Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
I have a Masters in history specializing in the Middle Ages. I have read primary sources. I also have read Carroll and don’t agree with everything he says. But to imply that the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t the persecutor throughout most of history is to deny history.
Cronos, you are the one who skipped subjects. Just as you have been attempting to switch the subject from “Was the Catholic Church the persecutor of others throughout much of history?” to “Do you agree with this group or that group?” The latter question is completely and totally irrelevant as to whether or not the former happened. Thus, you won’t get an answer for you question because it is not germane to the subject.
My faith in God is greater than that. God does not tell us to persecute or harm our enemies in any way. The Islamic incursions into Christian lands deserved MILITARY countering. It was not Scriptural though to go on a religious crusade involving violence.
The Catholic church sees Rome as supreme. The Orthodox, while similar in much doctrine is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic church. The Orthodox, while sometimes a persecutor itself was also persecuted by Rome and others as they are being today. They have supported Roman primacy off and on (more on than off today). The Western churches were largely persecuted by the Roman Catholic institution - not the Orthodox. ROMAN because the seat of that institution is in Rome.
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/michael_theschism.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece
“Of course, OF COURSE, if - IF - communion between Rome and the East were to be restored, the Church would return to the ecclesial structure it was in prior to 1054.”
The ecclesiology of The Church has not changed since 1054, Y. There is a schism, a particularly long one but that does not change the Ecumenical Council defined ecclesiology of The Church, despite the uncanonical behavior of some bishops of both the East and the West over the decades and centuries.
Yes, I did mean 2 Ths 2:15, thank you for catching my typo.
My point is not that there is scriptural mandate for apostolic succession, Puget. But that the Orthodox Church followed through on that mandate from St. Paul to keep the traditions - by the means of unbroken succession.
“I will judge a man to be a Christian based upon his adherence to the Bible, not a creed or dogma.”
And yet the bishops who determined just which books of scripture make up the Bible, adherence to which you use as the measure of a man’s Christianity, judged a man’s Christianity on precisely the same Creed Kosta and I do. Was their faith in The Church rather than Christ, and if so, why do you accept what they and by extension, The Church, say constitutes the Bible?
LOL! I’m going to assume you’re just tweaking me. I’m pretty sure any attempt to return to 5 Patriarchs would result in a schism of SEISMIC proportions.
“...but what about new Patriarchs, new lands? There’s a lot of discussion :)”
Indeed it is, Cronos. Indeed it is.
If I were ever to leave the Lutheran church, I would most likely become Orthodox. Having had to listen to Fr. Ken and Fr. Tom for the last thirty years, I have no illusions about either church body. We all have our tell of woes.
“I have no illusions about either church body.”
That’s a very good and wise thing, Father! There are any of a number of reasons why it is said that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
Some day when you find the time, read the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias II and a group of Thubingen Divines of the generation after Luther. I wonder, had it been Luther himself who wrote to the EP, if matters might have taken a different turn.
Persecution of Catholics in China also.
How about in Germany? After the Jews, the Nazis came after the Catholics.
Have you really looked at the Crusades and what really happened? It wasn’t all the doing of the Catholic Church, but rather some very enthusiastic individuals opposed to the Moslem takeover of Europe, etc.
Yes, it did go overboard, but the Catholic Church has apologized for that I believe.
I have a son and daughter in law, both Catholics, attending a Presbyterian mega church. I half-way understand your remark to the priest.
Examples of orthodox persecution please.
The alternative (not really) is to believe whatever you make it out to be.
I call all men brothers who profess faith and salvation through Christ. Even those who profess that Satan is his brother? In other words, Christ is a label for any belief of men.
Their church or expression of faith does not restrict their Christianity.
That's for sure. Christianity, then, according to you, is any belief as long as there is a Christ-label attached to it.
That is between them and God to sort out.
That's true for any religion.
I will judge a man to be a Christian based upon his adherence to the Bible, not a creed or dogma
So whatever they believe in, as long as they use the Bible, anything goes? Is that your dogma and a creed? There are bible thumpers who believe Christ was adopted by the Father; others believe he was only an image of man but never truly a man; some say he never died; others believe he was merely a human anointed by God; others yet, believe he was Satan's brother; some teach that he is a creature. They all have in common one thing: they all adhere to the Bible.
hey now...I get tired of Catholics here preening too but the Crusades is one thing they got mostly right
No, the alternative is to believe in the teachings of the Bible and the words of Christ.
Even those who profess that Satan is his brother? In other words, Christ is a label for any belief of men.
And who would those be? Please explain. I know of no Christian who professes such. They do not claim salvation only through Christ.
That's for sure. Christianity, then, according to you, is any belief as long as there is a Christ-label attached to it.
If you wish to put words in my mouth, then you have already lost the debate. Christianity is following the words and teachings of Christ. This should be self-explanatory.
So whatever they believe in, as long as they use the Bible, anything goes?
If it is Biblical, then they are Christians, yes. You cannot follow teachings that are outside the Bible and call yourself a Christian. Whether you worship in an Orthodox church, a high church, or a progressive rock-and-roll church, if you have the Bible - and only the Bible - as the source for your relationship with God then you are a Christian.
There are bible thumpers who believe Christ was adopted by the Father; others believe he was only an image of man but never truly a man; some say he never died; others believe he was merely a human anointed by God; others yet, believe he was Satan's brother; some teach that he is a creature. They all have in common one thing: they all adhere to the Bible.
No they don't; their beliefs are not supported by the Bible. Much like the belief about the primacy of the pope and his ability to make pronouncements ex cathedra.
Here's the bottom line: if it's backed up by the Bible, it's Christian. Period. If not, it's not. It's that simple.
According to whom? You?
And who would those be? Please explain. I know of no Christian who professes such. They do not claim salvation only through Christ
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as most glaring examples.
Christianity is following the words and teachings of Christ. This should be self-explanatory
According to whose interpretation? Yours?
If it is Biblical, then they are Christians, yes
Adoptionsits say Jesus was not God when he was born, but was adopted by the Father ans made divine. They say his baptism (as narrated by Mark) proves it. Do you know the history of Christianity at all?
You cannot follow teachings that are outside the Bible and call yourself a Christian
I hate to tell you this, but that's exactly what the Christians did for a few centuries before the bible was put together for them by the Church hierarchs. The Church preceded the Bible.
Where does that say in the Bible? And how do you know that? because Martin Luther said so?
No they don't; their beliefs are not supported by the Bible. Much like the belief about the primacy of the pope and his ability to make pronouncements ex cathedra.
Well, they sure do. For instance there is an Evangelical site that claims the Bible doesn't teach Jesus was/is divine. They quote from the Bible.
The primacy of the pope, at least as far as the Catholics are concerned is clearly spelled out in Matthew's Gospel (16:19) and other places in the New Testament. Ex cathdera is an ecclesial and not a biblical issue, and is taken on faith.
But I could surmise that you believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Not only that, I bet you probably believe that he did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit! How do you know that? Because the Bible says so? The Bible doesn't. None of the Gospels are signed. None claims to be inspired. How is that different than ex-cathedra?
Here's the bottom line: if it's backed up by the Bible, it's Christian. Period. If not, it's not. It's that simple.
But we have so many different sects and cults that use the same Bible and preach a different gospel. So, it's not that simple and it's can't all be Christian because a lot of what these sects preach contradicts the preaching of the other sects and cults.
Jesus, in Matthew 23.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as most glaring examples.
And then you would be wrong. Mormons believe salvation is through faith AND works and only through their church (sound familiar?), and Jehovah's Witnesses not only deny that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that again it is by works that you are saved.
Meaning that both deny the teachings and truths found in the Bible about salvation, sola fide.
According to whose interpretation? Yours?
No interpretation needed. Which command or parable of Jesus do you feel needs interpretation?
Adoptionsits say Jesus was not God when he was born, but was adopted by the Father ans made divine. They say his baptism (as narrated by Mark) proves it. Do you know the history of Christianity at all?
Yes, which is clearly not Biblical. Thus those people cannot be Christians, as they deny the words of the Bible and of Christ.
I hate to tell you this, but that's exactly what the Christians did for a few centuries before the bible was put together for them by the Church hierarchs. The Church preceded the Bible.
No, it had the teachings - written and verbal - of Christ, as well as the Old Testament. Please see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for Paul referring to these same sources.
But we have so many different sects and cults that use the same Bible and preach a different gospel. So, it's not that simple and it's can't all be Christian because a lot of what these sects preach contradicts the preaching of the other sects and cults.
So for you, Christianity is a "democratic" process where we get around and debate and agree what is the meaning of being Christian? What is your foundation for your decision? What do you have outside the Bible, and the words of Christ?
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.