Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches

Vivificat - News, Opinion, Commentary, Reflections and Prayer from a Personal Catholic Perspective ^ | 7 August 2009 | TDJ

[Kolokotronis]

“And biblical manuscripts were not?”

Kosta, compared to the agenda driven English translations, starting with the KJV, the old Codex manuscripts are positively pristine! :)

[bronxville]

“Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 19)

I’m quite sure you looked it up already. Yes the verse, see above, is authentic. You can throw all sorts of things about satan and evil at the verse but it still remains authentic. Truth matters and it will matter even more in a decade or two when Christians will need every single authentic Holy Tradition to support Sacred Scriptures.

Iscool said - “Jesus WAS the Son of God??? I got news for Iggy, Jesus is STILL the Son of God and He IS God...

I’ve got serious doubts that Ignatius was a bishop at Ephesis...The Ephesians would have quickly straightened out Ignatius in his faulty theology...”

He was the Bishop of Antioch! No one said he was the bishop of Ephesis. “Iggy” is called St Ignatius - please show some respect. St Ignatius was martyred in Circus Maximus because he wouldn’t renounce his Christian faith. Your need to be anti-Catholic at all times is standing in the way of rational thought.

[bronxville]

When St. Ignatius was summoned to Rome before Emperor Trajan to account for his faith, he was accompanied on this long journey by several citizens from Antioch who were motivated by a great love toward their wonderful Arch-shepherd. Since he would never deny his faith in Christ, this saint of God who abhorred all adulation and promises of Emperor Trajan, was condemned to death and was thrown into the Circus Maximus before wild beasts. The wild beasts tore him apart, and he gave up his soul to God. His companions then gathered his exposed bones and took them to Antioch and honorably buried them. But when the Persians captured Antioch in the sixth century, the relics of St. Ignatius were again translated from Antioch to Rome.

[xone]

And you can bet Satan knew exactly what was going on at the Crucifixion of Jesus

No flame here, but could you expound a little on what you think that Satan knew about the crucifixion, particularly what it meant for Satan?

[MarkBsnr]

***Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Paul was ordained from the get-go to be the apostle to the Gentiles...He was ordained by God just as Peter was ordained by God...***

However Paul was ordained by the Church in the manner that all the next generation (after the Apostles) were ordained. That leads us to say that all future priests and bishops are ordained in the same fashion.

If your position were correct, then Paul would not have had to be baptized in Acts 9:18.

[Vera Lex]

Marriage was instituted by God as means of sanctifying the majority of the human race so that by mutual self-giving the parties to the marriage learn through self-sacrifice to grow in love and therefore in holiness.

It is possible however for two people, who have decided to remain in a state of virginity, to marry. Such marriages are sometimes called ‘white marriages’ and providing neither partner demands their ‘marriage rights’ there will be no ‘withholding’ involved.

Our Lady and Saint Joseph followed this latter path. Their vocation was to raise the Son of God at their breast and in their own home. For them the path of holiness was to make God the very real centre of both their spiritual and earthly life. They could not have done this had they engaged in carnal relations for the giving of each to the other would have meant taking part of their attention and love away from God the Son who was physically there with them even from before their marriage.

Consider this question: Why would it be wrong for a married couple to exercise the marriage debt in an empty church building? It would be wrong not because there is anything wrong with such relations between a married couple (quite the contrary) but because the Church building being the house of God is a place where God is to come first not other human beings. His presence demands out complete attention. Behaviour, which in the marital bed would be good and holy, would thus become a sign of selfishness and a rejection of God if performed in a Church.

In the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church we believe God is truly present in the tabernacle. Similarly, Saint Joseph’s house was itself, in a sense, a most sacred tabernacle within which God the Son truly resided; a place of perpetual worship and adoration.

Responding to your observation about the scriptural passage from Saint Luke: we are told that Our Lady was already espoused to Saint Joseph when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. The normal reaction one would expect from someone who is about to be married to the news (even from an angel!) that IN THE FUTURE they are to have a child is a presumption that the child would be the fruit of the forthcoming marriage.

This was not the BVM’s reaction however. When she is told that she is to have a child she instead expressed complete confusion as to how this could possibly be. “How is this to be done?” she asks (future tense), not “how has this come about?”.

The following part of her response “because I know not man” is therefore not the equivalent of saying “because I have not yet known a man” for it is clear that she has known a man since she is not married.

Her confusion regards the future not the present. Her statement “I know not man” is an expression of the state of life that she has adopted for all time - her consecrated state of virginity. Her question is: “How can this come about since I have consecrated myself to God as a virgin?”

As a final consideration, St Paul in 1 Corinthians explains that the state of virginity is above the married state. How could we possibly imagine the Holy Family not adopting any but the most perfect state of life which Sacred Scripture commends to us all?

[Uri’el-2012]

Vera Lex Since Aug 4, 2009

Welcome to FR.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Vera Lex]

Thank you for your kind welcome and blessing.

[MarkBsnr]

***Paul was ordained from the get-go to be the apostle to the Gentiles***

Interesting. Why did Peter convert the first Gentile and why did Paul split most of the next decade or so between the Jews and Gentiles if this were truly the case?

[MarkBsnr]

***“Iggy” is called St Ignatius - please show some respect. St Ignatius was martyred in Circus Maximus because he wouldn’t renounce his Christian faith. Your need to be anti-Catholic at all times is standing in the way of rational thought.***

We cannot make it personal. The noble Iscool may make all the statements that he wishes in whatever form he wishes with or without any justification whatsoever. He may be the most foaming at the mouth rabid anti Catholic whatsoever. His comments may resemble the leavings of the great apes, but we must never make it personal in our reply back to him. If we cannot debate him on theological and Scriptural grounds, then we should not debate him at all. We do not know that he has a need to be anti Catholic at all times and even if he does, we must not comment on it.

[MarkBsnr]

***As a final consideration, St Paul in 1 Corinthians explains that the state of virginity is above the married state. How could we possibly imagine the Holy Family not adopting any but the most perfect state of life which Sacred Scripture commends to us all?***

Interesting and certainly consistent with Church teachings.

[kosta50]

Again, thank you for your insight on this matter (however we may disagree otherwise), kosta.

I guess that goes without saying, ZC. :) As you know, I try to see things from the "other perspective," but that is not necessarily my perspective.

[kosta50]

Kosta, compared to the agenda driven English translations, starting with the KJV, the old Codex manuscripts are positively pristine! :)

You know that's not true, Kolo. the 4th century Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are full of differences and Codex Alexandrinus, a mere century later, is almost like a different book. Not to talk about various shreds and 'chads' form earlier days.

But the more time progressed and more corrupt copies of copies of copies entered into circulation, the more the corruption multiplied. Certainly, KJV is at the apex of that process, both linguistically and otherwise compared to the earlier ones. After all, 1,600 had years passed since the originals were presumably written, and then subsequently lost in translation and otherwise.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I guess that goes without saying, ZC. :) As you know, I try to see things from the "other perspective," but that is not necessarily my perspective.

I understand, and I understand at what price (simple faith) this comes to you.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I've always criticized Jews for obsessing on the stubborn dedication of the chr*stians to their religion and for gravitating toward and awarding the most liberal ch*stians, and now it seems I am benefiting from such an association myself. Ironic.

[kosta50]

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I've always criticized Jews for obsessing on the stubborn dedication of the chr*stians to their religion and for gravitating toward and awarding the most liberal ch*stians, and now it seems I am benefiting from such an association myself. Ironic

Indeed, isn't it?

I must say I am glad someone with the authority from the "other perspective" can tell Christians that their reading of the Tanakh is through the prism of the New Testament and that the entire perspective of the OT is thereby changed and made unrecognizable to a Jew.

And for you to compare that distortion to what the LDS are doing with Christian Scripture through the prism of the Book of Mormon is priceless.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And for you to compare that distortion to what the LDS are doing with Christian Scripture through the prism of the Book of Mormon is priceless.

Hey, you're the one who told Kolokotronis to imagine an Orthodox living in Utah and he'd understand a bit how Jews feel!

[bronxville]

“We cannot make it personal. The noble Iscool may make all the statements that he wishes in whatever form he wishes with or without any justification whatsoever. He may be the most foaming at the mouth rabid anti Catholic whatsoever. His comments may resemble the leavings of the great apes, but we must never make it personal in our reply back to him. If we cannot debate him on theological and Scriptural grounds, then we should not debate him at all. We do not know that he has a need to be anti Catholic at all times and even if he does, we must not comment on it.”

The “noble” Iscool? HA! Next time please report me to the moderator. At least s/he won’t grandstand while she’s reminding me of the rules nor will she use the royal “we”. Anyway, she calls me on it - I’ll apologize - end of story. If it’s not the end of the story - I’d rather get banned - conprende?!

[Guyin4Os]

I'm not trying to stop you from reading the TaNa"KH at all.

Whew!

[Guyin4Os]

Christians have fabricated a myth on top of a myth, claiming that not only was the OT written for them as well, but that somehow they have been "grafted" onto the Abraham's family tree and represent the "true" Israel.

Christians aren't "true Israel." Descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who have the faith of the same kind as Abraham's are "true Israel." But as to the grafting-in part, yeah ... Paul taught that in his letter to the believing assembly in Rome.

But let me ask you this. Would you consider an atheistic Jew a member of "true Israel?" That is to ask, do you consider someone who denies the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be a part of "true Israel?"

[MarkBsnr]

***“We cannot make it personal. The noble Iscool may make all the statements that he wishes in whatever form he wishes with or without any justification whatsoever. He may be the most foaming at the mouth rabid anti Catholic whatsoever. His comments may resemble the leavings of the great apes, but we must never make it personal in our reply back to him. If we cannot debate him on theological and Scriptural grounds, then we should not debate him at all. We do not know that he has a need to be anti Catholic at all times and even if he does, we must not comment on it.”

The “noble” Iscool? HA! Next time please report me to the moderator. At least s/he won’t grandstand while she’s reminding me of the rules nor will she use the royal “we”. Anyway, she calls me on it - I’ll apologize - end of story. If it’s not the end of the story - I’d rather get banned - conprende?!***

Well, so to speak, yes. But the rules, and the Religion Moderator will hopefully confirm that I understand them correctly, state that one cannot make anything personal. That means that no matter how idiotic or asinine the post, no matter how how divorced from reality, no matter how severe the attack upon the Church, no matter how infantile the post or how much it mocks all that we hold dear, we must treat it as simple words upon a page, as we might imagine the poster. But we must not make it personal.