What's a good book on Catholic vs. Orthodox?

[-Kyriaki-]

Isn't it true that each side believes they are the true church and the other is in error.......what if the bible showed that both sides have been in error, what should be done then?

Well, it would be pretty hard for the Bible to say that two specific groups, being the majority of Christians, were going to be wrong and yet be the vehicle by which the Gospel was both preserved and spread for the next two thousand years. I mean, it could, theoretically speaking, but it doesn't. Any attempt to infer that it does is pure conjecture and usually involves taking a predetermined assumption and trying to interpret obscure prophecy in a way that fits.

The fact is, the majority of Christianity has been either part of the Church (as one united whole, until roughly 1054) or either Orthodox or Catholic (after 1054) even to the present day. The Orthodox and Catholics still outnumber the Protestants even lumped together pretty heavily. While argument by numbers often fails, in the case of Christianity it's usually a pretty good guess, since it's the splinter groups that come up with weird things which are normally in the minority.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how the Church is governed in Orthodoxy, but it goes something like this (for the purpose of the point I'm making). There are bishops (bishop = episcopos = overseer) who govern and are responsible for the spiritual health of every area of the world where there are Orthodox faithful. These bishops have power in their own dioceses (areas) but are not infallible and can be checked by both the laity (ordinary people - google Council of Florence for the best example of this) and other bishops if they overstep. From very early times, in fact most likely from the beginning, these bishops have met in councils, both regional - all the bishops from a certain geographical area, for instance, as well as all of those under a certain patriarch (historically, there were five of these, although there are more now due to the growth of numbers in Orthodox countries). Not only the bishops were there but often other clergy (priests, deacons) and even the laity periodically. All decisions about matters of faith have always been made in these councils, with these bishops having sound theological training and education and being very familiar with the councils before them and the writings of the Christian world back to the time of Christ, which gives them (and us) context in which to interpret Scripture. These councils and the fact that no one person has authority over the whole Church, and can change things at whim, have ensured that the Christian faith as held by the Orthodox has not changed in a very long time - in fact, has not changed since it was formalised in the 7 Ecumenical councils, which the Christian world in general looks to for the basis of orthodoxy (small o) - Christ being both God and man for instance, or the Trinity. And those councils, which were in the first centuries of Christianity and had the resources and patronage of the Emperor to help them in their research (and, no matter what you might have been told or read, he didn't actually influence the councils - Emperor Constantine actually leaned Arian which was not the eventual decision of the council!) to ensure that they followed that which had been taught and believed through the centuries.

The only people to be outside this system of Church governance, which ruled with a fair hand but kept people from making up innovative doctrines which had no base in what had been passed down from Christ and His Apostles, were justly called heretics. There have been attempts to connect these heretics together and form a line through them to modern day protestantism (trying to justify the existence of a Christianity outside the Catholic Church) but any reasonable scholarship shows this to be ridiculous since those outside the Church often believed completely different things to each other at different times and believed some things that most protestants would find anathema, and justly so.

The only group which was not part of the universal Church (pre 1054) and still exists today in its original form (roughly) is the Oriental Orthodox church, which split off during one of the major councils but bears more resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox than any other group and almost no resemblance to any protestant group.

You're welcome to come here and discuss what we believe, and what you believe, but I'd be very careful with constructing a good argument and not throwing out things which can easily be shown to be no argument at all. I'm nowhere near the scholar that some of the members of this forum are but even I can tell you that you're going to get nowhere with that particular line.

Also, you might want to know that a lot of us here are former protestants who are pretty well versed in theology and the histories of both the protestants and the traditional Churches...so we're not ignorant of either Scripture or history

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

Well, it would be pretty hard for the Bible to say that two specific groups, being the majority of Christians, were going to be wrong and yet be the vehicle by which the Gospel was both preserved and spread for the next two thousand years. I mean, it could, theoretically speaking, but it doesn't. Any attempt to infer that it does is pure conjecture and usually involves taking a predetermined assumption and trying to interpret obscure prophecy in a way that fits.

The fact is, the majority of Christianity has been either part of the Church (as one united whole, until roughly 1054) or either Orthodox or Catholic (after 1054) even to the present day. The Orthodox and Catholics still outnumber the Protestants even lumped together pretty heavily. While argument by numbers often fails, in the case of Christianity it's usually a pretty good guess, since it's the splinter groups that come up with weird things which are normally in the minority.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how the Church is governed in Orthodoxy, but it goes something like this (for the purpose of the point I'm making). There are bishops (bishop = episcopos = overseer) who govern and are responsible for the spiritual health of every area of the world where there are Orthodox faithful. These bishops have power in their own dioceses (areas) but are not infallible and can be checked by both the laity (ordinary people - google Council of Florence for the best example of this) and other bishops if they overstep. From very early times, in fact most likely from the beginning, these bishops have met in councils, both regional - all the bishops from a certain geographical area, for instance, as well as all of those under a certain patriarch (historically, there were five of these, although there are more now due to the growth of numbers in Orthodox countries). Not only the bishops were there but often other clergy (priests, deacons) and even the laity periodically. All decisions about matters of faith have always been made in these councils, with these bishops having sound theological training and education and being very familiar with the councils before them and the writings of the Christian world back to the time of Christ, which gives them (and us) context in which to interpret Scripture. These councils and the fact that no one person has authority over the whole Church, and can change things at whim, have ensured that the Christian faith as held by the Orthodox has not changed in a very long time - in fact, has not changed since it was formalised in the 7 Ecumenical councils, which the Christian world in general looks to for the basis of orthodoxy (small o) - Christ being both God and man for instance, or the Trinity. And those councils, which were in the first centuries of Christianity and had the resources and patronage of the Emperor to help them in their research (and, no matter what you might have been told or read, he didn't actually influence the councils - Emperor Constantine actually leaned Arian which was not the eventual decision of the council!) to ensure that they followed that which had been taught and believed through the centuries.

The only people to be outside this system of Church governance, which ruled with a fair hand but kept people from making up innovative doctrines which had no base in what had been passed down from Christ and His Apostles, were justly called heretics. There have been attempts to connect these heretics together and form a line through them to modern day protestantism (trying to justify the existence of a Christianity outside the Catholic Church) but any reasonable scholarship shows this to be ridiculous since those outside the Church often believed completely different things to each other at different times and believed some things that most protestants would find anathema, and justly so.

The only group which was not part of the universal Church (pre 1054) and still exists today in its original form (roughly) is the Oriental Orthodox church, which split off during one of the major councils but bears more resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox than any other group and almost no resemblance to any protestant group.

You're welcome to come here and discuss what we believe, and what you believe, but I'd be very careful with constructing a good argument and not throwing out things which can easily be shown to be no argument at all. I'm nowhere near the scholar that some of the members of this forum are but even I can tell you that you're going to get nowhere with that particular line.

Also, you might want to know that a lot of us here are former protestants who are pretty well versed in theology and the histories of both the protestants and the traditional Churches...so we're not ignorant of either Scripture or history

Like I said I have no church affiliation, you are far more versed than me in bible and doctrine, and I'm in no way saying anyones ignorant.....I'm just curious as to how the thief on the cross made it to heaven

 

[Ignatius21]

Like I said I have no church affiliation, you are far more versed than me in bible and doctrine, and I'm in no way saying anyones ignorant.....I'm just curious as to how the thief on the cross made it to heaven

You're right, he didn't receive the eucharist or attend a liturgy or submit to a Christian bishop. He also didn't read the New Testament.

But if he had, it would have been on a Kindle.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

The thief on the Cross made it to Heaven by God's grace, the same as any of the rest of us. I'm not sure how you think we think we go to Heaven?

The Church doesn't exist because it's necessary to have formal structure in order to tick off a list of things needed to do to get into Heaven. The Church exists to help us stay on the right path so that we don't wander away from God and into wrong thinking, and to keep us in discipline that makes us grow closer to God. Baptism and Chrismation (our name for Confirmation, done together with Baptism generally) and Holy Communion help us grow closer to God but when it comes down to brass tacks, God saves whom He will.

He can save anyone He wants, but we as Christians should desire to live and worship in a way that follows His teachings and that of His Apostles (who learned directly from Him), which have been carefully kept in both writing (Scripture) and in oral tradition, which began to be written down very early but was finally written formally in the reign of the Emperor Constantine, who was the first emperor to not only not persecute the Church but actually aid it. That is taught through a particular body which is responsible for preserving doctrine and theology, and that is the Church. So, we remain in the Church and follow her teachings, because she helps us and is the Body of Christ.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

You're right, he didn't receive the eucharist or attend a liturgy or submit to a Christian bishop. He also didn't read the New Testament.

But if he had, it would have been on a Kindle.

You sure? I'm thinking an iPad would have been pretty good too, and if I were a hypothetical thief I'd be stealing one of them rather than a kindle...iPads do more than just have books

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Like I said I have no church affiliation, you are far more versed than me in bible and doctrine, and I'm in no way saying anyones ignorant.....I'm just curious as to how the thief on the cross made it to heaven

Christ said it. Christ is God.

"The Wise Thief didst Thou make worthy of Paradise, in a single moment, O Lord. By the wood of thy Cross illumine me as well, and save me."

For further reading here is St. Theophilus' of Alexandria homily on the Crucifixion and the Good Thief, presented by Anglican over in the Oriental Orthodox section: http://www.christianforums.com/t7455638/

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

The thief on the Cross made it to Heaven by God's grace, the same as any of the rest of us. I'm not sure how you think we think we go to Heaven?

The Church doesn't exist because it's necessary to have formal structure in order to tick off a list of things needed to do to get into Heaven. The Church exists to help us stay on the right path so that we don't wander away from God and into wrong thinking, and to keep us in discipline that makes us grow closer to God. Baptism and Chrismation (our name for Confirmation, done together with Baptism generally) and Holy Communion help us grow closer to God but when it comes down to brass tacks, God saves whom He will.

He can save anyone He wants, but we as Christians should desire to live and worship in a way that follows His teachings and that of His Apostles (who learned directly from Him), which have been carefully kept in both writing (Scripture) and in oral tradition, which began to be written down very early but was finally written formally in the reign of the Emperor Constantine, who was the first emperor to not only not persecute the Church but actually aid it. That is taught through a particular body which is responsible for preserving doctrine and theology, and that is the Church. So, we remain in the Church and follow her teachings, because she helps us and is the Body of Christ.

So if I'm reading correctly your in agreement that those who God has grace on will enter heaven regardless of what denomination they follow

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Yep. But we also know that Christ taught certain things and taught those things to His Disciples (the Apostles) who taught it to their followers and so on all the way to us. We'd be rather foolish, wouldn't we, to discredit these teachings given that it was Christ, God Himself, who gave them to us?

The fact is that there are only three groups who can trace their practices back to the Apostles without breaks or obvious changes in belief or practice. The only one of those groups which is neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox (which your comment from before inferred are both incorrect, according to Scripture (which I'd be interested to see proved)) is the Oriental/Non-Chalcedonian Churches, which hold a different view of Christ being both God and Man to the rest of the Church, but still in practice and belief are closer to the other two ancient Churches (particularly the Orthodox, since neither we nor the Non-Chalcedonians underwent the changes of the Middle Ages in the West and are still roughly the same we we were pre-1054) than any other Christian group.

Given all of that, we see it as far safer to be within the body of rightly believing and practicing Christians than outside.

I've heard it explained before as a flood coming and sweeping away everything in its path. There are two options - there is a boat, which is sturdy and might rock and sway a little periodically but is guaranteed to keep all on board safe in the end, and there is the debris floating in the water. You might be able to find something - a big chunk of wood or something perhaps - that you could ride the flood out on, but wouldn't you be better off not taking your chances and being in the boat? For us, the boat is the Orthodox Church, for all the reasons I've described above (and more). I'd rather be on the boat, safe and dry

 

[MrJim]

Please don't get upset, I'm not anyone with ties to any church affiliation, I just have one question what got the thief on the cross a ticket into paradise......he neither read the bible or listened to anyone preach a sermon from any Apostle or those in succession, He was neither baptized or made conframation. He never took mass or ate at the Lords supper. He is one of the few that we can certianly say without a doubt made it to heaven. He may have even have been the first believer to enter into heaven. So my point is why are all these different things people argue about relevant when a dirty thief, who has no church record, baptism record, works record allowed to enter paradise when all he had in his favor was faith that Jesus was and is the Son of God

This comes from my Mennonite background~was taught that the thief's death was still under the Old Covenant; the New Covenant didn't begin until Christ died and the veil before the Holy of Holies was torn apart...my .02....

 

[Macarius]

Please don't get upset,

Not upset at all. You asked for Scripture. I cited three verses demonstrating the importance of a continuous (undying) Church, then used history to deduce which churches were capable of satisfying that promise.

Unless you'd like to invalidate Christ's promise that the Church won't die, then the above reasoning holds. It isn't being upset - its just simple inference from the clear teaching of Scripture. You like the clear teaching of Scripture, right? That's why you recommended it to us.

So the clear teaching of Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth and that the Church won't die.

If Christ is the Truth, and I want Christ, I should seek after the undying Church then (since that's the pillar and ground of the Truth).

I'm not anyone with ties to any church affiliation,

That, in itself, is an affiliation. I don't know of any non-denominational Christians who aren't low-church Protestants.

I just have one question what got the thief on the cross a ticket into paradise......

God saves as God wills to save.

But the question isn't "how can I get a ticket to paradise?" That's a minimalist's question - "what's the minimum I have to do to get X?" I don't want to be a Christian who asks "what's the minimum I have to do, God?" I want to be the maximalist Christian who asks, "God, what more can I do to grow further in love with you?"

Don't stop at "getting into paradise." Stop at nothing short of becoming a "partaker of the divine nature" (II Peter) - stop at nothing short of full unity with the love of God.

he neither read the bible or listened to anyone preach a sermon from any Apostle or those in succession,

Right. He didn't listen to the pillar and ground of the Truth because he was hanging on a cross WITH the Truth-Incarnate. He didn't hear a sermon because He heard Christ. He didn't need a successor because He had the one from whom succession derives.

We live 2000 years later.

He was neither baptized or made conframation. He never took mass or ate at the Lords supper.

And, by conclusion then, all the words of Scripture commanding those things are made null and void?

Again, you are being a minimalist, and by being a minimalist are missing the point of the Kingdom: that we may have life, and abundant (overflowing) life - not minimal life.

Honestly, the thief on the cross is the exception to the rule. God is allowed to make 'exceptions' because its all God's rules in the first place. God gives us the means of grace (baptism, eucharist, etc.) - but God is also BIGGER than the means of grace.

I'll put it this way: imagine you fall down into a pit, and God comes along to rescue you. Now, you know that this God is omnipotent, but God throws you a rope and says "grab the rope." Next to you, in the pit, is someone who is paralyzed (cannot grab the rope) - this person God just levitates out of the pit. You see that, and conclude "wow - God can save someone without the rope! I won't grab the rope then" God keeps insisting that you grab the rope, and you keep saying nope because "the other guy - he didn't grab the rope and he still got saved."

God CAN save people outside of the grace of the sacraments. But TO YOU He has given these means - this rope - and if you refuse it, you are being as much a fool as the proverbial man in the pit refusing the line of rope tossed to him.

He is one of the few that we can certianly say without a doubt made it to heaven.

Perhaps to you. But that's not what we believe.

He may have even have been the first believer to enter into heaven. So my point is why are all these different things people argue about relevant when a dirty thief, who has no church record, baptism record, works record allowed to enter paradise when all he had in his favor was faith that Jesus was and is the Son of God

He had no time. What time he had, he gave to God to the best of his ability. In what he COULD do, he did.

But if I, with all the time I have, do nothing more than him? What am I? I am become the wicked servant who, with my talents, did nothing but bury them. He, the theif, had only one talent - but he invested it wisely and was given his reward. We have abundant talents; we are responsible for what we've been given.

Ask not what minimum must be done to win heaven. Ask instead how to respond to the maximum to the God of love.