RCC views of Eastern Orthodoxy?

romishpopishorganist said:
Given that the Church didn't work out how to speak with clarity about the relationship of Christ to the Father until 325AD
Click to expand...

Christ always spoke with clarity about His relationship to the Father....and the Apostles did no less.

The utter confusion on the part of your Masters is on them, and if you follow such confusion, on you.


romishpopishorganist said:
I don't see what your problem is that the Church has yet to speak with clarity about the precise nature of the relationship of the bishops to the pope.
Click to expand...

They are clueless. When will they get around to figuring it out?

LOL.

No one knows. Supposedly 2000 years, and they still scratch their heads....pretending to be in authority over all Christians everywhere. It is laughable.

romishpopishorganist said:
Or maybe they will get around to it when Protestants finally get around to providing us with all the official God Breathed teachings of the Bible?
Click to expand...

We have them all. They are in black and white for everyone to see. They remain unchanged. They are verifiable before all, and in authority over all.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Athanasius provided the Univeral Church with the language to speak with clarity. Much of what he said--became the basis for the Creed--and the definitions at Nicaea.

And you are correct. I do not dispute what you are saying. Yes, the Church needed to meet the Arian heresy head on. Note by the way--the Church is fully united here. There is only one Church. There aren't hundreds of sects responding individually to the heresy, there is one Church with one recognized set of leaders united under the Bishop of Rome.

I admitted no such thing. We are not confused as to who and what the leadership are. We just do not yet speak with absolute clarity on one particular issue: that of the precise nature of the relationship of the pope to the bishops. Reason? We haven't had to do that yet. There has not been a controversy that effected the unity of the Church, necessitating the Church speak to it.

We didn't "add" apocryphal books to Scripture, we clarified the status of the Deutero-Canonicals.
Click to expand...
Athanasius provided the Univeral Church with the language to speak with clarity.
Click to expand...

I think the church already had that language. Nicea proved the early church had a solid Christology.

Note by the way--the Church is fully united here. There is only one Church. There aren't hundreds of sects responding individually to the heresy, there is one Church with one recognized set of leaders united under the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...

Ya, the church was young i don't have a problem with that. The church would also split geographically very soon, east and west. And there were differences in certain traditions the east and west didn't agree on but still had the charity to part in love.

The bishop of rome at that time was not over the church. Thats you being anachronistic. The canons of Nicea explicitly lay out the jurisdiction for the various Sees, Rome included.

Lastly, the rcc did make the canon official at Trent. It was there that they added an anathema for the first time. That is when the apocrypha was elevated to inspired status. Not before.
 
Last edited:
romishpopishorganist said:
I see the Catholics and Orthodox as no more than in schism. Reunion with the Orthodox is possible--far more possible than reunion with the Protestants.

I can't speak to why the Orthodox feel as they feel, but I would see us as much closer to them than perhaps they see their relationship to us. They have valid Apostolic Succession, a valid priesthood, valid Sacraments. They are essentially Catholic. We just have differences on some things.
Click to expand...
Why is one of your "things" quite different than what the eternal Word of God says in Hebrews 7 where He makes it very clear that the human priesthood "thing" has been done away with?
 
RayneBeau said:
Why is one of your "things" quite different than what the eternal Word of God says in Hebrews 7 where He makes it very clear that the human priesthood "thing" has been done away with?
Click to expand...
If the priesthood has been done away with, why do you consider yourself to have the priesthood of all believers?
 
romishpopishorganist said:
I see the Catholics and Orthodox as no more than in schism. Reunion with the Orthodox is possible--far more possible than reunion with the Protestants.

I can't speak to why the Orthodox feel as they feel, but I would see us as much closer to them than perhaps they see their relationship to us. They have valid Apostolic Succession, a valid priesthood, valid Sacraments. They are essentially Catholic. We just have differences on some things.
Click to expand...


The Eastern Orthodox, see the chasm between them and the RCC as a lot wider.
 
Atemi said:
When will your church finally admit they are not Christ's one, true church and tell all 1 billion+ of you that they have been lying to you all this time?

Let me guess: you expect the Orthodox to do all that.
Click to expand...
I consider the Orthodox to be part of Christ's Church--that is--they are part of the one true Church. In other words--they are part of our family--at least from my perspective. The relationship between the Orthodox and RCC are like siblings that have disagreements. We are still part of the same family.

Protestants on the other hand---are very different. The Orthodox still have a valid priesthood, Sacraments, and apostolic succession. Protestants don't.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
I consider the Orthodox to be part of Christ's Church--that is--they are part of the one true Church. In other words--they are part of our family--at least from my perspective. The relationship between the Orthodox and RCC are like siblings that have disagreements. We are still part of the same family.

Protestants on the other hand---are very different. The Orthodox still have a valid priesthood, Sacraments, and apostolic succession. Protestants don't.
Click to expand...


Why don't you think the Orthodox think that highly of the RCC?
 
romishpopishorganist said:
I consider the Orthodox to be part of Christ's Church--that is--they are part of the one true Church. In other words--they are part of our family--at least from my perspective. The relationship between the Orthodox and RCC are like siblings that have disagreements. We are still part of the same family.

Protestants on the other hand---are very different. The Orthodox still have a valid priesthood, Sacraments, and apostolic succession. Protestants don't.
Click to expand...
They don't accept your pope as the one and only.
 
Atemi said:
No, no, no.

They teach that they ARE Christ's one, true church which requires your sect's submission, not friendship.

The same goes for the RCC.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't seem reasonable to expect EO members and leaders to bend a knee to the RC Pope, if they believe they are the "one, true church".

Catholics like Romish say they expect the EO to unite with the RCC, but they never explain how they are going to move the EO off of their "one true church" contention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top