Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion... After the seventh Ecumenical Council in AD 787, the basic unity of faith and ecclesiastical life between East and West began to disintegrate, due to a variety of theological, jurisdictional, cultural and political differences. This eventually led to the Great Schism between East and West of AD 1054. (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/)
And despite their communion, there are significant things that divide them somewhat:
► The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
► The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
► Father Theodore Pulcini: What I found most disturbing in my reading was that the Orthodox objected to the doctrine [of the Immaculate Conception] not so much because of its proclamation of Mary as immaculate (indeed, the Orthodox liturgy repeatedly refers to Mary as "all holy ... .. immaculate," and "most blessed") but because of the erroneous understanding of original sin underlying it...
I sadly concluded that the erroneous Roman understanding of original sin had led to another erroneous teaching, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was clearly an unwarranted innovation.
It was much the same with the dogma of papal infallibility. This doctrine asserts that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, "from the throne," or officially, on matters of faith and morals, he teaches infallibly. Thus the whole Church is bound by his teaching. Orthodoxy and Catholicism - What are the differences - Father Theodore Pulcini ISBN 978-1-888212-23-5 [69] http://almoutran.com/2011/03/251
► Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs....
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
► It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus you have devotees on both sides warning about ecumenism:
► Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. (http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html)
► Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies. http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
More on differences http://www.examiner.com/orthodox-christian-in-roanoke/orthodoxy-101-comparison;
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/12/lay-roman-catholic-and-eastern-orthodox.htm:
See also Disagreements under different models of supreme authority and http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers
Instead, some other would be singled out for some small mistake, real or imagined, the attacks focusing upon where there was perceived weakness, fairly often devolving into some sort of personal attack. I'm watching, and see what goes on.
We are glad to know you are edified, and that the Lord has given you discernment as an observer!
I am more than a little mystified by what you mean by this statement. Are you saying that Scripture does not tell us what we know about the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Yes, Moses died, and was buried and no one knows where and then he appears with Jesus and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Jesus.
How? What did the Apostles see?
Jesus had a body and they saw Him.
Elijah was taken into heaven bodily and they saw him.
And Moses? What did the Apostles see?
An apparition? What did they see? And why was Moses there?
Jesus clearly wanted them to see Himself with Elijah and Moses. Why?
I don’t believe in ghosts either.
Marvelous logic, but you do realize that you’ll still be playing wack-a-mole with the Nicolaitans.
They cannot accept something that simple and clear, for they have chosen to be ‘children’ in the spiritual sense forever, and with your algorythm, they must become responsible adults.
Why?
Because it is supported by the body of the scriptures.
(unless you are wearing your magic catholic glasses)
metmom:
The paschal mystery is one salvific act, Passion, Death and Resurrection. What the Statement is referring to is to explain the Doctrine of the Atonement and explain why Christ Suffered. My point here was to point out that the Catholic Doctrine of Atonement rejects the Penal Substitution and the Ransom paid to Satan theories.
HarleyD:
Lets be clear about what Pelegians theory is. It is that Man can, without God’s Grace, come to know God and thus become justified. In other words, Man could come to Know God and follow him thru unaided human power. It is in this context that Pelagius and his Doctrine was rejected. This view is Rejected by the Catholic Church and has been since the 5th century. Man can only have Faith because of God’s Grace and Man can only live the Theological virtures of Faith, Hope and Love, because of God’s Grace.
The Catholic position of Justification rejects any notion that justication comes about through and inwardness or merely disposition but also objects to the mere performance of a physical act without and inward disposition to Faith, Hope and Love. What is necessary for salvation is a faith that represents itself externally through acts of Love and internally through Faith.
St. Augustine believed in Infused or Imparted Grace for Justification, hence is strong statements on Baptism versus Pelagius and his followers. In fact, St. Augustine stressed Baptism as the Sacrament of Grace as the starting point of Justification to such a degree against Pelagius [The Doctrine of Original Sin was also more cleary developed because of the Pelagius Controvery] that Pelagius posed the question as the fate of unbaptized Infants. It is in the context of that discussion that St. Augustine “Proposed” Limbo. Now, note that Limbo was a Theological theory that was proposed to Pelagius and his followers question regarding the fate of unbaptized infants and because it was St. Augustine’s theory, it was taught, not as Dogma/Doctrine, but a Theological Theory even until the time I was a kid.
It is still a plausible theory but one that does not seem to the the predominate one in Catholic Theology today. In fact, the Catechism issued in 1992 seems to allow for the possibility but tends to rest on Hope that God in His Mercy will Save those infants who died without Baptism [CCC paragraph 1261]
> “I don’t believe in ghosts either.” <<
.
Both of you could be straining at a gnat while swalowing the camel.
God’s word clearly says there is such a thing as a ghost (disembodied spirit).
What do you think Christ cast out of the insane man and allowed to enter the swine herd?
Enoch states that the demons are the disembodied spirits of the offspring of the union between the watchers and human women.
As to Moses, why would the creator of the universe have any difficulty bringing Moses and Elija to the mount?
He brought Lazrus back from death and decay, and a few others too.
Of the Apostles, only Matthew and John wrote Gospels, and we know this fact only by tradition, because neither author identifies himself by Name. Yes, the canon consists of writings attributed to Apostles or to those close to them. But nowhere in these writing is there a list or even a divine command that someone produce such works.
Eastern Christians do not care much for Augustine’s theology, which means that the gap between them and Protestants is very wide. To conclude there is a radical contradiction between Catholics and Orthodox is to ignore the similarities. Bonaventura is as “spiritual,” as any eastern sage, and a modern Catholic saint, Padre Pio, as mystical as any eastern monk. As for Mary, the eastern respect for theotokos is very deep.
Why could Moses not have had a body?
Do you think that Elijah’s human body that he had on earth could survive living outside of it or that he got a new body as well?
I know that what people call ghosts are actually demons masquerading as ghosts.
God would not have any difficulty in providing bodies for people who have died.
Moses having a body is not evidence that he did not die since all believers get new bodies anyway.
Below is an decent illustration between the various views (by an Arminian-not a Calvinist). I normally don't like illustrations as they are difficult to evaluate as they lack scripture (I'm a sola scriptura type of guy). But I think it's fair and relatively unslanted.
All the people are on the boat with the God. At this point, in their natural condition, they don’t need to be saved as they are not in danger. However, most (if not all) people will eventually jump in the water (sin) and find themselves in need of God’s grace. The reason why they jump in the water is because they are following numerous example of those who jumped before them. This example goes all the way back to the first two who jumped into the water, setting the first bad example. God them offers them a life preserver when they call on him for help. If they respond they will be saved (synergism).
Semi-Pelagianism
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. However, they may desire salvation on their own. Though they cannot attain it, they can call, with a wave of their arm, to God who is eagerly waiting on the edge of the boat. At the first sign of their initiative, God will then throw out the life preserver (grace). If they respond, they will be saved (synergism).
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. God, standing on the edge of the boat, makes the first initiative by throwing a life preserver to them (prevenient grace). Upon seeing this act, they make a decision to grab a hold (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, God will slowly pull the rope connected to the life preserver. But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism). If at any time they let go or quit swimming, they will not be saved.
Arminianism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be intervention if they are to be saved. God uses his power to bring every one of them back to life (prevenient grace), but they are still in the water and in danger of drowning. With the regenerated ability to respond to God, now God throws the life preserver to them and calls on them all to grab hold of it. They then make the free-will decision on their own to grab a hold of the life preserver (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, they must continue to hold as God pulls them in (synergism). They don’t need to do anything but hold on. Any effort to swim and aid God is superfluous (sola fide). They can let go of the preserver at any time and, as a consequence, lose their salvation.
Calvinism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be radical intervention if they are to be saved. While God calls out to all of them (general call), due to his mysterious choice, he brings back to life (regeneration) only certain people (election) while passing by the rest (reprobation). He does not use a life preserver, but grabs a hold of the elect individually and immediately pulls them onto the boat (monergism). They naturally grab a hold of God as a consequence of their regeneration (irresistible grace; sola fide). They forever stay on the boat due to their perpetual ability to recognize God’s beauty (perseverance of the saints).
In the first four cases man must do something. Try as they might, there is not much difference from the Roman Catholic position and the Arminian position. I would argue that the condition of man is meaningless (whether he's alive but unable to respond or dead). It is the method by which God saves that is most important. In the first four man must do something (although the author takes pains as to say this isn't so). Calvin's interpretation is that man is totally dead and absolutely unable to respond to God. God must reach out and yank him into the boat.
I bring this up because this is the conclusion Augustine came to late in his life and he credits the early church father Cyprian as helping him come to this understanding. As Augustine stated:
I understand that, and the purpose behind the post was not to postulate a profound salvific separation (unless UNAM SANCTAM may be held to mean so), but that under sola ecclesia there is also a depth of significant divisions.
In addition, under that model, in which the church is the supreme authority, esp. as per Rome in which Scripture, history, and tradition is only what the infallible magisterial office says they are and mean, and are thus defined as supporting them - and which cults like the Mormons effectively operate out of and do - are the greatest deviations from core salvific truths, as well as the doctrinalization of perverse traditions.
*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is counted to have 275 direct quotes from and at least 600 allusions to the Old. The following list does not include all of the former, and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture, but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,43,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, a study of the the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” shows that revelation that is referred to as being that normally was subsequently written down. Nor was the oral truth referred to in 2Thes. 2:15 that of nebulous ancient traditions (which can also result in different interpretations, such as the Roman Catholics and EOs example), but what Paul referred to was known instruction by a manifestly Divinely inspired apostle, whose manner was to reason out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and whose words were examined for veracity by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) And there is no proof that these oral truths were also not subsequently written down.
Note also that (reiterating what was prior expressed) Scripture reveals the Truth of God being established by testimony in both in text and in power, by way of textual conformity to what had been prior established as written Truth (God first confirming the faith of men like Abraham and Moses in virtue and power, and the latter providing the Law as the standard by which further revelation was tested by), and by conformity in Heavenly qualities and manifest effects, and often by the manner of supernatural attestation by the power of God given to it and to the intruments thereof (and most overtly to the authority of those who progressively added conflationary, complimentary new teachings to Scripture). Thus writings called Scripture were themselves progressively established as being the assured Word of God (though they were such before men recogized them as being so), to the glory of God their author. However, while the references above provide abundant evidence to the textual aspect, the many that could be provided to the testimony to Truth in power are not, such as 2Ki. 5:15; Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7; Jer. 15:16; Ps. 19:7-11; Ps. 119; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 4:20; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, Heb. 2:3,4).
Now let’s look at some of the teachings of the RCC that come from those books that contain errors. Praying to the dead is one of them. Jesus or the Apostles didn’t teach that. Jesus wouldn’t even let the apostles talk to Moses and Elijah and God condemned the talking to the dead in the Old Testament.
So you go right ahead and listen to an organization that uses books that have errors in them and relies on stories handed down through 2000 years that were not taught by the apostles and some that didn’t even start until at least 400 years after the apostles. I’m going to stay as close to what Jesus and the apostles taught and trust that the Holy Spirit will keep me from falling for those errors that the RCC and others teach. K?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.