The question is what type of tracks were they? Catholic Churches especially where we are a minority, do team up with other denominations to provide local charity. Perhaps the SDA was putting tracks in the Catholic Church for such a cause. If it were the anti-Catholic variety, then one would have to assume, that the priest allowed them to do so out of ignorance.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.
They were anti-Catholic I'm pretty sure, since they expressed shock that the priest allowed them after talking to them and looking them over, and said it must have been God who caused him to overlook their nature.The question is what type of tracks were they? Catholic Churches especially where we are a minority, do team up with other denominations to provide local charity. Perhaps the SDA was putting tracks in the Catholic Church for such a cause. If it were the anti-Catholic variety, then one would have to assume, that the priest allowed them to do so out of ignorance.
It sounds like conjecture to me. I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove here.They were anti-Catholic I'm pretty sure, since they expressed shock that the priest allowed them after talking to them and looking them over, and said it must have been God who caused him to overlook their nature.
It sounds like conjecture to me. I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove here.
Not quite an accurate assessment.This seems to be the dead end of a sidetrack that I began with my anecdote about the Chick tract rack in Vincennes, Indiana. I apologize for the derailment and hope that we can return to the OP. It seems to me that there are two primary candidates claiming historical validity - the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. The Catholic argument includes the concept that God continues to reveal greater understanding of Himself and His will through the Catholic Pope and the Magisterium. The Orthodox Church, by contrast, claims to be unchanging because God and His Truth are immutable and unchanging. Ironically, the Catholic Church also claims to be unchanging (but only in a particular sense of the word).
Not quite an accurate assessment.
In all honesty there are more than two. We cannot forget the Alexandrian Patriarchy (Copts) and its affiliate Churches, and the Church of the East.It seems to me that there are two primary candidates claiming historical validity - the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
The Catholic Church teaches that ALL Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John, my patron Saint). On this the Orthodox agrees. What the Catholic Church has also shown over the centuries is that 2000 years of some of the greatest minds ever born meditating on the full Deposit of Faith that our understanding of what that Diving Revelation means, grows, and it can't help to grow.The Catholic argument includes the concept that God continues to reveal greater understanding of Himself and His will through the Catholic Pope and the Magisterium. Ironically, the Catholic Church also claims to be unchanging (but only in a particular sense of the word).
I'm not really sure if that is the reason for them believing that they are unchanging. Obviously this isn't really the case, albeit it does look like that for the most part, their theology hasn't grown much since the 10th century. The only thing I know that has been developed since then is the Divine Energy doctrine. But with the history of the Patriarchy of Constantinople being held by heretics, I really don't blame them for resisting any type of perceived change or development.The Orthodox Church, by contrast, claims to be unchanging because God and His Truth are immutable and unchanging.
In all honesty there are more than two. We cannot forget the Alexandrian Patriarchy (Copts) and its affiliate Churches, and the Church of the East.
Perfect examples are the development of the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Studying the history of the growth of these doctrines shows that we today have a better understanding of these doctrines than lets say even the Apostles and their disciples.
I'm not really sure if that is the reason for them believing that they are unchanging. Obviously this isn't really the case, albeit it does look like that for the most part, their theology hasn't grown much since the 10th century. The only thing I know that has been developed since then is the Divine Energy doctrine.
I would like to see if this is really the case. Remember that Constantinople and Rome were in Communion much longer than Alexandria and Constantinople/Rome.The Copts aren't substantially different from Eastern Orthodox, we have identical theology apart from Christological formula, despite such a long separation. They also reject the idea that doctrine develops.
So pretty much in the same boat as Rome and Alexandria. We also can say the same thing, but sadly if I had to guess, reunion between any of the three primary ancient Patriarchs isn't going to happen in the near future.We're very, very, very close to formal communion, and share sacraments in numerous circumstances.
Okay. So where did St. Paul teach the two wills of Christ? Did St. Paul even consider this in his theology? I very seriously doubt it. There is zero evidence that he did. Not a hit on St. Paul by any stretch of the imagination. He only had around 30 years to meditate on the revealed understanding of the Godhead, where the Church as a group had centuries.That's a load of nonsense, no one today understands the Trinity and the Incarnation better than Saint Paul. Even the great expositor of these things, Saint Athanasius, did not presume to say he understood them better than Paul, he was strictly defending Paul's pure understanding and teachings.
Yeah. I would love to see you prove this point.That's not really a change. Copts hold that position as well, and it was taught by the Cappadocian Fathers. Catholics abandoned it because it disagreed with Aristotle's doctrine of Actus Purus (which has ZERO precedent as a teaching in the ancient Church, unlike the energies teaching).
That is quite true, but Copts have the same strong hostility to change we do, whereas Rome doesn't. So we are actually much closer to them than we are to Rome.I would like to see if this is really the case. Remember that Constantinople and Rome were in Communion much longer than Alexandria and Constantinople/Rome.
So pretty much in the same boat as Rome and Alexandria. We also can say the same thing, but sadly if I had to guess, reunion between any of the three primary ancient Patriarchs isn't going to happen in the near future.
Okay. So where did St. Paul teach the two wills of Christ? Did St. Paul even consider this in his theology? I very seriously doubt it. There is zero evidence that he did. Not a hit on St. Paul by any stretch of the imagination. He only had around 30 years to meditate on the revealed understanding of the Godhead, where the Church as a group had centuries.
Yeah. I would love to see you prove this point.
I would be curious to know that answer.That is quite true, but Copts have the same strong hostility to change we do, whereas Rome doesn't. So we are actually much closer to them than we are to Rome.
This is no longer true. It actually changed this year in fact: Viaggio Apostolico del Santo Padre Francesco in Egitto (28-29 aprile 2017) – Firma della Dichiarazione comuneNo, not at all. Copts don't even accept Roman baptisms, if you're a Catholic and convert, you have to be baptized.
The Copts may allow you to do so, but if I'm wrong please correct me, that your bishops will not allow you to do so. Anyway it sounds like the Copts have extended the same offering as Rome has to your Church. The Catholic Church also allows Eastern Orthodox to receive communion with us, if your bishop permits you to do so. The question I have, do you offer the same concessions to the Copts that you do to us, i.e. none.Whereas Eastern Orthodox in Egypt can partake of Communion at Coptic churches.
I know what it means, but did St. Paul consider this? The answer is quite frankly you don't know. It wasn't until centuries later, that the Church started speaking of the two wills of Christ."Two wills" is only a term to say Christ was human even in his will, which Paul and the Apostles absolutely knew, it's quite clear in the Gospels. Proper Christology can be summed up very simply: Christ is one person, but is perfect and complete in both humanity and deity. You can have all kinds of formulations of this, back and forth, jargon this, jargon that, but that is the core and unchanging doctrine.
This is what I'm speaking of: Essence–energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) - WikipediaOkay, I'm going to presume you know the difference between substance and person, as per the Cappadocian Fathers: it's the difference between species and specimen, or as they put it, between general and particular. All humans, for instance, as of one substance, but of individual persons. That is, they are substantially one just as God is. But the reason (and this is from Gregory of Nyssa's letter to Ablalius) that we say "three men" whereas we don't say "three gods" is because God is one energy, whereas three men have distinct energies.
In other words, the unity of the Trinity, distinguishing Trinitarianism from tritheism, is God being an energy and being one in this respect. If you reject God's energies as God himself, then he is only "one" in the sense that three men are, that is, of one "species," and this is really a form of tritheism.
Your link does not say anything about how Catholic converts to Oriental Orthodoxy are received.This is no longer true. It actually changed this year in fact: Viaggio Apostolico del Santo Padre Francesco in Egitto (28-29 aprile 2017) – Firma della Dichiarazione comune
11b. Today we, Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, in order to please the heart of the Lord Jesus, as well as that of our sons and daughters in the faith, mutually declare that we, with one mind and heart, will seek sincerely not to repeat the baptism that has been administered in either of our Churches for any person who wishes to join the other. This we confess in obedience to the Holy Scriptures and the faith of the three Ecumenical Councils assembled in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.Your link does not say anything about how Catholic converts to Oriental Orthodoxy are received.
Answer? It's because Copts have changed hardly any, if at all, since our separation with them, whereas Rome has changed enormously. So Copts haven't diverged from us so much, despite the length of seperation.I would be curious to know that answer.
This is no longer true. It actually changed this year in fact: Viaggio Apostolico del Santo Padre Francesco in Egitto (28-29 aprile 2017) – Firma della Dichiarazione comune
The Copts may allow you to do so, but if I'm wrong please correct me, that your bishops will not allow you to do so.
Anyway it sounds like the Copts have extended the same offering as Rome has to your Church. The Catholic Church also allows Eastern Orthodox to receive communion with us, if your bishop permits you to do so. The question I have, do you offer the same concessions to the Copts that you do to us, i.e. none.
I know what it means, but did St. Paul consider this? The answer is quite frankly you don't know. It wasn't until centuries later, that the Church started speaking of the two wills of Christ.
This is what I'm speaking of: Essence–energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) - Wikipedia
Ah, I missed that. My apologies. I guess I was looking for something more explicit, whereas this wording allows a great deal of leeway.11b. Today we, Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, in order to please the heart of the Lord Jesus, as well as that of our sons and daughters in the faith, mutually declare that we, with one mind and heart, will seek sincerely not to repeat the baptism that has been administered in either of our Churches for any person who wishes to join the other. This we confess in obedience to the Holy Scriptures and the faith of the three Ecumenical Councils assembled in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.
So what you are saying then is that the Copts haven't changed as much your church has changed over the centuries? Very interesting concession.Answer? It's because Copts have changed hardly any, if at all, since our separation with them, whereas Rome has changed enormously. So Copts haven't diverged from us so much, despite the length of seperation.
Prove it. Prove that they even considered this at any point in their ministries.Paul and the Apostles absolutely knew that Christ did not lack a human will (or "desire," they're the same word in Greek), because that is overt in the Gospels.
So did the Apostles or their immediate disciples speak in such a way? Or was this developed much later in the history of your church?Yes, I know what you're speaking of. God's essence is transcendent and unknowable, the Bible is quite clear on this, no one outside of the Trinity knows it or can comprehend it or remotely fathom it and never will. God's energies are his radiance, which many people see in the Bible, he appears as a light, or a pillar of fire, and so on. That we can only know God through his energies, and not through his essence, is said explicitly by the Cappadocian Fathers, who did not come up with it through speculation, but took the doctrine right out of the Bible. If you're quibbling about the terminology, the term "essence" or "ousia" literally means "being", and "energies" (energia) literally just means "works," "operation," "activity," and so on--God's very presence in creation. We cannot see YHWH's "being", but we can witness his radiance, his activity in creation, and can participate in that. To the righteous, it is a brilliant and blissful light (as in the Transfiguration, also in halos, like those of Moses and Stephen), whereas to the wicked it is tormenting fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:10). This fire prepared at the end is like nothing ever experienced, because prior to that God does not personally punish, rather he does allowed the devil to do evil (Psalm 78:49 for instance shows that the plagues of Egypt were unleashed by demons); God is said to do this, but technically speaking he is just taking his finger off the tremendous surging evil for an instance, an evil which constantly begs him to let it do evil (see, for instance, how satan must get permission to torment Job, and the demons have to get permission to even enter the swine). But at the end of time, God himself with bring down his wrath, and that is quite a bit different because her the demons and the devil will actually be subject to judgement, whereas before satan was the accuser, constantly judging and hated for it (Revelation 12:10).
So what you are saying then is that the Copts haven't changed as much your church has changed over the centuries? Very interesting concession.
Prove it. Prove that they even considered this at any point in their ministries.
So did the Apostles or their immediate disciples speak in such a way? Or was this developed much later in the history of your church?
If you ask a Protestant what the Church is, they'll probably give a variety of answers, although one of the most common is "all Christians"--this answer, unfortunately, has no Scriptural basis, especially since the application of the term "Christian" has widened considerably over the last two thousand years. Although if we narrowed the definition considerably, then it would be another story.
However, I don't blame Protestants entirely for this, since I can see from the Catholic Catechism that Rome has a likewise humanist understanding of the Church, perhaps that is where Protestantism got it. In defining the Church, the Roman Catechism states,
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
Now it is clear that Rome does understand the Church as the Body of Christ (and so do Protestants), but instead of proceeding from that definition, she ends with it. Which is a problem. Scripture starts from that definition, the Church "is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1:23). Rome starts with the Church as something external to God, which becomes the Body of Christ. In Orthodoxy, the fundamental definition of the Church is God's Body and Fullness. The transformation is rather of the people being united to the Church. This perversion in definition engenders a radically different Roman theology in general, for instance, also from the Catechism,
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Now in Orthodoxy, clergy preside in the Church, but the idea of clergy having power over the Church would be sacrilegious, in fact arguably blasphemous.
Further down the line, Catholic ecclesiology seems to have created the idea that the Church can sin. Cardinal Marx, for instance, recently said the Church should apologize for not having been supportive enough of gay rights: Cardinal Marx: Homosexuals deserve an apology from the Church
Now I'm not going to address how inane that is, but I will point out that in Orthodoxy, sin is precisely stepping away from the Church, a sundering from Her. Repentance and Communion as are a rejoining and a repairing of the damage.
The most potent of this dreadful theology can also be found in the Catechism. Concerning the Church, it is said: Here below she knows that she is in exile far from the Lord [769]. This is simply heretical in the highest degree, the Church is the Lord's Body and Fullness, and in joining with it, we become One with him--how is that exile?
So while the Pope and the Filioque might have engendered the Great Schism, it is clear that they are hardly the only things that separate us today. Catholic theology has diverged enormously from Orthodox theology, and saying there are cosmetic similarities like clergy, doesn't mean there is necessarily a lot of common ground.
I believe in the seven churches as ages...
Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry
So the church is made up of seven generalized congregations, which have thousands of specific congregations below them. In Laodicea the trend is to be non-denominational.
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. - Daniel 12:13
Key word lot. I believe all Christians, from Messianic to Charismatic, will stand in their lot at that last day.
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?