 |
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:31
|
|
quote: Like I said a few posts up, the church began in the East. The West only developed the traditions of "catholicism" around the Dark Ages. Relative newcomers compared to us, if we're talking about who's the oldest and nothing else. |
Catholicism was around long before the Dark Ages.
And if the Eastern part of the church was the "true" church, then why did they follow the Pope (the Roman one, that is), for centuries before finally splitting?
Also, wasn't the word "Catholic" already used in the Creed of Nicea, in 325, when the Arrian church was denounced?
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes. "
More so, the Pope in Rome could very well be seen as the succesor to Jesus himself, though I do not particulary feel inclined to defend church doctrines I don't feel comfortable with. Still, their claim remains the strongest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003 time: 00:31
|
|
The Pope was traditionally "first among equals," and had no real power. He was given extra respect for being the successor to Peter, but that's it. The big split happened when he got grabby for more. We've always been democratic, like the church was in the beginning.
"Catholic," BTW, means universal, as in one church everywhere. The religion is properly called Roman Catholic.
The Church in the West came into being a few short years after the Eastern one, but for a good few centuries the two halves were more or less identical. The liturgical differences and customs began to appear shortly before the dark ages, and almost all the doctrinal issues that distinguish the Catholics from us were invented after 1054. We share a common origin, but it's pretty clear that their ways grew and changed out of ours, not vice versa.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
Oh no, that place is reserved for the Catholic church. |
Jup, I think he´s correct (thinkin about Witchhunts, Crusades and Conquistadores converting Heathen with Fire and Sword)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The Anglican church has those same things. What do you think makes Lutheranism "better" or "more right" than Anglicanism?
(note: I'm asking about English Anglicanism and Continental Lutheranism here, not American spin-off churches). |
Hey! The Protestant Episcopal Church is way ahead of the Church of England in terms of social progress. We're ahead in terms of our treatment of women and gays.
To Episcopalians all Christians are Catholics, just not necessarily Roman Catholics. Howse about that?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003 time: 00:31
|
|
Er, "grew and changed"? What's this change you're talking about? We're Orthodox. We're not exactly well-known for changing with the times. I don't believe we ever have, come to think of it. All of *our* ecumenical councils just clarified earlier statements to stomp out heresies. Remaining constant is our whole claim to fame. Rome, on the other hand, barely even resembles the ancient church.
And it wasn't us leaving you. A cardinal excommunicated the Patriarch, in the middle of the Pascha service, in 1054. The other three dioces sided with Constantinople, and Rome was excommunicated in turn by all four together. It's usually portrayed as an even split, but the issue was your side getting grabby for power it hadn't earned.
The Pope is ostensibly the successor of Peter, yes, but frankly, Peter was Bishop of Antioch a long time before he was Bishop of Rome so it's a very fine distinction. Given the current state of the church, it strikes me as very similar to calling Jefferson Davis the successor of George Washington. You gave up your rights to superiority-not that you ever had them-when you turned crooked.
In response to Ben, the "almost" was in reference to the differing stances on the iconoclast heresy (the one case I know of where Rome convinced us they were right), leavened vs. unleavened bread for communion, and other doctrinal issues mostly tied to liturgical custom. We consider ourselves as equally entitled to apostolic succession as the Catholics. We consider them younger brothers mostly because of their status as heretics.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Dr. Strangelove:
My sloppy wording shows sloppy thinking.
You can go to the service, but can you take communion?
That's what I meant by participating in the service. I am permitted to participate in the remainder of the mass, I have done so with my girlfriend for about the past 6 months or so.
The same is what I meant by participating in a Protestant communion. Though by my church, my girlfriend would be permitted to take the bread and the wine, the Pope does not allow this for the reasons of Apostolic succession. In short, our pastors are still rebels, and Christ will not be present in bread or the wine.
I'm not sure about Episcopals or Anglicans, you folks are a funny sort of protestants, much closer to the Catholics doctrinally than my church would be, particularly regarding the Eucharist. |
Yup, we can take the Catholic communion. Sometimes our neighbor's daughter shanghais my daughter to their church on Sundays. No one has freaked out about her being Episcopalian.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Like Air for example
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lorizael

|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Like Air for example |
Only if you take that quote as literally as possible. The quote should really be hope in things not perceived. We perceive air, though we don't see it. We perceive subatomic particles, though we don't see them. We perceive gravity, though we don't see it.
For all these things there is evidence that indicates that there existence is real even if we cannot see it with our own eyes. Observation and experimentation still shows that these things are there.
And before you think that your sight is so reliable, you should know what seeing is. Photons, generally emitted by the sun or from our own artificial sources, strike atoms, exciting the electrons of those atoms. The electrons, in order to maintain a stable orbit, release photons that correspond to the properties of those atoms and then sink back down to their normal position. These photons - which are both particles and waves at the same time - make contact with our eyes. This produces an electrical signal that travels throughout our brain, is flipped around a good deal, and is then interpreted based upon our knowledge of the universe, our experiences. Then we "see" it. Seeing is believing?
And now to faith. "Faith is hope in things not seen." If a thing is not seen (read: perceived) then it can have one of two sources. The first source is the supernatural, an area above and beyond our natural universe that does not necessarily follow any of the laws we are familiar with. People with faith trust that the supernatural exists.
Or, if a thing does not exist in the physical, detectable universe, then it exists in our mind. If a thing cannot be shown to be real, then it would have to be an artificial construct of our brain. In addition, this thing must be willed into existence by our consciousness, for it cannot have an external source. If it were to have an external source, it would be "seen" and would not be faith-based.
In other words, faith is more accurately described as hope in things greater than ourselves, or hope in things desired. And there is absolutely no way that we can ever tell the difference.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|