Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

[stone]

you'll find it interesting to note that it is not a catholic church, it is a christian church for the community to worship the Lord J-sus. Payed for by a Roman soldier and a jewish woman.

 

[vanshan]

you'll find it interesting to note that it is not a catholic church, it is a christian church for the community to worship the Lord J-sus. Payed for by a Roman soldier and a jewish woman.

It seems you are coming to conclusions that exceed the information given about this recent find. You may be interested to know that there were Roman soldiers who believed the gospel and were baptized into the Universal "Orthodox" Church. Just because he was Roman and she was of Jewish heritage, doesn't mean that they had not be baptized into the One True Church, which was the only Church at that time, aside from a few schismatic groups who taught very strange, unbiblical things. You are supposing too much.

Basil

 

[stone]

perhaps you are, as well

 

[Akathist]

The Grace Sisters need to pick up a third so we can have the full complement of:

Aglaia ~ Radiant
Euphrosyne ~ Joyful
Thalia ~ Flowering

Maybe I will join them for a third.

 

[Canadian75]

From the original poster's point of view he was probably just asserting his understanding of the differences. But anytime those differences exclude someone from salvation it is necessary to substantiate why that claim is made.

Maybe I need to read the OP again, but where did he say that our "differences exclude someone from salvation?"


Peace.

 

[Iollain]

perhaps you are, as well

I think perhaps that is so.

 

[stone]

lol strange unbiblical things! you mean like virgin mary, papacy, wearing crosses, praying to saints, and stuff like that, or did you mean something else?

 

[eoe]

oops, i forgot to leave the link

Many, many Churches have been started by women. Lots of them. What is the point?

I seem to recall a threat to Martin Luthers life.

Why would the Eastern Orthdox threaten Luther? If you are going to post this and imply that the Eastern Orthodox planned to kill someone then I think you need to back it up. Who made the threat?

Add a little here, add a lot there, kill them ones, silence that one, shake it up, add a little more.....what do ya got?

What did The Eastern Orthodox Church add? Back it up or recant. It is the whole purpose of the EO church NOT to add or remove anything. The worst insult you can give an EO is to call them an innovator.

What would have happened to Peter if he would have come back a few hundred years ago and told people to stop praying to saints, and start praying to God alone, and stop 'venerating' your statues and paintings? He would have been killed to no doubt.

You are making an accusation that is unfounded and unappreciated. Back it up or recant.

Although I at times have disagreed with Therese and she with me, it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that clarifies the doctrinal differences, and the fact that these differences indicate that it was the Orthodox church that had the original faith.

The EO church in fact has the exact same evidence that the RC church does. Where this changes is in 1054 - LONG AFTER it is really important. So the question then becomes:
Did the one church before ad1000 have the true faith?

Finally, for both parties, if the promise to lead into all truth was for all of the 12 (and as would be reckoned by the eastern and western church their successors), why are they not currently agreed on all truth?

Look into who actually had the bull of excommmunication drawn up for the Church at Constantinople. Was it a Bishop or a Cardinal?


To the protestants, I ask you this:

IF you could return to the original faith, the faith that is free from Roman innovations - the actual faith that was handed down directly from the apostles - would you be interested?

Of course the Roman Catholics see us as the ones that split off. That is an almost mandatory belief. I don't fault them for that - it is simply part of their belief system. Just as that is part of their core beliefs - it is part of our core beliefs that Rome split from the other 4 patriarchs.

Here is what I believe to be true:

• All men are both fallible and equal. In Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew - male or female. All men are equal and all men are sinners.
• Even though all men are equal - some men hold a place of honor. I honor my father but he is no better than I. I honor the local firemen and police but they are not above me.
• Even honored men are fallible. The president of the US is not perfect. HE makes mistakes.
• There were 5 patriarchs of the church. Even in the beginning. Peter founded Churches in Rome *AND* Antioch. James founded the Church in Jerusalem. etc...
• After the schism we are left with 2 churches. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthdox.
• To this day the 4 ancient patriarchs are still in communion with one another.

1. Antioch
2. Jerusalem
3. Constantinople
4. Alexandria

• All of them still hold the same exact faith as one another. IF you are a member of an Antiochian parish you can participate in the Eucharist in any of the others.
• The Eastern Orthodox Church is governed by council. If one patriarchate attempted to introduce an heresy then it would be easily discovered by the other 3. The fact that these 4 jurisdictions are all still one church speaks volumes for me.

I expect the Roman Catholics to disagree. I would be concerned if they did not!

People ask for proof. Guess what? If there were absolute proof then we would not be having this discussion. How many times have you heard an atheist ask for proof?

My position is this:
If there is a possibility that the original faith has been preserved - you owe it to yourself as a protestant to investigate it and make your own call on it.
Start here:
Did the 4 patriarchs of the EO church form a consipiracy and leave the Church of Rome or did the Church of Rome leave the other 4?

Has the Church of Rome added anything to the faith since the great schism?

What was the nature of those additions?

Have the protestant Churches been affected by any of those additions simply due to coming out of the RC church?

Has the Eastern Orthodox Church added anything to the faith since the great schism?

What were they?

 

[stone]

hmm.. i'm afraid my responses may give a wrong intention towards my attitude of the catholic church, i will just say that i do have a love for this church.

 

[Iollain]

Maybe I will join them for a third.

You'll have to be the 4th, they adopted CaDan.

 

[stone]

it appears that there is something that can bring orthodox and catholic together, and it appears to be that neither are the one true church, and that is because there is not one, true church, as there are many, and that is written.


Wherever two or three gather, ring any bells?

 

[Iollain]

Many, many Churches have been started by women. Lots of them. What is the point?

Why would the Eastern Orthdox threaten Luther? If you are going to post this and imply that the Eastern Orthodox planned to kill someone then I think you need to back it up. Who made the threat?


What did The Eastern Orthodox Church add? Back it up or recant. It is the whole purpose of the EO church NOT to add or remove anything. The worst insult you can give an EO is to call them an innovator.


You are making an accusation that is unfounded and unappreciated. Back it up or recant.


The EO church in fact has the exact same evidence that the RC church does. Where this changes is in 1054 - LONG AFTER it is really important. So the question then becomes:
Did the one church before ad1000 have the true faith?


Look into who actually had the bull of excommmunication drawn up for the Church at Constantinople. Was it a Bishop or a Cardinal?


To the protestants, I ask you this:

IF you could return to the original faith, the faith that is free from Roman innovations - the actual faith that was handed down directly from the apostles - would you be interested?

Of course the Roman Catholics see us as the ones that split off. That is an almost mandatory belief. I don't fault them for that - it is simply part of their belief system. Just as that is part of their core beliefs - it is part of our core beliefs that Rome split from the other 4 patriarchs.

Here is what I believe to be true:

• All men are both fallible and equal. In Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew - male or female. All men are equal and all men are sinners.
• Even though all men are equal - some men hold a place of honor. I honor my father but he is no better than I. I honor the local firemen and police but they are not above me.
• Even honored men are fallible. The president of the US is not perfect. HE makes mistakes.
• There were 5 patriarchs of the church. Even in the beginning. Peter founded Churches in Rome *AND* Antioch. James founded the Church in Jerusalem. etc...
• After the schism we are left with 2 churches. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthdox.
• To this day the 4 ancient patriarchs are still in communion with one another.

1. Antioch
2. Jerusalem
3. Constantinople
4. Alexandria

• All of them still hold the same exact faith as one another. IF you are a member of an Antiochian parish you can participate in the Eucharist in any of the others.
• The Eastern Orthodox Church is governed by council. If one patriarchate attempted to introduce an heresy then it would be easily discovered by the other 3. The fact that these 4 jurisdictions are all still one church speaks volumes for me.

I expect the Roman Catholics to disagree. I would be concerned if they did not!

People ask for proof. Guess what? If there were absolute proof then we would not be having this discussion. How many times have you heard an atheist ask for proof?

My position is this:
If there is a possibility that the original faith has been preserved - you owe it to yourself as a protestant to investigate it and make your own call on it.
Start here:
Did the 4 patriarchs of the EO church form a consipiracy and leave the Church of Rome or did the Church of Rome leave the other 4?

Has the Church of Rome added anything to the faith since the great schism?

What was the nature of those additions?

Have the protestant Churches been affected by any of those additions simply due to coming out of the RC church?

Has the Eastern Orthodox Church added anything to the faith since the great schism?

What were they?

No i don't think the EO has added anything, but there was stuff added before.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Objectional or Objective? LOL

Evidence at times is going to be objectionable to some, of course . . but it should not be objecitonable for the same reasons as Jack Chick "literature" is objecitonable . . . Obvously, such "source" material isn't worth the paper or bits it is written on . . . As well as being objectionable in the extreme, it is totally unreiliable as evidence at all . . .

So obviously care should be taken with sources . .



Peace to all

LOL, and in my case, care should also be taken in spelling correctly

 

[vanshan]

No i don't think the EO has added anything, but there was stuff added before.

Do you mean in Judaism, before the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Christ? Otherwise, there was no time that the Church existed before "Orthodoxy," which is just a title given to that Universal Body we read about in Acts. Orthodox = right believing.

Basil

 

[Iollain]

Do you mean in Judaism, before the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Christ? Otherwise, there was no time that the Church existed before "Orthodoxy," which is just a title given to that Universal Body we read about in Acts. Orthodox = right believing.

Basil

Well you can believe that is ya like, i'm talking about before the schism.

 

[tall73]

Maybe I need to read the OP again, but where did he say that our "differences exclude someone from salvation?"


Peace.

Here is a quote:

Faith is what we must have. Then maybe we won't be so scared to look deeper into Christ's Church and humbly kneel before Christ, becoming part of His Body, not these various man-made entities. The Church may not be what you were hoping it would be, or what you've thought it was your whole life, but it is the Church of Christ. If you love the Lord God, you will earnestly seek the truth. If you don't then you will reap the penalty for eating only of the corrupted fruit scattered by men over the last few centuries.

If any of you have made it this far, sorry so long. Forgive me. I think it's so essential to tear down the false gods we have unintentionally created by creating a gospel we could intellectually make sense of, rather than accepting the revelation of Christ, and His One Holy Apostolic Church, which is Universal, in that it is for all of us and completely fulfills the real needs of us all, if we come home to it. Be one in the Church, even as God is one in Heaven, not divided into disagreeing sects, removed from Christs historic body, whch has been preserved, but often hidden from our eyes by our cunning enemy.

Basil

It is clear that he believes these other denominations hold up false gods, and therefore are not the true church. He also spoke of the pentalty for not coming back. What do you think that pentalty would be for worshipping false gods?

He made that more than clear a bit later when he said that at Jesus coming He would say that some did not know Him.

That is fine. I don't mind if that is his view. I am not saying it feels good to hear it, but really, what other stand could he take? The 7 councils very clearly cut off people who had a different view of the trinity, because they view them as worshipping false conceptions of gods. So to go soft now and pretend that heretics are not lost would be hypocritical.

I actually prefer people who simply state what they believe without softening it so much that we can't tell. But once they do that, then they should back it up.

And I think that he is now backing it up, though not perhpaps using the conventions some would like. He linked to information that would make his point. But intitially he didn't do that sufficiently so she was justified in asking for evidence.

What I am more interested in at this point is for the eastern church to give what Therese asked for--a real explanation of their view of the papacy that makes sense of the fact that they did assign him an elevated role. How can you vote out Peter's successor if he was put there by God? They seem to acknowledge that he was, and that succession is real, but then they don't address how they can then get rid of him.


And I would like to hear from both sides how they see fulfilled Jesus' words to all 12 disciples that He would lead them into all truth. It was given to all 12. So if God can override the pope to make sure that he is infallible, why can't he override all of them so they agree? Because currently they do not agree.

Now if they don't want to answer that, ok. That is fine. But if they claim to be the true church, and those claims are based on succession, etc. then I think it needs some clarification. And maybe each side does have a good argument that explains it. I just haven't heard it yet.

 

[eoe]

It was given to all 12. So if God can override the pope to make sure that he is infallible, why can't he override all of them so they agree? Because currently they do not agree.

1 - the Pope is not relevant to Eastern Orthodoxy.
2 - All of our patriarchs agree on the faith.

 

[vanshan]

What I am more interested in at this point is for the eastern church to give what Therese asked for--a real explanation of their view of the papacy that makes sense of the fact that they did assign him an elevated role. How can you vote out Peter's successor if he was put there by God? They seem to acknowledge that he was, and that succession is real, but then they don't address how they can then get rid of him.

This is quite straight-forward. In Orthodoxy, we have always taken Christ's words to Peter, "And upon this rock I build my Church." to be referring to the confession of faith Peter gave, that Christ was the Son of God, not specifically to Peter. Also we have always believed that the authority given to Peter was also given to all the apostles. There was no elevated role. The Bishopric of Rome was the first among equals because it was the largest bishopric, not because it was the chair of Peter. As was already mentioned, he also started the patriarchate of Antioch.

Basil

 

[geocajun]

1 - the Pope is not relevant to Eastern Orthodoxy.

really? you guys sure talk about him alot...

2 - All of our patriarchs agree on the faith.

wouldn't it be more accurate to say "All of our patriarchs which agree on the faith, agree on the faith"

I mean...

so you don't exclude the ones that dont (the ones not in communion with the others for example).
Just trying to be ecumenical

Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope
by a 17th c. Russian Orthodox Prelate

 

[vanshan]

Orthodox view of Papal Supremecy:
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

Basil