Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 128

Thread: Why Do People Believe This Lie?

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Sigh. No one here has said that God does not convey meaning to man in propositional form. What is being said is that God can convey meaning to man in more than one way. You are again putting limits on God.

    Anyway, Happy Fathers Day to you!
    Thanks, to you as well.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Sola got banned?
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Sola got banned?
    tfurrh sighting


    ...and yes.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Sola got banned?
    yes, several times.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    yes, several times.
    Man, kinda not Liberty related, but I've found myself becoming more and more in agreement with reformed theology over the last few years, and remembered SolaFide was always mentioning reformed churches/reformed theology. Back in 2012 I had no idea what that was, much less what Sola Fide meant, so was just gonna see if he was still around....no worries though.
    Last edited by tfurrh; 09-18-2018 at 07:11 PM. Reason: changed was to meant
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Man, kinda not Liberty related, but I've found myself becoming more and more in agreement with reformed theology over the last few years, and remembered SolaFide was always mentioning reformed churches/reformed theology. Back in 2012 I had no idea what that was, much less what Sola Fide meant, so was just gonna see if he was still around....no worries though.
    For better or worse, Sola is not really mainstream Reformed. He was pretty fringe for Reformed thought. I don't know if Hells_Unicorn is still around or not, he's also kind of fringe Reformed but in a very different way. (Strict Covenanter in the latter case vs what we would technically call a neo-gnostic Calvinist in the former case).

    I was Reformed when I used to post back in the day, but am seriously considering the RCC and EO at this point.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    For better or worse, Sola is not really mainstream Reformed. He was pretty fringe for Reformed thought. I don't know if Hells_Unicorn is still around or not, he's also kind of fringe Reformed but in a very different way. (Strict Covenanter in the latter case vs what we would technically call a neo-gnostic Calvinist in the former case).

    I was Reformed when I used to post back in the day, but am seriously considering the RCC and EO at this point.
    Wow! Awesome news brother! You have been in my prayers for years. God is good!
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  10. #98
    CL, just ran into this video. Nice explanation of the historical process by which the Christian Biblical canon was formulated. You may find it of interest.

    Summary: Constantine did not choose the Canon, even though historical revisionists who have not studied history say otherwise.

    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Wow! Awesome news brother! You have been in my prayers for years. God is good!
    I really appreciate that. Thank you.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  12. #100
    Ah, I pop in briefly and remember this was the last thing I posted.

    If anyone cares, I'm currently a catechumen in the Catholic Church, Ukrainian Rite.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Ah, I pop in briefly and remember this was the last thing I posted.

    If anyone cares, I'm currently a catechumen in the Catholic Church, Ukrainian Rite.
    Nice to see you around! It has been a while!

    It seems you are making some big moves in your life. May it be blessed!

    Interesting that you have decided to move forward with the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What was the determining factor for you which led you to choose the one over the other?
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Nice to see you around! It has been a while!

    It seems you are making some big moves in your life. May it be blessed!

    Interesting that you have decided to move forward with the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What was the determining factor for you which led you to choose the one over the other?
    Rome vs EO was the hardest decision, and I'm less sure that I'm right there than that I am on Protestantism, which I am now convinced is completely unworkable.

    To briefly summarize it, two things

    1: it seems to me that the fathers saw the Bishop of Rome as an extremely important role. Even if an EO wishes to argue that Rome has exaggerated the role of the Bishop of Rome, it still seems that you cannot have the fulness of the Church without them. Yet both Rome and EO claim to be the Church Jesus founded. However you take Matthew 16 with regards to Peter, I don't think Peter can be in one place and the Church be in a different place, if that makes sense.

    2: The impossibility of Eastern Orthodoxy to determine, ultimately, who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Such as for instance with the recent mutual excommunications of Moscow and Constantinople . I know some people on the EO side have argued that that's a question that's above a layperson's paygrade and such, and I get that, but in the end, philosophically, I think there's got to be somewhere where the buck stops, so to speak. And Jesus seems to say that's with Peter, he hands Peter the keys, and the other apostles are given the exercise of the keys, but not the keys themselves.

    As a third point, which isn't as important as the other two, but still significant, it seems to me that EO has an inconsistent attitude toward development of doctrine, whereas Rome seems to be pretty consistent with the notion that it develops doctrine. Hence you have a lot of lack of clarity on what exactly EO believes on certain key issues. Maybe I'm just too western

    All that being said, I think EO has a beautiful liturgy, which I'm really drawn to, which is a large part of why I'm joining the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Sola got banned?
    Sola would flip if he knew I crossed the Tiber of all things
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    The impossibility of Eastern Orthodoxy to determine, ultimately, who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
    Sounds like people who believe what Jesus taught them, to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew 7
    1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    Jesus says it's above a layperson's pay grade. In fact, He says it's above any person's pay grade. Keys to the Kingdom will be handed out justly, and if there's one thing millennia of civilization has taught us it's that justice is a thing humans aren't good at.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Rome vs EO was the hardest decision, and I'm less sure that I'm right there than that I am on Protestantism, which I am now convinced is completely unworkable.

    To briefly summarize it, two things

    1: it seems to me that the fathers saw the Bishop of Rome as an extremely important role. Even if an EO wishes to argue that Rome has exaggerated the role of the Bishop of Rome, it still seems that you cannot have the fulness of the Church without them. Yet both Rome and EO claim to be the Church Jesus founded. However you take Matthew 16 with regards to Peter, I don't think Peter can be in one place and the Church be in a different place, if that makes sense.

    2: The impossibility of Eastern Orthodoxy to determine, ultimately, who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Such as for instance with the recent mutual excommunications of Moscow and Constantinople . I know some people on the EO side have argued that that's a question that's above a layperson's paygrade and such, and I get that, but in the end, philosophically, I think there's got to be somewhere where the buck stops, so to speak. And Jesus seems to say that's with Peter, he hands Peter the keys, and the other apostles are given the exercise of the keys, but not the keys themselves.

    As a third point, which isn't as important as the other two, but still significant, it seems to me that EO has an inconsistent attitude toward development of doctrine, whereas Rome seems to be pretty consistent with the notion that it develops doctrine. Hence you have a lot of lack of clarity on what exactly EO believes on certain key issues. Maybe I'm just too western

    All that being said, I think EO has a beautiful liturgy, which I'm really drawn to, which is a large part of why I'm joining the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.
    I must say that it does seem that you are taking this conversion seriously and are studying the nuances and differences, which, while few (relatively speaking), are critically important in differentiation. I commend you on your journey! May God bless you!

    Would you be willing to discuss these points above with a layman like myself? Of course, a priest would be a much better source, but I am happy to delve further into these differences with you if you are willing.
    Last edited by TER; 05-04-2019 at 12:01 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I must say that it does seem that you are taking this conversion seriously and are studying the nuances and differences, which, while few (relatively speaking), are critically important in differentiation. I commmend you on your journey! May God bless you!

    Would you be willing to discuss these points above with a layman like myself? Of course, a priest would be a much better source, but I am happy to delve further into these differences with you if you are willing.
    Yes, I'm definitely willing to discuss it.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Sounds like people who believe what Jesus taught them, to me.



    Jesus says it's above a layperson's pay grade. In fact, He says it's above any person's pay grade. Keys to the Kingdom will be handed out justly, and if there's one thing millennia of civilization has taught us it's that justice is a thing humans aren't good at.
    To be clear, we aren't talking about the subjective disposition of people's souls. I agree with you that that's up to God. I'm talking about ecclesiology, and the nature of ecclesiology.

    So for instance, contra what many Protestants think, the Council of Trent doesn't definitively say that any particular Protestant is going to Hell. We agree that that's up to God. But we do say that objectively the doctrine is heretical and that those who believe the doctrines condemned at Trent are *objectively* outside the Church. That's how every council works, and every ex cathedra statement, and that always is how they have worked.

    I don't think the EO would agree with the nature of your critique here, since you're conflating ecclesiology with the personal, private state of people's souls. My critique of EO there (which I realize, needs more discussion) deals with ecclesiology, not subjective disposition
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    To be clear, we aren't talking about the subjective disposition of people's souls. I agree with you that that's up to God. I'm talking about ecclesiology, and the nature of ecclesiology.

    So for instance, contra what many Protestants think, the Council of Trent doesn't definitively say that any particular Protestant is going to Hell. We agree that that's up to God. But we do say that objectively the doctrine is heretical and that those who believe the doctrines condemned at Trent are *objectively* outside the Church. That's how every council works, and every ex cathedra statement, and that always is how they have worked.

    I don't think the EO would agree with the nature of your critique here, since you're conflating ecclesiology with the personal, private state of people's souls. My critique of EO there (which I realize, needs more discussion) deals with ecclesiology, not subjective disposition
    I congratulate you, brother. You've made progress since I saw you last.

    Nice to see you!
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I congratulate you, brother. You've made progress since I saw you last.

    Nice to see you!
    Nice to see you too! I know its been awhile.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  23. #110
    So basically my issue with the EP and MP thing isn't that we need to epistemically know who is or isn't damned, but who is or isn't excommunicated. Those are *related*, because God did actually give the Church authority, but God also can work outside the structures he's established. God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound.

    So my question to TER or any other EOs who are interested in interacting is this. Both the EP and the MP excommunicated each other. Both believe they have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. By what epistemic measure can we determine who is right? Again, I'm gonna reiterate since I know this is a common point of contention in this particular forum. Its not about whether someone is personally damned, but whether someone is in fact excommunicated.

    I grant that sometimes Rome has similar problems where it has multiple papal claimants, but these are in theory resolvable in the sense that *on principle* Rome says there is only one Pope, and every time there's been a dispute between multiple claimants, Rome eventually solved the problem by establishing a certain Pope, recognized by the entire Catholic world, and once the Catholic world knows who the Pope is, it knows who has the authority to make those kinds of ecclesial judgments. Whereas I'm not exactly sure how EO solves this problem.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Yes, I'm definitely willing to discuss it.
    Awesome! I will try my best, but of course there are plenty of sources online and in print which will give you a deeper understanding. I can recommend some books for you as well. This one is a great one to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Catholi.../dp/0964914182

    1: it seems to me that the fathers saw the Bishop of Rome as an extremely important role. Even if an EO wishes to argue that Rome has exaggerated the role of the Bishop of Rome, it still seems that you cannot have the fulness of the Church without them. Yet both Rome and EO claim to be the Church Jesus founded. However you take Matthew 16 with regards to Peter, I don't think Peter can be in one place and the Church be in a different place, if that makes sense.
    You are most definitely correct that the early Church Fathers viewed the Bishop of Rome as an important role, both because it was the See originally started by St. Peter, who is also known as the Prince of the Apostles, and because as the Bishop in the capital city of Rome, it yielded significant power within the world in the first centuries.

    That being said, nowhere and no Church Father has made the mention or implied that you cannot have the fullness of the Church without the See of Rome. The Christian teaching from the very first Church Fathers, especially St. Ignatius, and what the Ecumenical Councils teach is that the fullness of the Church is found wherever there is a local Church (which means the Bishop, the clergy, and the laity). That incorporates the fullness of the Church, just as the Holy Eucharist incorporates the fullness of Christ. Whether there is 5 bishops in the world, 50, or a hundred, or a Bishop of Rome or Constantinople or Alexandria or Jerusalem is meaningless in regards to the fullness of the Church. The Church exists in her fullness wherever there is (an orthodox, catholic, apostolic) ekklesia with the trinitarian structure of Bishop, the clergy (as respresentatives of the Bishop), and the laity.

    In essence, if one Patriarchate sadly falls away from the rest of the Church (which is what happened in the Great Schism), it does not affect the fullness of the Church, no matter which Sees have fallen away. The Church is One, and not divided. Rather, people fall away from her.

    St. Peter is not in ‘another place’ within the EO Church. St. Peter is within the Church and one of its most revered Saints. What happens to the local Church which He was Shepherd of after he died (whether Antioch, which was the first See he was Bishop of, or later Rome) does not have any effect on his standing within the Church. The Roman Petrine doctrine that the successor of St. Peter is somehow the leader of the Church just by virtue of following him in succession is not a canonical teaching. In fact, the very first Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem had St. James as presiding over it. That alone dismisses the argument of many of the RC claims. It was St. Peter as well who was corrected by St. Paul and the other Apostles for his Judaizing actions. St. Peter was a leader in the view as a chairman of the board for his charisma and faith, but this did not translate to him being the supreme authority or, God-forbid, the Vicar of Christ. He was a flawed person (as we all are), definitely not infallible, and rather it was through the voice of the several, in synod, whereby the Holy Spirit would speak and the truth be revealed. For as Christ taught, He is there where two or three are together- not one. Thus, in the same ancient structure, in the image of the first Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts, the EO has maintained that it is through synod whereby doctrine disputes are settled, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

    I will stop at this point as there is a lot to unpack, and I want you to have an opportunity to bring up your own understandings or questions about what I have written so far.
    Last edited by TER; 05-04-2019 at 12:36 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    So basically my issue with the EP and MP thing isn't that we need to epistemically know who is or isn't damned, but who is or isn't excommunicated. Those are *related*, because God did actually give the Church authority, but God also can work outside the structures he's established. God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound.

    So my question to TER or any other EOs who are interested in interacting is this. Both the EP and the MP excommunicated each other. Both believe they have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. By what epistemic measure can we determine who is right? Again, I'm gonna reiterate since I know this is a common point of contention in this particular forum. Its not about whether someone is personally damned, but whether someone is in fact excommunicated.

    I grant that sometimes Rome has similar problems where it has multiple papal claimants, but these are in theory resolvable in the sense that *on principle* Rome says there is only one Pope, and every time there's been a dispute between multiple claimants, Rome eventually solved the problem by establishing a certain Pope, recognized by the entire Catholic world, and once the Catholic world knows who the Pope is, it knows who has the authority to make those kinds of ecclesial judgments. Whereas I'm not exactly sure how EO solves this problem.

    The history of the EO Church is filled with times of crisis and schism. In fact, one of the proofs that it is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit is the fact that it has survived in spite of the fallible people who have been within Her and created scandal and divisions. A miracle indeed!

    Note that these PALE in comparison to the schisms which have happened in the RC which led to the Protestant Reformation, the Anglican Church, etc etc. Indeed, of the original Pentarchy of the Early Church, Rome fell away and the other four still exist and within the EOC. This is precisely because the EO keeps to the apostolic faith handed down and do not ‘develop’ doctrine.

    This current lamentable situation between Moscow and Constantinople is one more blip in a timeline of many blips (pretty tame relatively speaking if you study the history of the Church). But through the grace of God, it will be resolved in due time and the Church will be stronger because of it, as it has happened in the past. Note, the MP alone has excommunicated the EP, and the EP has not excommunicated the MP. Whether it was appropriate to do so or not, is debatable (personally, I agree with the MP’s arguments, but not necessarily with their prescription for remedy). A similar problem happened about 25 years ago and was resolved. Again, small blips in the timeline. These are due to mainly political and ecclesiological disputes, and not dogmatic doctrines, and will be resolved in time as they have in the past. For the average Orthodox faithful, this has made no discernible difference and will continue to be less and less significant as time goes by. The mechanism in place to resolve this, which is what you are inquiring about, is already established. Namely, if necessary, a Holy Council will be called, prayerful deliberations will be done, and then a resolution made through consensus, in the image of the original Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, guided by the Holy Spirit.
    Last edited by TER; 05-04-2019 at 12:57 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    So basically my issue with the EP and MP thing isn't that we need to epistemically know who is or isn't damned, but who is or isn't excommunicated. Those are *related*, because God did actually give the Church authority, but God also can work outside the structures he's established. God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound.

    So my question to TER or any other EOs who are interested in interacting is this. Both the EP and the MP excommunicated each other. Both believe they have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. By what epistemic measure can we determine who is right? Again, I'm gonna reiterate since I know this is a common point of contention in this particular forum. Its not about whether someone is personally damned, but whether someone is in fact excommunicated.

    I grant that sometimes Rome has similar problems where it has multiple papal claimants, but these are in theory resolvable in the sense that *on principle* Rome says there is only one Pope, and every time there's been a dispute between multiple claimants, Rome eventually solved the problem by establishing a certain Pope, recognized by the entire Catholic world, and once the Catholic world knows who the Pope is, it knows who has the authority to make those kinds of ecclesial judgments. Whereas I'm not exactly sure how EO solves this problem.
    I don't totally understand the conflict between Moscow and Constantinople yet. :/ But it doesn't affect my everyday life. Here's a piece about it from 2018 FWIW: https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2018...inary-reports/
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    The history of the EO Church is filled with times of crisis and schism. In fact, one of the proofs that it is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit is the fact that it has survived in spite of the fallible people who have been within Her and created scandal and divisions. A miracle indeed!

    Note that these PALE in comparison to the schisms which have happened in the RC which led to the Protestant Reformation, the Anglican Church, etc etc. Indeed, of the original Pentarchy of the Early Church, Rome fell away and the other four still exist and within the EOC. This is precisely because the EO keeps to the apostolic faith handed down and do not ‘develop’ doctrine.

    This current lamentable situation between Moscow and Constantinople is one more blip in a timeline of many blips (pretty tame relatively speaking if you study the history of the Church). But through the grace of God, it will be resolved in due time and the Church will be stronger because of it, as it has happened in the past. Note, the MP alone has excommunicated the EP, and the EP has not excommunicated the MP. Whether it was appropriate to do so or not, is debatable (personally, I agree with the MP’s arguments, but not necessarily with their prescription for remedy). A similar problem happened about 25 years ago and was resolved. Again, small blips in the timeline. These are due to mainly political and ecclesiological disputes, and not dogmatic doctrines, and will be resolved in time as they have in the past. For the average Orthodox faithful, this has made no discernible difference and will continue to be less and less significant as time goes by. The mechanism in place to resolve this, which is what you are inquiring about, is already established. Namely, if necessary, a Holy Council will be called, prayerful deliberations will be done, and then a resolution made through consensus, in the image of the original Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, guided by the Holy Spirit.
    It would be a relatively small synod, IIRC, yes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Awesome! I will try my best, but of course there are plenty of sources online and in print which will give you a deeper understanding. I can recommend some books for you as well. This one is a great one to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Catholi.../dp/0964914182
    I'll try to get that one some time in the near future. Thanks!

    You are most definitely correct that the early Church Fathers viewed the Bishop of Rome as an important role, both because it was the See originally started by St. Peter, who is also known as the Prince of the Apostles, and because as the Bishop in the capital city of Rome, it yielded significant power within the world in the first centuries.

    That being said, nowhere and no Church Father has made the mention or implied that you cannot have the fullness of the Church without the See of Rome. The Christian teaching from the very first Church Fathers, especially St. Ignatius, and what the Ecumenical Councils teach is that the fullness of the Church is found wherever there is a local Church (which means the Bishop, the clergy, and the laity). That incorporates the fullness of the Church, just as the Holy Eucharist incorporates the fullness of Christ. Whether there is 5 bishops in the world, 50, or a hundred, or a Bishop of Rome or Constantinople or Alexandria or Jerusalem is meaningless in regards to the fullness of the Church. The Church exists in her fullness wherever there is (an orthodox, catholic, apostolic) ekklesia with the trinitarian structure of Bishop, the clergy (as respresentatives of the Bishop), and the laity.
    This raises a question. In your mind would this apply to the Roman Catholic Church? And why or why not? One thing I've noticed with EOs is I've never been able to get a definitive answer on whether Roman Catholic sacraments are valid or not, and I've seen some hinting that categorizations like valid or invalid might not exist in EO (BTW: A lot of what I know of EO, though not all of it, comes from Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's podcast "Ancient Faith" where he goes through Eastern Orthodoxy and contrasts it with a bunch of other worldviews. I listened to the introductory episodes and the episodes on Roman Catholicism and Magisterial Protestantism.
    In essence, if one Patriarchate sadly falls away from the rest of the Church (which is what happened in the Great Schism), it does not affect the fullness of the Church, no matter which Sees have fallen away. The Church is One, and not divided. Rather, people fall away from her.
    hmmmmmm, that could raise another question ,but it would be more complex and I'd have to think about how to formulate it. And there are more key things that I wanted to address.
    St. Peter is not in ‘another place’ within the EO Church. St. Peter is within the Church and one of its most revered Saints. What happens to the local Church which He was Shepherd of after he died (whether Antioch, which was the first See he was Bishop of, or later Rome) does not have any effect on his standing within the Church. The Roman Petrine doctrine that the successor of St. Peter is somehow the leader of the Church just by virtue of following him in succession is not a canonical teaching. In fact, the very first Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem had St. James as presiding over it. It was St. Peter as well who was corrected by St. Paul and the other Apostles for his Judaizing actions. St. Peter was a leader in the view as a chairman of the board for his charisma and faith, but this did not translate to him being the supreme authority or, God-forbid, the Vicar of Christ. He was a flawed person (as we all are), definitely not infallible, and rather it was through the voice of the several, in synod, whereby the Holy Spirit would speak and the truth be revealed. For as Christ taught, He is there where two or three are together- not one. Thus, in the same ancient structure, in the image of the first Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts, the EO has maintained that it is through synod whereby doctrine disputes are settled, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
    I had in mind particularly Peter's successors in the Church of Rome. That being said, I think what you present is an exaggerated view of the papacy. Catholics don't believe the Pope is infallible in everything he says or everything he does. We obviously know Honorius promoted heresy for instance. Recently multiple cardinals have corrected Pope Francis, and there was recently a letter by a number of clerics accusing him of heresy. I think the reasoning behind the "Vicar of Christ" title is just that the Church is a monarchy and since the Church is visible on earth, it needs a visible king. Obviously we acknowledge that Christ is ultimately king over the Church, but he reigns from heaven and thus is not locally present administering the day to day.

    I'm not sure that's the very best explanation, but at any rate we don't say the Pope in and of his own person, or every single thing he says, is infallible, but only when he's solemnly defining doctrine as dogmatic and to be believed by the entire Church.

    We know there have been many popes who have lived morally reprobate lives, and some who have even taught errors, but not in the definite capacity of an ex cathedra definition.

    BTW this isn't meant as a polemic against EO, just as an explanation of what we really do, and don't, teach about the papacy.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I don't totally understand the conflict between Moscow and Constantinople yet. :/ But it doesn't affect my everyday life. Here's a piece about it from 2018 FWIW: https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2018...inary-reports/
    It’s very complicated and both sides make compelling points. God will correct things in time as He always has.

    As for Rome, they have much greater problems they are sorting out right now. Some within the RC are calling Pope Francis a heretic and pushing for his termination. Not to mention the serious homosexual/pedophila problems which are being uncovered. They need our prayers.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  31. #117
    Have to run some errands but will get back to your last post tonight or tomorrow.

    I am enjoying this discussion. I hope you are too!
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    It would be a relatively small synod, IIRC, yes?
    Depends. Hopefully it will be resolved between the two alone, likely with another Patriarch mediating.

    If it grows into a bigger problem, could in theory end up being a Ecumenical Council, but that would be very unlikely.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Have to run some errands but will get back to your last post tonight or tomorrow.

    I am enjoying this discussion. I hope you are too!
    I'm enjoying it too. And yeah, I realize Rome has problems as well. I agree that Rome needs our (everyone's prayers.) And I'm not trying to take any cheap shots against EO. I seriously considered it at various times during my journey, and I think EO is definitely a *far* more plausible option than Protestantism of any type. In the end, any discussion of what reasons for decisions like this are going to come down to perceived deficiencies in the other side, but I don't mean any of them as attacks.

    All that said, to be honest, this probably wouldn't have been nearly as tough a decision for me had I lived in the 1950s. Perhaps that's a deficiency of mine. My biggest doubts regarding Catholicism likely come down to events that have taken place in the last 60 years.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  34. #120
    Anyone else notice the irony that we're now discussing RC vs EO on a Sola_Fide OP? LOL!
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-22-2012, 04:16 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 10:21 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 02:34 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 11:25 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 11:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •