U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2010, 11:09 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,336,025 times
Reputation: 330

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
The Orthodox Church is the most beautiful form of worship service I have ever been in.It is also the original Christian Church.The RCC broke away from the Orthodox Church,not vice versa,no matter what the Catholics try to tell you.They worship using what they call the Divine Liturgy.

There are simply too many aspects of it to try and give a good overview in one post.While I never joined,I went to an Orthodox Church for about a year and a half and can probably answer most questions.The three most prominent in the US are Greek Orthodox,OCA,and Antiochian.The OCA is out of the Russian Orthodox Church,and the Antiochian is the Arab version of Orthodoxy.But the OCA and Antiochian are more accepting of converts and try not to be too ethnic,while the Greeks,at least where I went,where much more an ethnic church,to the point of even having part of the Liturgy said in Greek.

If you have specific questions ask away.I will try to answer.Most of all,just attend a DL and enjoy.
That's interesting since all the Early Church Fathers clearly saw Rome as the place of Authority. So anyone not with Rome, is the one breaking off. That's how it works. Another case of revisionist history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2010, 11:18 PM
 
697 posts, read 915,135 times
Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Even the role of Christ is somewhat different in the two. The RCC (and therefore all the Protestant churches that came out of the RCC) developed the idea of Christ appeasing an angry God through blood sacrifice on the Cross. As strange as it may sound to western Christian ears,that was not the teaching of the original churches,but is a concept developed independently by the Catholics around 1000 AD. What the EO teaches the role of Christ was was to reestablish the divine link between man and God that Adam broke when he sinned. Christ made it possible for man to become divine once again, by grace, not as substitutionary atonement to an angry God. The EO do not get the Mel Gibson film on Christ,for example.That is not their belief. A common statement from the EO on the role of Christ is that "Christ became a man so that man could become a god". Not a god in the New Age silliness style,but rather what Adam supposedly was originally,an immortal being designed to live forever in immediate fellowship with God. Catholics,on the other hand,are big on the punishment and suffering bit. This is obviously a fundamentally different way of looking at Christ.
This is really interesting... Fits nicely with my Lutheran concept of being saved by grace. (Martin Luther being the granddaddy of Protestants breaking away.) I'll have to study some more on this. Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 09:02 AM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,561,435 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
That's interesting since all the Early Church Fathers clearly saw Rome as the place of Authority. So anyone not with Rome, is the one breaking off. That's how it works. Another case of revisionist history.

Sorry,but that is not how it worked.The churches saw Rome as the First among Equals,not as the leader.Do some research before posting.To see this same thing at work today,look at the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.They are regarded as the First among Equals since Rome left.But they maintain the role correctly,and do not try to usurp power.They have remained in that role since the split with Rome,but they do not claim to rule over all the churches.THAT is how it works,not as a papacy.

As far as who left who,there were 5 churches originally.1 left,that being Rome.The other 4 stayed together,that being the Orthodox churches.When 1 leaves and 4 stay together,the 1 leaving the 5 is the one breaking off.Rome also breaks the rules for churches followed by the original church,that being a church for every nation.That is why there are 15 Orthodox churches today instead of just the original 4.But Rome chooses to maintain power,and makes the whole world one church.It is a power play,nothing else.And it's results have been evident down through the centuries in all the abuses of the RCC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 04:37 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,336,025 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Sorry,but that is not how it worked.The churches saw Rome as the First among Equals,not as the leader.Do some research before posting.To see this same thing at work today,look at the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.They are regarded as the First among Equals since Rome left.But they maintain the role correctly,and do not try to usurp power.They have remained in that role since the split with Rome,but they do not claim to rule over all the churches.THAT is how it works,not as a papacy.

As far as who left who,there were 5 churches originally.1 left,that being Rome.The other 4 stayed together,that being the Orthodox churches.When 1 leaves and 4 stay together,the 1 leaving the 5 is the one breaking off.Rome also breaks the rules for churches followed by the original church,that being a church for every nation.That is why there are 15 Orthodox churches today instead of just the original 4.But Rome chooses to maintain power,and makes the whole world one church.It is a power play,nothing else.And it's results have been evident down through the centuries in all the abuses of the RCC.
I don't really have to go to the Early Church Fathers to prove my point. Matthew 16:13-19 clearly states that Jesus made Peter the head of his Church. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, followed by Linus, then Clement. If the head of the Church is in Rome, then Rome is the center of His Church. There is and should be a head of the Church. You don't need to be devine to know that equal Church's would never work long term. But Jesus didn't create separate but equal Churches. He created a Church with Peter at the head and where else would you put the head of the Church in Rome, which was the center of the world at the time.

However,
St. Irenaeus of Lyon in his letter Against Heresies:
Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 2,

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Seward, Alaska
2,739 posts, read 7,861,652 times
Reputation: 1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
I know the Orthodox insist we broke off, but from a historical non-Catholic perspective it was more like a divorce so Catholics and Orthodox both descend from the original Christians. The Catholics descend from Christianity in the Western Roman Empire and the Orthodox from the Eastern. Then there are also Armenians and Assyrians, who descend from Christians outside the Empire.

As a Catholic I suppose I'd be required to believe Orthodoxy broke off.

Personally, I don't believe either one split off from the other....I believe they both were started independently of the other...about the same time. Therefore the debate about who "broke off" is pretty much pointless and moot. Just IMO.

Bud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Seward, Alaska
2,739 posts, read 7,861,652 times
Reputation: 1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
I don't really have to go to the Early Church Fathers to prove my point. Matthew 16:13-19 clearly states that Jesus made Peter the head of his Church. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, followed by Linus, then Clement. If the head of the Church is in Rome, then Rome is the center of His Church. There is and should be a head of the Church. You don't need to be devine to know that equal Church's would never work long term. But Jesus didn't create separate but equal Churches. He created a Church with Peter at the head and where else would you put the head of the Church in Rome, which was the center of the world at the time.

Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken: the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) says that Peter was Apostle to the circumcision (Jews), not the gentiles (Rome). Who was Apostle to the gentiles? Paul was! This is not "guesswork", because the Bible tells us so! There is some evidence out there that Peter never actually visited, lived in, or presided over any church in Rome. The Bible itself does not say anything about Peter ever having been there...

Also, the Bible does not "clearly" state that Jesus made Peter the head of the church. If it was "clear" that Peter was head of the church, then all of us would agree, but we don't. There is much ongoing debate about what Jesus was actually saying. One example:
What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?

What is clear, is that the Bible states (more than once) that Christ Jesus is head of the Church, not a mortal man, such as Peter. Personally, I am of the opinion that the church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ: "The stone that the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone".
He is still the head of the Church today.

Bud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 06:39 PM
 
5,499 posts, read 4,580,459 times
Reputation: 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken: the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) says that Peter was Apostle to the circumcision (Jews), not the gentiles (Rome). Who was Apostle to the gentiles? Paul was! This is not "guesswork", because the Bible tells us so! There is some evidence out there that Peter never actually visited, lived in, or presided over any church in Rome. The Bible itself does not say anything about Peter ever having been there...

Also, the Bible does not "clearly" state that Jesus made Peter the head of the church. If it was "clear" that Peter was head of the church, then all of us would agree, but we don't. There is much ongoing debate about what Jesus was actually saying. One example:
What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?

What is clear, is that the Bible states (more than once) that Christ Jesus is head of the Church, not a mortal man, such as Peter. Personally, I am of the opinion that the church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ: "The stone that the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone".
He is still the head of the Church today.

Bud
You're on to something here Bud...

BTW...check out the thread about being a fly on wall...I nominated you as its leader bud...you should accept the appointment just to lighten up the spirit.. Oh...its "Conversation overheard....." by thrillobyte.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 06:59 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,561,435 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
I don't really have to go to the Early Church Fathers to prove my point. Matthew 16:13-19 clearly states that Jesus made Peter the head of his Church. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, followed by Linus, then Clement. If the head of the Church is in Rome, then Rome is the center of His Church. There is and should be a head of the Church. You don't need to be devine to know that equal Church's would never work long term. But Jesus didn't create separate but equal Churches. He created a Church with Peter at the head and where else would you put the head of the Church in Rome, which was the center of the world at the time.

However,
St. Irenaeus of Lyon in his letter Against Heresies:
Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 2,

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And this is supposed to mean...what?A Catholic encyclopedia quoting the opinion of a Latin priest.Big deal.All that shows is that Rome was impressed with itself at an early stage.However,history proves you wrong.If Rome had been the head,then the others would not have had their own authority over their churches,as they clearly did.All the Catholic quotes in the world won't change facts.There were 5 original churches,of which Rome was regarded as the preeminent.But then Rome tried to usurp the power of the other 4.They refused to accede,Rome got angry and severed ties with the 4 others.The 4 others,however,remained together as they were before the vanity of Rome got too big.As I said,when there are originally 5,and 4 stay together while 1 severs ties with the other 4,the one severing the ties is the one breaking away,not the 4 remaining together under the same rules.It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

As for the quote about Peter,insomuch as the other churches might have accepted that as true,that was true only until Rome broke ranks.That act removed their place of preeminence,as creating a schism with the other churches was regarded as a serious sin that removed Rome's right of authority.

Bottom line is one of the 5 left the other 4.It isn't hard to figure out which church that was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 07:06 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,561,435 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Personally, I don't believe either one split off from the other....I believe they both were started independently of the other...about the same time. Therefore the debate about who "broke off" is pretty much pointless and moot. Just IMO.

Bud
Sorry,but history shows differently.All the ancient churches were once together as one group,excepting the minor offshoots that arose even early on.Check out the early church councils to learn more.Differences developed between the Latin and Asian churches that eventually led to a split around 1000 AD.

They most definetely did not develop independent from each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2010, 11:12 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,336,025 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Sorry,but history shows differently.All the ancient churches were once together as one group,excepting the minor offshoots that arose even early on.Check out the early church councils to learn more.Differences developed between the Latin and Asian churches that eventually led to a split around 1000 AD.

They most definetely did not develop independent from each other.
There is obviously nothing I can say or reference that will make you see the truth. You have presented nothing but your opinions. So, peace be with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top