a question to catholics??, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 12-3-2003 @ 12:17 AM by helen
Hi Truth............

i disagree on the Great Schism that took place in 1054.......please read ........

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

I always thought that being a Christian was all the same.

There are now thousands of Schismatic Christian churches all over the world claiming Authority to being the truth...

The teachings of Jesus Christ began after He appointed His Apostles to go and preach......


The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

2. The Development of Doctrine

The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

5. The Church

The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).



However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic "dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary," which was defined as "of the faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854. This dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus).

Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers. It contains many ideas (such as "the merits of Christ") likewise without apostolic foundation. The idea that the Lord and His Saints produced more grace than necessary. This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see below). cont...........

www.orthodoxinfo.com...


reply posted on 12-3-2003 @ 06:56 AM by Estragon
A fascinating topic: I would counsel some caution when bandying about "schism": it has a pretty precise theological and canon law meaning in a Roman Catholic context (and no real meaning at all in any other). it is most certainly not "heresy": there most certainly are not ":thousands" of "schismatic" churches.
The Greek Orthodox Church is certainly schismatic: it has never been declared heretical. And, for that matter, it does recognise the authority of the Patriarch of the West ( it just doesn't equate these with the powers that Roman Catholics ascribe to the Pope.
The origins lie in many areas (and 1054 was the culmination of about 800 years of schism as various local churches struggled for power and supremacy.)
The abstruse doctrinal factors -while fascinating to some -leave many cold and demand detailed study. Suffice it so say that the procession of the Holy Ghost was certainly no more important than the struggle between Constantinople and Rome. For Rome, the East bowed to Caesar rather than God.
Add to that the two worlds of Greeks and Latins - next to no bilingualism ( it is well attested that at meetings one side seldom if ever understood the other), little authority in terms of ritual: and you'll see how easy it was for separation to occur.
Also, the East had long been the home of heresies and of various "monophysite" teachings which tended to dismiss the notion of the Trinity (no doubt one of the reasons Islam took hold so readily in the Church of the East).
1054 wasn't the schism -true, Caerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated; but Orthodox believers were not. The Schism proper came 400 years later at the Council of Florence.
Schism is about obedience rather than theology as such- unbelievers are mere heretics. Little differences: celibate clergy, leavened or unleavened bread, sign of the cross etc are not fundamental: they are merely, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, a wilful disobedience.
For non-catholics to question this makes little sense: to be a Catholic is, in part at least, NOT to question this authority.
One always hopes of course that these topics are raised for the purpose of enlightenment rather than dull brainless post-generation.
I would advocate that any poster who is genuinely interested takes the effort to read up Photius and the other leading figures. and if it seems odd: what will they make of TV evangelists and the countless American denominations, in a millennium's time?
At least those old Greeks and Romans always tried to keep to reason and logic and learning.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 17 days ago with 31 member flags
Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 4 days ago with 14 member flags
I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags
Christians Waking Up? Voluntary \'De-Baptism\' Rising in Europe
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 10 days ago with 7 member flags
Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 6 hours ago, 57 replies
Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 10 hours ago, 52 replies