Posted on 11/23/2003 9:28:57 PM PST by 1stFreedom
* PLEASE NO LONG REPLIES! Post a link for long replies, not pages of text.
* This is a work in progress, so dates/names may need correction. Forgive my inaccuracies and I'll do likewise.
There are many "denominations" which identify with this name. Yet, what is "Christianity?"
To begin with, the followers of Jesus and His Disciples didn't teach "Christianity" -- they taught what was known as "The Way".
Aside from some problems that were quickly resolved, "The Way" was universal. Doctrine was the same from one community to the next.
The Apostles, who traveled the world, took up students and trained them in "The Way" over a period of time. As usual, they laid hands on these men as they did with Matthias, Judas' successor.
Many of what is now known as books of the New Testament had not been written. Instead, the Apostles had orally instructed the communities. The men studing under the Apostles were especially knowledgable of the teachings of the Apostles. They had to know it word for word, concept for concept, doctrine for doctrine, otherwise the Apostles could not depend on them to teach and lead in their stead.
Since the Apostles and their students taught in many lands, "The Way" was universal in doctrine and faith. The authority of the Apostles, and the authoirty of their students was known and respected. To hear the students speak on the faith was to hear the Apostles speak, which was to hear Christ speak.
This pattern continued after the death of the Apostles, with the students selecting and laying hands on new students. If problems arose in a community these leaders, students of the Apostles, resolved the issue. Nobody in a community would [openly] challenge their authority or ruling once they had spoken.
The collection of "New Testament" scripture had not been completely assembled. Not one single person had the complete collection. When the writings were available, the student's of the Apostles utilized them in their work.
As time went and the faith grew, "the way" was called "universal" and the name stuck. After all, the faith was the same all over the globe -- universal in doctrine and faith.
The "universal" faith had a good idea of what was the New Testament scripture was. The "universal" way collected many different lists of what was considered to be inspired writings, and they eventually decided on what we now recognize (for the most part) as the new testament.
What is so interesting about the "universal way" is the following beliefs: (Please reply with corrections!)
* Authority of the Apostles and their successors: There wasn't a NT bible to speak of, so one simply couldn't look up a verse to solve a problem. The Authority was in fact, the Apostles, and later, student's of the Apostles. Later, their writings (Scripture) would also prove to be authoritative.
* Universality "Catholicity": One faith, one set of doctrine, one structure, one belief, one set of Scripture. Recognized by the apostles/followers as "the way"
* Rejection of Abortion (see the Didache, a first century writing, noting the refusal of the eucharist for those who had an abortion)
* Perpetual Virginity of Mary: St. Jerome brilliantly defended this belief in the later 300's.
* Real Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist: Defended by St. Ignatious of Antioch in 110ad (Bishop of the NT Church of Antioch for those who claim to have the faith of the New Testament Church!)
* Apostolic Succession: This was "the way of the way" and nobody questioned it. Only those who had hands laid on by the Apostles continued to lead the way in the absence of the Apostles.
* Hierarchy of the Church: Bishops recognized by the faithful and the successors of the Apostles
* Recognition of the Successor of Peter: (Later rejected by the "Orthodox" members of the Church.)
* Recognition of the Septuigant canon of Old and New Testament Scripture (392ad)
* Holy: The universal faith was Holy and guided by God.
There really wasn't a "Christian" faith, it was simply the "universal way".
Eventually, the "universal" label stuck to the way, hence the name "Catholic" to describe the universal church. The term "Chrisitan" was a name given [later?] to describe those who belonged to the universal way.
For the most part, with the exception of minor scisms, the beliefs listed above remained core beliefs of "universal way" up to today.
Now fast forward to today.
The claim is made by many that their Church doctrine is Christian, exactly as the doctrines of the early Church.
Yet compare the doctrine of the early church (some listed above) to the doctrines of various denominations (and "nondenominations"), and one will find that they differ to varying degrees -- in many cases, drastically. Instead of holding the doctrines of "the way" they hold doctrines of "another way" or "the other way" [man's way].
The doctrines of "the way" were held constant throughout almost fifteen hundred years. (The Orthodox scism in 1054 only rejected the Papacy and some minor doctrine)The protestant reformation created scisms and doctrines of "they way" were modified or thrown out to varying degrees, yet the doctrine of the "Universal Way" has been constant for almost two thousand years.
What's interesting is that many people who claim to be of "the way" will not recognize Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses as Christians because they have changed, added, or rejected "traditional" doctrine. Yet, these same people have rejected the 2,000 year old doctrines of "the way".
If changing or rejecting doctrines of "the way" is a basis for determining that a denomination/sect isn't "Christian", then this standard has to be applied to the many denominations which claim to be "Christian" also.
To not distinguish the doctrines of "the way" only causes confusion as to what "the Way" actually was and still is. The confusion is so bad, that people think it's ok to cohabitate, have abortions, engage in homosexual "marriage", and so forth. One can always find a church which is supposedly of "the way" which will support thier activity. Yet until the faithful (of all denominations) recognize "the way" and reject "the new way", the world will not hear a clear voice proclaiming the Good News. Instead they'll hear what they want to hear..
In my opinion, it is time to make clear what exactly "the way" is by simply rejecting what isn't "the way" and doing so in a loving yet vocal manner.
Note:
When I speak with people and they tell me something which is contrary to "the way" I simply tell them that the belief they stated isn't "Christian" -- and then I explain about "the way". More often than not, their belief originates from the Protestant Reformation, Fundamentalism, "Catholic Sloth", or their own mind -- but not in "the Way"
Also, I do not doubt the hearts or love of God of the believers who believe their church is "Christian". What I doubt is the "other way" doctrine of their denomination/non-denomination. Many of them are good, honest, Christ loving people of faith who have simply been indoctrinated with protestant dogma, aka "other way" doctrine.
Another clarification is in order: the Orthodox DID fully recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome but they recognized that authority as his being the "first among equals" and not as full authority over the entire Church. Another way of looking at it is that no Bishop can overrule an Ecumenical Council. We can debate about whether or not the Pope actually did or not but it is clear that the Orthodox believe that he had done so.
No, my FRiend. "The way" was always the same. Before Christ it was a promise and today it is a fulfillment. Rituals serve man~ men do not serve rituals.
Wouldn't my disbelief in the Protestant approach to salvation disqualify me from salvation through that method? If, in fact, Protestants are right, I'm rejecting the 'true' path, it seems, thereby making me ineligible for salvation.
Actually, "Orthodox" is not (nor was it) a subset of "Catholics"! There was a time when the entire Church was both. The moment that a subset can be determined is known as "Schism."
Wouldn't my disbelief in the Protestant approach to salvation disqualify me from salvation through that method? If, in fact, Protestants are right, I'm rejecting the 'true' path, it seems, thereby making me ineligible for salvation.
It is not necessary that you agree with Protestants.
What is necessary is that you agree with God.
The Church, which is now commonly called the Orthodox Church because the Patriarchate of Rome hijacked the name 'Catholic' in English-speaking discourse, never taught the "Immaculate Conception", which is an attempt to reconcile the great honor shown to the purity of the Theotokos, and indeed the fact that she committed no sins by her own will, with "Orginal Sin", the Augustinian misconception of Ancestral Sin as a form of heritable guilt.
No Pope, Patriarch or bishop complained when St. Justinian issued a novella expanding the ground for divorce from adultery only to include abandonment and forced prostitution. And this was at a time when Christian marriage was simply Roman civil marriage between Christians, and, thanks to St. Justinian's military success, Rome was inside the Empire. It seems a little odd if the latter-day Latin hard-line on divorce was really been a part of the faith once delivered and held by the Church from time immemorial that there weren't howls of indignation from all quarters at this novella, but there weren't.
The Orthodox expect to be accused of heresy by heretics: the Monophysite Copts say we're Nestorians (you Latins, too, btw), and you Latins accuse us of heresy for not coming to the same conclusions your Popes have on one thing or another in the days since you adopted the filoque.
Do be honest. If you would like, we could return the favor and use "Catholic" as a synomym for "Western" and dwell on all the schisms in the West. If you insist we accept the Monophysites, how about you taking reponsibility for the Hussites, Lutherans, Cathars, Calvinists, Anglicans, "Old Catholics" and all the rest of the schismatic, heretical (by both our estimations) groups which arose in your patriarchate?
The canon makes no sense whatsoever is a notion of Papal Supremacy was held in the Church. (I also note you like to confound primacy with supremacy: the prime inter pares with narrow appelate jurisdiction not held by other bishops as is attested by the canonical structure of the ancient Church plainly has a primacy, but not the kind of super-episcopal 'authority' attributed to the Roman Papacy by the Latin church.)
Actually that aspect of the statement is incorrect. The Orthodox NEVER recognized the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the entire Church and we believe this is clearly contradicted by Scripture (see previous message).
Well, sorry you guys missed trying to kick us out on that point. Anyway, you didn't boot us out, of course, we booted you out for attempting to exceed your authority and boot all of the rest of us out. It sort of was the last straw so far as the Orthodox Catholics were concerned. ;-)
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.