What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

[LittleLambofJesus]

I didn't know this history. How incredibly tragic and sad.

Well then, so much for all the talk about Islam using the sword to convert.
Can one say "pot/kettle" and just makes it that much more difficult for Christ-ian apologist who go after Islam and the Koran. Sigh

http://www.christianforums.com/f76-non-christian-religion.html

 

[SaintPhotios]

I have been involved with Ecumenism, within the guidlines of the Church and I can assure you, they leave no room for compromise but only open the doors to love, respect and understanding.

Again, in all due respect.... I think most reasonable Christians, regardless of denomination, would consider burning wood chips with African pagan animists, accepting a ritual blessing from a Mexican pagan priestess, placing a statue of Buddha on the altar at the basilica of St. Francis, kissing the Koran..... etc, etc... the list goes on. If this isn't a compromise, then I see no incentive for the multitudes to convert. There is a difference in rejecting blasphemers in loving kindness -- and then utterly embracing those blasphemies. By anyone's standard, this is a compromise.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Again, in all due respect.... I think most reasonable Christians, regardless of denomination, would consider burning wood chips with African pagan animists, accepting a ritual blessing from a Mexican pagan priestess, placing a statue of Buddha on the altar at the basilica of St. Francis, kissing the Koran..... etc, etc... the list goes on. If this isn't a compromise, then I see no incentive for the multitudes to convert. There is a difference in rejecting blasphemers in loving kindness -- and then utterly embracing those blasphemies. By anyone's standard, this is a compromise.

My mistake. We are talking about two different things. I thought you were talking about the sort of ecumencial dialogue I had taken part in.
I would say that the individual or individuals who did the things you mentioned, if they were done in the way you tell us they were, has an issue between him and God.
I, myself, believe that the Church tends to go to far in the name of diplomacy. I don't see the point in bending over backwards for folks who hate you because you are Christian. I wonder what Jesus would do?

I wonder if you have the same feelings about Mother Teresa who said she saw Jesus in the faces of the poor. Even those who were in some of these other world religions? She seemed to love and embrace everyone, unconditionally.

I don't claim to have any of the answers. Just lots and lots of questions. The older I get and the longer I am a Christian, the more questions I seem to have.

 

[elijah115]

I would rather be closer to Jesus!

Tell me about it. Sometimes RCs and EO christians seem like political parties.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Tell me about it. Sometimes RCs and EO christians seem like political parties.

Funny... many of us think the same thing about denominational protestant Christianity.

 

[jameseb]

Hi. I would like to ask what it would take for the Orthodoxs to once again come under the Reign of the Pope? Thanks.

When you put it in a loaded fashion like that... Nothing. Not gonna happen. First Among Equals, remember?

 

[SaintPhotios]

My mistake. We are talking about two different things. I thought you were talking about the sort of ecumencial dialogue I had taken part in.
I would say that the individual or individuals who did the things you mentioned, if they were done in the way you tell us they were, has an issue between him and God.

These are things that the last two Popes have done openly in the public eye... prior to that, who knows. My point was that Rome had apostasized... I don't think that every single Roman Catholic is guilty of apostasy. However, the reason I hold the entire Church accountable for the blasphemous actions of these Popes is that they, in front of large crowds, have taken part in pagan rituals and non-Christian worship of numerous varieties. 1.) the majority of Catholics said nothing and did not even seemed alarmed by these blashphemous actions of their Popes. 2.) due to the special role the Pope has as the head of the Roman Church, his actions reflect more on His followers due to much greater authority than the leaders of other religious bodies.

For this reason, the fact that the Pope, what you call the Vicar of Christ, can blaspheme with unwavering boldness, and yet his followers not only say nothing, but venerate him for his "charitable ecumenism". This leads me to believe that the entire Roman Church, generally speaking, has utterly apostasized. And based on their actions, absence of laymen reaction, and the faults from which the great Papacy has fallen.... I have no other option but to admit regretfully that what was once the center of Orthodoxy has become the synagogue of Satan. These might seem like strong words... but the lax attitudes about the Pope's blaspheming is outrageous.

I would love nothing more than to see the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Church reunite under the pretenses of a unified faith. But the dominion of evil in the Vatican cannot coexist with the Holy Spirit. And by deductive reasoning, it appears that the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found.

Tell me about it. Sometimes RCs and EO christians seem like political parties.

antinomian rhetoric

 

[Carey]

If we believe now is part of the last of days.

The master of the airwayes is in power.

If this is true.

Who do we see on the airwaves?? The Pope or whoever is the high priset or whatever of the Orthodox?

 

[E.C.]

Who do we see on the airwaves?? The Pope or whoever is the high priset or whatever of the Orthodox?

One of the main differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is that there is no one person above all Orthodox like the Roman Catholics have with the pope.

 

[corvus_corax]

Tell me about it. Sometimes RCs and EO christians seem like political parties.

Funny... many of us think the same thing about denominational protestant Christianity.

Imagine what it's like for an outsider like myself (a non-christian)!
All I see are political parties within Christianity. I'm not even sure that this is a complete list. It's more complicated than a bi-partisan system
No offense intended, but wow, you all gotta realize what a confusing morass you're creating (or your "church founders" are creating).

 

[Fireinfolding]

One of the main differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is that there is no one person above all Orthodox like the Roman Catholics have with the pope.

So you EO dont believe in "the chair" thing? The sucession and all that in one man in Popes?

Do you guys regard it as an unscriptural misunderstanding somehow?

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Oblio]

So you EO dont believe in "the chair" thing? The sucession and all that in one man in Popes?

Nope

Do you guys regard it as an unscriptural misunderstanding somehow?

Yep

Peace

Mir

 

[Fireinfolding]

Nope

Yep

Yeah.. but... but... but... how can you interpret the scripture yourself to know better?

 

[E.C.]

Yeah.. but... but... but... how can you interpret the scripture yourself to know better?

Private interpretation you mean? Not in Orthodoxy.

 

[Oblio]

We don't. If the proper interpretation of Scripture were the RC interpretation, our Church (who interprets Scripture) would be in communion with the West, we are not.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Private interpretation you mean? Not in Orthodoxy.

There you go, someone telling you what something means not allowing for others to prove a thing to see whether it be true. I would agree with that.

I agree, Interpretations belong to God and no man knows the thoughts of God save His Spirit alone. Neither can any man know them without the Spirit. So its false to say someone rules "interpretation".

Proving oneself (and to oneself) unto God (not unto men) is where its at (at least to me).

Jesus Christ is proven in scripture The doctrine of Christ (which is after life and godliness) being abided in (in truth) would be evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit increasing in ones life. God has given us the "power to become" the Sons of God.

Unless ofcourse, they are useless doctrines of men extracted which affect nothing concerning the faith, hope and life in Christ. The same ol' form of godliness denying the very God given power of it.

Its good to prove a thing, the Bereans were commended as more noble in so doing.


Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Thekla]

There you go, someone telling you what something means not allowing for others to prove a thing to see whether it be true. I would agree with that.

I agree, Interpretations belong to God and no man knows the thoughts of God save His Spirit alone. Neither can any man know them without the Spirit. So its false to say someone rules "interpretation".

Proving oneself (and to oneself) unto God (not unto men) is where its at (at least to me).

Jesus Christ is proven in scripture The doctrine of Christ (which is after life and godliness) being abided in (in truth) would be evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit increasing in ones life. God has given us the "power to become" the Sons of God.

Unless ofcourse, they are useless doctrines of men extracted which affect nothing concerning the faith, hope and life in Christ. The same ol' form of godliness denying the very God given power of it.

Its good to prove a thing, the Bereans were commended as more noble in so doing.


Peace

Fireinfolding

The EO is not rigid about interpretation, but within parameters. Outside of the "narrow road", one should not walk, in understanding the scriptures.

To give an example, at an Ecumenical Council, both "sides" would state their "position".
At the 3rd (?)EC, both sides made a list from scripture supporting their point. That didn't "settle it", because there was no clear weight from either side. So the bishops from the (Church) side pointed out that this belief had been in force since the time of the apostles.
Then, the decision having been reached, statements were carefully worded to declare what the Church (had always) believed, and the error of the (other side) heresy.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The EO is not rigid about interpretation, but within parameters. Outside of the "narrow road", one should not walk, in understanding the scriptures.

To give an example, at an Ecumenical Council, both "sides" would state their "position".
At the 3rd (?)EC, both sides made a list from scripture supporting their point. That didn't "settle it", because there was no clear weight from either side. So the bishops from the (Church) side pointed out that this belief had been in force since the time of the apostles.
Then, the decision having been reached, statements were carefully worded to declare what the Church (had always) believed, and the error of the (other side) heresy.

Yeah, I dont understand some of the things men come together on, sometimes they decide on things that are unscriptural anyway. For instance (in my estimation) without being told (that which is widely accepted) that which pertains to "Mary" (I'll say no more) but to me certain things (decided on by men) are against my convictions and would compromise my own convictions of which the Spirit is Lord and not men. I just cant see resting my faith to the contrary of the Spirit of God (in me) that says "otherwise". Then it becomes who has the Spirit deal, squabbling over worshipping or believing contrarywise. Men then become as lords of others faith (of which they are not) thus (in so doing) walk contrary to the apostles in doing so. The thing falls backwards on themselves as I see it. There are many better examples, but men are not fullproof and our trust, life and devotion should be unto Christ and we can still love others but they havent right to dictate somethings they try to. Obeying God over men comes into play on certain things ofcourse.

Peace sis

Fireinfolding

 

[Thekla]

Yeah, I dont understand some of the things men come together on, sometimes they decide on things that are unscriptural anyway. For instance (in my estimation) without being told (that which is widely accepted) that which pertains to "Mary" (I'll say no more) but to me certain things (decided on by men) are against my convictions and would compromise my own convictions of which the Spirit is Lord and not men. I just cant see resting my faith to the contrary of the Spirit of God (in me) that says "otherwise". Then it becomes who has the Spirit deal, squabbling over worshipping or believing contrarywise. Men then become as lords of others faith (of which they are not) thus (in so doing) walk contrary to the apostles in doing so. The thing falls backwards on themselves as I see it. There are many better examples, but men are not fullproof and our trust, life and devotion should be unto Christ and we can still love others but they havent right to dictate somethings they try to. Obeying God over men comes into play on certain things ofcourse.

Peace sis

Fireinfolding

I do so much agree with you that we have to be cautious !

If it makes sense, that's why the EO Church has always used scripture, consensus (why we don't have a pope) and "history" (what the Church has done from the beginning) to measure everything. People get so many "way out" ideas just from scripture. The Holy Spirit guides in all truth -- but testing is important, cause people mess up

 

[Oblio]

I'm confused as to why when a person believes something to be true, they automatically attribute it to the Holy Spirit working in them. But when they believe it to be false, then it is the belief of men.