodoxy. It just doesn't happen.

You obviously don't frequent the Catholic Answers forum.

 

[Erose]

The only bishops who accepted the council, abandoned their flocks and relocated to the West.

Patriarch Bartholomew in his address to Georgetown University, said that we have become ontologically different. Does that sound like hope for reunion to you?

No, it is doctrine that keeps us apart, and as long as Catholics refuse to accept that and keep presenting false caricatures like the above, nothing is going to change

Another false caricature. It was the emperor who pushed for reunion at Florence on the promise of military aid, and we all know how that ended.

Maybe you are right, maybe reunion of the Church isn't going to happen ever, which is sad, as that means the People of the Church constantly are living in a state of sin, being disobedient to God over for the most part pettiness. Politics is the reason for the Schism, and pettiness is the reason why it is maintained. Sad state of affairs.

 

[Erose]

You obviously don't frequent the Catholic Answers forum.

You know I think most Catholics come into this thinking that hey Orthodox are these Christians like us, and then after being inundated with this anti-Catholic crap that would make Jack Chick proud, you really start getting sour to Orthodox Christians. In all honesty I find it difficult at times on here.

I get that there are things that are different about us. I get that. What I don't get is the constant need to trash Catholicism, even when it wasn't even necessary. There are quite a few good Orthodox posters on here that I enjoy debating with, and there are some who passed away that I really miss on these forums, and I consider you one of those; but there are some...

Anyway, thanks for bringing back to reality, I let one anti-Catholic bigot get under my crawl, and typed some things I shouldn't have. I apologize for that.

 

[Albion]

Let me ask you what you think of this protestant definition.

The Church is the mystical body of believers united by the blood of Jesus that meet together to participate in worship through sacraments/ordinances/rites, teaching, and Gospel proclamation.

You hit that one out of the park. I guess thats why there was no real response. And it set the OP straight, too.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread unfortunately descended to some flaming and off topic posts that were accusatory about each other's churches. That needs to stop. A clean up was done.

The problem with deciding what is the True church is that it is easy to violate this site rule:​

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

Tread carefully regarding that. Saying one is not a member of Christ's church can imply the person is not a Christian. So keep it civil. The historical aspect of this is very interesting. ​

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Not wholly. Here is the problem I see today in Orthodoxy. I personally think that the Patriarchs, except for Russia, would be more than happy to reunite the Church. The problem is that over the centuries Rome has been demagogued so badly in Orthodoxy that it has basically become doctrine to hate all things Latin. Quite honestly it isn't doctrine that keeps us apart, it is ancient prejudices.

Too bad we no longer have an emperor in Istanbul, if we did, he would be the only person Rome would have to convince.

Son, you're off your rocker. The Patriarch of Bulgaria literally rejected the Council at Crete just because one of the documents referred to Rome as a church. He said that besides the “Holy Orthodox Church there are no other churches, but only heresies and schisms, and to call these ‘churches’ is theologically, dogmatically and canonically completely wrong”. This is in spite of the fact that documents explicitly said the Orthodox Church is the Church referred to in the Creed. The Russian Patriarch is actually pretty moderate, even mild toward Rome--and he has good reason to be ticked off, Catholics in Ukraine are supporting the nationalist schism there (which is heavily backed by the Ukrainian government, not by the clergy or laity), and Rome refuses to do anything about it and only says, "Well, we can't tell them what to do, they're not under us." That's pretty funny coming from a church with a catechism that says the Pope has total and unlimited power over the whole Church.

Also, you should know that Patriarchs are not autocrats of their respective churches (which don't comprise all the churches anyway), they are simply the bishops who preside over the synods. But apart from governing their personal Sees, there is not a whole lot they can do unilaterally.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Son, you're off your rocker. The Patriarch of Bulgaria literally rejected the Council at Crete just because one of the documents referred to Rome as a church. He said that besides the “Holy Orthodox Church there are no other churches, but only heresies and schisms, and to call these ‘churches’ is theologically, dogmatically and canonically completely wrong”. This is in spite of the fact that documents explicitly said the Orthodox Church is the Church referred to in the Creed. The Russian Patriarch is actually pretty moderate, even mild toward Rome--and he has good reason to be ticked off, Catholics in Ukraine are supporting the nationalist schism there (which is heavily backed by the Ukrainian government, not by the clergy or laity), and Rome refuses to do anything about it and only says, "Well, we can't tell them what to do, they're not under us." That's pretty funny coming from a church with a catechism that says the Pope has total and unlimited power over the whole Church.

Also, you should know that Patriarchs are not autocrats of their respective churches (which don't comprise all the churches anyway), they are simply the bishops who preside over the synods. But apart from governing their personal Sees, there is not a whole lot they can do unilaterally.

There is an ancient principle of war known as "divide and conquer" which seems to be at play in the Christian world. Following the Protestant Reformation there have resulted multiple denominations. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter for the Mother Church to conquer them one by one, even as it previously dealt with other schisms within it. However, that has not been the case. Various tactics have been employed ranging from direct warfare to apparent appeasement as with Vatican II and the Ecumenicism of the late twentieth century. All have been failures. Worsening matters considerably is the breakdown within the Mother Church concerning doctrines and dogmas. In the meantime, the scenario to the East does not look very rosy either, would you not agree?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There is an ancient principle of war known as "divide and conquer" which seems to be at play in the Christian world. Following the Protestant Reformation there have resulted multiple denominations. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter for the Mother Church to conquer them one by one, even as it previously dealt with other schisms within it. However, that has not been the case. Various tactics have been employed ranging from direct warfare to apparent appeasement as with Vatican II and the Ecumenicism of the late twentieth century. All have been failures. Worsening matters considerably is the breakdown within the Mother Church concerning doctrines and dogmas. In the meantime, the scenario to the East does not look very rosy either, would you not agree?

I don't consider the RCC to be the "Mother Church".

I think the scenario in the East looks fantastic in light of what the East has had to deal with. We've been oppressed by the Catholics, by the Turks, by Peter and Catherine, by the Communists, and today still by Muslims in the Middle East. While other Christians we're out oppressing everyone else, we were the ones being kicked over and over. In light of all that, we're doing great: More than 70 percent of the roughly 75,000 Antiochian Orthodox Christians in the United States are converts. The Orthodox Church in America, with roots in Moscow and about 85,000 adherents, reports a 50 percent figure. In Greek Orthodox Christianity, by far the largest branch in the United States with almost 480,000 members, it's about 25 percent.
Conversions gradually transforming Orthodox Christianity

The Orthodox Church WILL be a major religion in the West in a hundred years, I'm sure of it, and every day she grows stronger in the East.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't consider the RCC to be the "Mother Church".

I think the scenario in the East looks fantastic in light of what the East has had to deal with. We've been oppressed by the Catholics, by the Turks, by Peter and Catherine, by the Communists, and today still by Muslims in the Middle East. While other Christians we're out oppressing everyone else, we were the ones being kicked over and over. In light of all that, we're doing great: More than 70 percent of the roughly 75,000 Antiochian Orthodox Christians in the United States are converts. The Orthodox Church in America, with roots in Moscow and about 85,000 adherents, reports a 50 percent figure. In Greek Orthodox Christianity, by far the largest branch in the United States with almost 480,000 members, it's about 25 percent.
Conversions gradually transforming Orthodox Christianity

The Orthodox Church WILL be a major religion in the West in a hundred years, I'm sure of it, and every day she grows stronger in the East.

I used the term "Mother Church" euphemistically lest I come under criticism by the moderators for stating that members of that church denomination might not be Christians.

I was unaware of the strong growth within Orthodoxy and will pray that God will direct and guide His Church according to His will.

 

[kepha31]

There is an ancient principle of war known as "divide and conquer" which seems to be at play in the Christian world. Following the Protestant Reformation there have resulted multiple denominations. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter for the Mother Church to conquer them one by one, even as it previously dealt with other schisms within it. However, that has not been the case. Various tactics have been employed ranging from direct warfare to apparent appeasement as with Vatican II and the Ecumenicism of the late twentieth century. All have been failures. Worsening matters considerably is the breakdown within the Mother Church concerning doctrines and dogmas. In the meantime, the scenario to the East does not look very rosy either, would you not agree?

I don't agree with your brainless Catholic bashing. You would make Jack Chick proud.

 

[kepha31]

The Church is considered to be a mother to its members because it is the Bride of Christ
(Eph. 5:21-33) and, as such, dispenses the grace Christ won to its members and "rears" those members in the Christian life. That is why the Church is referred to as "Mother Church" or "Holy Mother Church."

 

[kepha31]

Mothers are the most difficult people to study. They elude our scrutiny. By nature and by definition, they are relational. They can be considered as mothers only in their relationship with their children. That is where they focus their attention, and that is where they would focus ours.

Nature keeps mother and child so close as to be almost indistinct as individuals through the first nine months of life. Their bodies are made for each other. During pregnancy, they share the same food, blood, and oxygen. After birth, nature places the child at the mother's breast for nourishment. The newborn's eyes can see only far enough to make eye contact with Mom. The newborn's ears can clearly hear the beating of the mother's heart and the high tones of the female voice. Nature has even made a woman's skin smoother than her husband's, the better to nestle with the sensitive skin of a baby. The mother, body and soul, points beyond herself, to her child.

Yet as close as nature keeps us to our mothers, they remain mysterious to their children. They remain as mysteries. In the words of G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown, "A thing can sometimes be too close to be seen."

As the Mother of God, Mary is the mother par excellence. So, as all mothers are elusive, she will be more so. As all mothers give of themselves, she will give more. As all mothers point beyond themselves, Mary will to a much greater degree.

A true mother, Mary considers none of her glories her own. After all, she points out, she is only doing God's bidding: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Lk 1:38). Even when she recognizes her superior gifts, she recognizes that they are gifts: "All generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). For her part, Mary's own soul "magnifies" not herself but "the Lord" (Lk 1:46).

How, then, are we to approach this elusive subject, if she must always be relational? How can we begin to study this woman who always deflects attention away from herself and toward her Child?
Mother of God in the Word of God by Scott Hahn

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't agree with your brainless Catholic bashing. You would make Jack Chick proud.

I hardly expect you to agree. Nor do I find your Jesuit-inspired (if one wishes to return such ill-mannered analogies as Jack Chick) replies very helpful.

Which reminds me of a strange incident in my life. In 1974 I was working on a project at the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in Vincennes, Indiana. Adjacent to the park is a historic Catholic church. One noon I entered the church and encountered two tract racks in the vestibule. One contained a rather complete set of typical Catholic religious tracts, such as the Mysteries of the Rosary. The other contained a large set of Jack Chick tracts, of which none were anti-Catholic.

 

[kepha31]

I hardly expect you to agree. Nor do I find your Jesuit-inspired (if one wishes to return such ill-mannered analogies as Jack Chick) replies very helpful.

I don't post false histories as factual.

Which reminds me of a strange incident in my life. In 1974 I was working on a project at the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in Vincennes, Indiana. Adjacent to the park is a historic Catholic church. One noon I entered the church and encountered two tract racks in the vestibule. One contained a rather complete set of typical Catholic religious tracts, such as the Mysteries of the Rosary. The other contained a large set of Jack Chick tracts, of which none were anti-Catholic.

Those tracts were snuck in by fundamantalists/evangelicals because no priest would allow that kind of material. JW's do the same thing. It's rude.
I suppose those not so innocent tracts exonerates Chick from all the lies and psychotic hatred that he stood for.
The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't post false histories as factual.

Those tracts were snuck in by fundamantalists/evangelicals because no priest would allow that kind of material. JW's do the same thing. It's rude.
I suppose those not so innocent tracts exonerates Chick from all the lies and psychotic hatred that he stood for.
The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

I don't know how the tract rack got there. It was not a matter of some imposter sneaking in a few discreet tracts and hiding them in a pew. It was a metal rack about five feet in height with all of its openings having tracts and it was placed opposite the other tract rack in an apparent effort for visual balance.

In any event, I simply was surprised and left matters at that and for other, brighter minds to ponder.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I don't post false histories as factual.

Those tracts were snuck in by fundamantalists/evangelicals because no priest would allow that kind of material. JW's do the same thing. It's rude.
I suppose those not so innocent tracts exonerates Chick from all the lies and psychotic hatred that he stood for.
The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

Not necessarily. I know Seventh Day Adventists who were permitted by a Catholic priest to place their tracts in a Catholic parish, and they are extremely anti-Catholic, they see Catholicism as literally satanic and the vehicle for the Beast.

 

[Sola1517]

You hit that one out of the park. I guess thats why there was no real response. And it set the OP straight, too.

I winged it. I don't really have any Scripture to back it up.

 

[Albion]

I winged it. I don't really have any Scripture to back it up.

I hope you mean by that comment that you don't have chapter(s) and verse (s) memorized. It's quite in accord with Scripture.

 

[Sola1517]

Well, it's quite in accord with Scripture.

Thanks for the encouragement.