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 07-07-2010, 08:05 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,335,554 times
Reputation: 330

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartsong View Post
Hi,

I assume we are talking about the following portion of scripture from Matthew, Chapter 16:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

When I read this portion of scripture, I believe it is saying that the ROCK on which Jesus Christ will build his church is not Peter, but upon the truth that "flesh and blood has not revealed Christ unto anyone, but the FatherThe in heaven". It's as simple as that (IMO). To take this portion of scripture and posit that it is about Jesus initiating the Papacy seems completely fabricated out of thin air. I no longer consider myself a Protestant, however because the Protestant churches are just as bad (if not worse off) than the Roman Catholic Church regarding error.
Heartsong
The key words in the the blue section is "I believe" which of course is the same as Amen, but I degress. The early Christians didn't agree with your personal opinon on things. But that's the beauty of protestantism. No Authority and the Holy Spirit just somehow makes these opposite opinions on doctrine true all at the same. It's a miracle!!

Here's what Irenaeus of Lyon thought (yes, same as a previous post but used as a refresher):

St. Irenaeus of Lyon in his letter Against Heresies (second half second century):
Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 1-3
[Church Fathers: Against Heresies]

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.


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.


3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Last edited by juj; 07-07-2010 at 08:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2010, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,767,037 times
Reputation: 1595
Well, you certainly do appear to have much respect for the scribes, and you appear very learned. However, I have my own personal relationship with God via the Spirit of Christ and would not begin to look for answers in any manner that sets up a hierarchy in the church, so I'm completely not impressed by titles, i.e. bishops, popes, saints, etc.... But I do realize that some people are into all that and are willing to have a relationship with God through all these things rather than a very personal face to face encounter. But in the end, my experience with God is between me and him - I have to know him for myself - which I could never do though the study of dead saints, relics, and all the outward paraphernalia that comes with both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Not that I condemn anyone, since I am a Universalist believer in Christ, but I actually believe that God made it possible for me to 'know' him and that Christ has made us priests and kings who are ambassadors that carry the good news of God's love inside these little jars of clay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 11:07 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,335,554 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartsong View Post
Well, you certainly do appear to have much respect for the scribes, and you appear very learned. However, I have my own personal relationship with God via the Spirit of Christ and would not begin to look for answers in any manner that sets up a hierarchy in the church, so I'm completely not impressed by titles, i.e. bishops, popes, saints, etc.... But I do realize that some people are into all that and are willing to have a relationship with God through all these things rather than a very personal face to face encounter. But in the end, my experience with God is between me and him - I have to know him for myself - which I could never do though the study of dead saints, relics, and all the outward paraphernalia that comes with both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Not that I condemn anyone, since I am a Universalist believer in Christ, but I actually believe that God made it possible for me to 'know' him and that Christ has made us priests and kings who are ambassadors that carry the good news of God's love inside these little jars of clay.
That's wonderful about your faith. Jesus's truth is present in all Christianity to some degree, that I will agree. And I certainly appreciate the freedom to worship what and how you want. Afterall, I also was Lutheran once. But I cannot agree with the sheer chaos that exists in protestant world. Luther opened up Pandora's box. There are some seriously important issues that protestant churches are on opposite sides on. The orthodox churches are just a older, however much milder version of the need to be autonomous. Who is right and who has the Authority to determine who is right? I say it's the original Church because Jesus didn't leave us a Bible, He left us one living Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Peace be with you.

Last edited by juj; 07-07-2010 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,767,037 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
That's wonderful about your faith. Jesus's truth is present in all Christianity to some degree, that I will agree. And I certainly appreciate the freedom to worship what and how you want. Afterall, I also was Lutheran once. But I cannot agree with the sheer chaos that exists in protestant world. Luther opened up Pandora's box. There are some seriously important issues that protestant churches are on opposite sides on. The orthodox churches are just a older, however much milder version of the need to be autonomous. Who is right and who has the Authority to determine who is right? I say it's the original Church because Jesus didn't leave us a Bible, He left us one living Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Peace be with you.
I don't disagree with you about Protestantism being like Pandora's Box. I've tasted many flavors of it and had to leave all of them in the end. God is building his church, so it is no surprise that it looks crazy when man thinks he will do it on his own volition. Yet, I do not say that Christ is not present in the body of the churches - though sometimes difficult to identify, especially if one is still searching and seeking for God and has not yet had the wonderful experience of grace revealed to his/her heart.

And peace be with you, as well.

Heartsong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 02:02 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,560,739 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
That's wonderful about your faith. Jesus's truth is present in all Christianity to some degree, that I will agree. And I certainly appreciate the freedom to worship what and how you want. Afterall, I also was Lutheran once. But I cannot agree with the sheer chaos that exists in protestant world. Luther opened up Pandora's box. There are some seriously important issues that protestant churches are on opposite sides on. The orthodox churches are just a older, however much milder version of the need to be autonomous. Who is right and who has the Authority to determine who is right? I say it's the original Church because Jesus didn't leave us a Bible, He left us one living Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Peace be with you.
Without trying to be mean or snarky,you really don't seem to know much about the Orthodox churches other than that they have existed since the beginning.Why not try learning something about them instead of simply accepting what the Catholic faith tells you about a church (singular,that's part of why I say you don't seem to really know) it has a grudge against?

Like I said,this is truly not meant snarky,but it just seems you don't really know about them.



http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church



Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and founded the Church, through His Apostles and disciples, for the salvation of man. In the years which followed, the Apostles spread the Church and its teachings and founded many churches, all united in faith, worship, and the partaking of the Mysteries (or as they are called in the West, the Sacraments) of the Holy Church. The churches founded by the Apostles themselves include the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome and Constantinople. The Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, the Church of Antioch by St Paul, the Church of Jerusalem by Ss. Peter and James, the Church of Rome by Ss. Peter and Paul, and Church of Constantinople by St Andrew. Those founded in later years through the missionary activity of the first churches were the Churches of Sinai, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Serbia, Serbia, and many others.

Each church has always had independent administration, but, with the exception of the Church of Rome, which finally separated from the others in the year 1054, are united in faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, sacraments, liturgies, and services. Together they constitute what is called the “Orthodox Church”, literally meaning "right teaching" or "right worship", derived from two Greek words: orthos, "right," and doxa, "teaching" or "worship."



There are other good resources at the Greek Archdiocese of America and the Orthodox Church of America websites as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 10:43 PM
 
5 posts, read 2,233 times
Reputation: 14
As an Orthodox Christian with a Catholic dad, I think I have a pretty good idea of both services. I don't know about the specific differences in the services just the ideas. The Catholic Church, it bums me out so much, that most churches in America have stopped using Latin in most or all of the service. The main spiritual differences that shows in the services are 1) The Catholics when doing the cross touch forehead, stomach, left shoulder, then right, while the Orthodox do right then left. 2) The Catholics use icons and statues to represent the Holy while the Orthodox just use icons. The Orthodox services are in the language that corresponds with the church i.e. Russian in Russian Orthodox. As far as I know, the Greek Orthodox Church is the biggest Orthodox Church in America, so most Orthodox services are in Greek. Greek is a very beautiful language when said correctly and most churches I have been to say the important things in English or both Greek and English. Another difference that I forgot to mention between Catholic and Orthodox services is that from what I have been told, the Catholics don't all take communion but instead have some wafers or something (Don't quote me on that though) and the Greek church has both Communion and bread.*sidenote* The bread uses in the greek church is VERY good, and although most churches have different cooks, it is good! I hope this helps and know that both Catholicism and Greek Orthodox were the same religion so don't listen to anyone that says that one is better than the other or one will go to hell and the other will be assured heaven because that's all a bunch of
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,293 posts, read 7,675,370 times
Reputation: 1724
From information that I have received, the Roman Rite believes that the orthodox have some errors, but are within requirements and people of either tradition may participate in the eucharist of the other. Most Roman masses only do the bread for the assembly with the priest partaking of the wine as representative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 12:04 AM
 
5 posts, read 2,233 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
From information that I have received, the Roman Rite believes that the orthodox have some errors, but are within requirements and people of either tradition may participate in the eucharist of the other. Most Roman masses only do the bread for the assembly with the priest partaking of the wine as representative.
Adding onto the taking communion in the other church topic, I'm led to think that as long as you are what the orthodox patriarchs have deemed as baptism, you can partake in the Greek Orthodox communion. However, the "Creed" is different so I think you need to say that right before you can partake in communion, but otherwise, the wine and bread is blessed behind the scenes so I guess any baptized human can take it, but don't hold me to it. If you are really looking forward to having GO communion when you are catholic, ask either a GO priest or a RC priest. We should really find some priests for these discussions!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 11:06 AM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Default Orthodox Church?

Does anyone seriously think that any of the details imposed on these rites of remembrance are of any real concern to God? Remembering Christ is the point . . . not correctly performing some magic trick, IMO.
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