NATION

PASSWORD

Updated Catholic Bible

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Nulono
Senator
 
Posts: 3805
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Updated Catholic Bible

Postby Nulono » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:34 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-cat ... ty-virgin/

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has given its official translation of the Bible a little update. And while many of the changes will go unnoticed, there is one that could spark a lot of controversy.

“We needed a new translation because English is a living language,” retired auxiliary bishop of Milwaukee Richard Sklba, part of the review and editing team, told USA Today.

According to the paper, fifty scholars, translators, linguistics experts, theologians, and five bishops spent 17 years on the project. It’s the first update of the New American bible since 1970, and the group referenced everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to recent archaeological findings.

USA Today lists some of the more trivial changes:

The word “holocaust,” now associated with World War II genocide, has been replaced by “burnt offering.”
The 1970s version of the 23rd Psalm — “even when I walk through a dark valley” — becomes a “walk though the valley of the shadow of death.”
Proverbs 31:10, the ode to “The Ideal Wife,“ is now a ”Poem on the Woman of Worth.”
“Booty” has been replaced by “spoils” of war.
But the one raising eyebrows deals with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and a prophecy regarding her in Isaiah 7:14. According to that verse, “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” And that’s the way the old version of the New American Bible phrased it.

The new version, however, swaps “the virgin” for ” the young woman.”

According to USA today, “It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.” Yet Sklba insists the Catholic church will not change any of its teaching related to the change.

According to the Messianic Jewish group Jews for Jesus, almah does sometimes refer to a “young woman. But the group explains even though the Hebrew word is used, the insinuation is that the woman referenced is “chaste”:

In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste. [Emphasis theirs]
“One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah,” the group’s site says. “Nor can a serious student lightly dismiss the word as having no possible reference to a miraculous conception.”

USA Today says Catholics can read from any of two dozen English translations, however the New American Bible is the official translation used by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.


The changes are small, and seem to be modernizing the language, but I question some of them. The removal of "virgin" actually is truer to the original text, but the removal of "booty" seems to just be trying to avoid lame jokes (and am I the only one reminded of the "Urectum" bit on Futurama?).
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
Numbers written with an apostrophe are in dozenal unless otherwise noted.
For example, 0'3 = 0.25, and 100' = 144.

Ratios are measured in perunums instead of percent.
1 perunum = 100 percent = 84' percent

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.

Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.

User avatar
Distruzio
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24223
Founded: Feb 28, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Distruzio » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:38 am

They move further away from the truth. Sad.
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Christ is King
Glorify Him

capitalism is not natural
secularism is not neutral
liberalism is not tolerant

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:41 am

Eh. English is an evolving language. Might as well make a bible the lay people can read easier.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:41 am

Distruzio wrote:They move further away from the truth. Sad.

in what way?
whatever

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:43 am

Ashmoria wrote:
Distruzio wrote:They move further away from the truth. Sad.

in what way?


The Pope is the antichrist, the church the whore of babylon, etc. etc. blah blah, bullshit, bullshit. Remember you can only really worship Christ being an evangelical, everybody else is going to hell. If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me! :roll:

User avatar
Angleter
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12359
Founded: Apr 27, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Angleter » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:47 am

That's nice.
[align=center]"I gotta tell you, this is just crazy, huh! This is just nuts, OK! Jeezo man."

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:48 am

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:in what way?


The Pope is the antichrist, the church the whore of babylon, etc. etc. blah blah, bullshit, bullshit. Remember you can only really worship Christ being an evangelical, everybody else is going to hell. If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me! :roll:

oh

yeah

of course

my bad
whatever

User avatar
Distruzio
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24223
Founded: Feb 28, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Distruzio » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:53 am

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:in what way?


The Pope is the antichrist, the church the whore of babylon, etc. etc. blah blah, bullshit, bullshit. Remember you can only really worship Christ being an evangelical, everybody else is going to hell. If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me! :roll:

Image


When you put it that way Mike...
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Christ is King
Glorify Him

capitalism is not natural
secularism is not neutral
liberalism is not tolerant

User avatar
Norstal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41465
Founded: Mar 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Norstal » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:00 pm

I wonder if the translators are infused or possessed by angels.

Or Satan. :eek:
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★


New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.


IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10


NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.



Supreme Chairman for Life of the Itty Bitty Kitty Committee

User avatar
Call to power
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6908
Founded: Apr 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Call to power » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:08 pm

I disapprove of these minor aesthetic changes why not just teach people to understand the terms thus providing them with (some of) the knowledge to read earlier biblical texts themselves.

“Booty” has been replaced by “spoils” of war.


black Jesus disapproves of this revisionism.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Theoretically, why would anyone put anytime into anything but tobacco, intoxicants and sex?

Vareiln wrote:My god, CtP is right...
Not that you haven't been right before, but... Aw, hell, you get what I meant.

Tubbsalot wrote:replace my opinions with CtP's.


User avatar
Distruzio
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24223
Founded: Feb 28, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Distruzio » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:13 pm

Ashmoria wrote:
Distruzio wrote:They move further away from the truth. Sad.

in what way?


Virgin.

I'm Orthodox so the Ever Virgin Mary is quite central to my faith. The Orthodox and the Catholics were once One Catholic Church but... ego, politics, commercial wealth, and more tore us apart. Ever since, the Catholics have slowly but surely crept away from the true faith (as we express it in the Nicene Creed; to be fair they would say that it is we who have crept away). Not enough to warrant any disregard for their faith, but enough to warrant concern. To change the word virgin threatens to take away from the mystery and majesty of God. Mary was ever a virgin and imperfect, according to Orthodoxy. According to Catholicism, she was a young woman and perfect. Dangerous changes that alter the fundamental nature of Gods relationship with humanity. If she was perfect, which no human is (except Christ who is made perfect by his divinity), then there can be no hope of humanity being completely and fully redeemed by Christ since not even His mother existed as we do. If she was not a virgin, then this calls into question the commitment that each of us are called to make for the sake of the Kingdom. She was the mother of God Incarnate, according to Orthodoxy. This is a matter of no small significance. Changing the words alters the message delivered in Scripture and present opportunity to call into question the divinity of Christ.
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Christ is King
Glorify Him

capitalism is not natural
secularism is not neutral
liberalism is not tolerant

User avatar
OrangeCats
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jan 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby OrangeCats » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:21 pm

Distruzio wrote:Virgin.

I'm Orthodox so the Ever Virgin Mary is quite central to my faith. The Orthodox and the Catholics were once One Catholic Church but... ego, politics, commercial wealth, and more tore us apart. Ever since, the Catholics have slowly but surely crept away from the true faith (as we express it in the Nicene Creed; to be fair they would say that it is we who have crept away). Not enough to warrant any disregard for their faith, but enough to warrant concern. To change the word virgin threatens to take away from the mystery and majesty of God. Mary was ever a virgin and imperfect, according to Orthodoxy. According to Catholicism, she was a young woman and perfect. Dangerous changes that alter the fundamental nature of Gods relationship with humanity. If she was perfect, which no human is (except Christ who is made perfect by his divinity), then there can be no hope of humanity being completely and fully redeemed by Christ since not even His mother existed as we do. If she was not a virgin, then this calls into question the commitment that each of us are called to make for the sake of the Kingdom. She was the mother of God Incarnate, according to Orthodoxy. This is a matter of no small significance. Changing the words alters the message delivered in Scripture and present opportunity to call into question the divinity of Christ.


I don't get the impression that Catholic doctrine would change on that point, only the way it's worded in the Old Testament prophecy. It doesn't look like they'd change the reference to her being a virgin in the New Testament.

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 pm

OrangeCats wrote:
Distruzio wrote:Virgin.

I'm Orthodox so the Ever Virgin Mary is quite central to my faith. The Orthodox and the Catholics were once One Catholic Church but... ego, politics, commercial wealth, and more tore us apart. Ever since, the Catholics have slowly but surely crept away from the true faith (as we express it in the Nicene Creed; to be fair they would say that it is we who have crept away). Not enough to warrant any disregard for their faith, but enough to warrant concern. To change the word virgin threatens to take away from the mystery and majesty of God. Mary was ever a virgin and imperfect, according to Orthodoxy. According to Catholicism, she was a young woman and perfect. Dangerous changes that alter the fundamental nature of Gods relationship with humanity. If she was perfect, which no human is (except Christ who is made perfect by his divinity), then there can be no hope of humanity being completely and fully redeemed by Christ since not even His mother existed as we do. If she was not a virgin, then this calls into question the commitment that each of us are called to make for the sake of the Kingdom. She was the mother of God Incarnate, according to Orthodoxy. This is a matter of no small significance. Changing the words alters the message delivered in Scripture and present opportunity to call into question the divinity of Christ.


I don't get the impression that Catholic doctrine would change on that point, only the way it's worded in the Old Testament prophecy. It doesn't look like they'd change the reference to her being a virgin in the New Testament.


They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.

User avatar
Serrland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11968
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Serrland » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:47 pm

Distruzio wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:in what way?


Virgin.

I'm Orthodox so the Ever Virgin Mary is quite central to my faith. The Orthodox and the Catholics were once One Catholic Church but... ego, politics, commercial wealth, and more tore us apart. Ever since, the Catholics have slowly but surely crept away from the true faith (as we express it in the Nicene Creed; to be fair they would say that it is we who have crept away). Not enough to warrant any disregard for their faith, but enough to warrant concern. To change the word virgin threatens to take away from the mystery and majesty of God. Mary was ever a virgin and imperfect, according to Orthodoxy. According to Catholicism, she was a young woman and perfect. Dangerous changes that alter the fundamental nature of Gods relationship with humanity. If she was perfect, which no human is (except Christ who is made perfect by his divinity), then there can be no hope of humanity being completely and fully redeemed by Christ since not even His mother existed as we do. If she was not a virgin, then this calls into question the commitment that each of us are called to make for the sake of the Kingdom. She was the mother of God Incarnate, according to Orthodoxy. This is a matter of no small significance. Changing the words alters the message delivered in Scripture and present opportunity to call into question the divinity of Christ.


Except that this in no way changes the doctrine of the virgin birth.

User avatar
OrangeCats
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jan 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby OrangeCats » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:50 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I think I understand what you mean.

Only thing is, if the Hebrew text originally meant "young woman" as opposed to "virgin," it doesn't deny that she was a virgin, only fails to specify that she was one. If the New Testament still specifically does, then I don't see a conflict with what was believed before, it's just one less place where it's specified... So the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still holds.

...then again, maybe some will see it as a slippery slope toward eventually denying the Immaculate Conception?

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:52 pm

OrangeCats wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I think I understand what you mean.

Only thing is, if the Hebrew text originally meant "young woman" as opposed to "virgin," it doesn't deny that she was a virgin, only fails to specify that she was one. If the New Testament still specifically does, then I don't see a conflict with what was believed before, it's just one less place where it's specified... So the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still holds.

...then again, maybe some will see it as a slippery slope toward eventually denying the Immaculate Conception?


I think that's it. But it's far-fetched and way out there...the Church hasn't distanced itself from IC, it has strengthened it over the years, often bringing great criticism with it.

User avatar
Serrland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11968
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Serrland » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:52 pm

OrangeCats wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I think I understand what you mean.

Only thing is, if the Hebrew text originally meant "young woman" as opposed to "virgin," it doesn't deny that she was a virgin, only fails to specify that she was one. If the New Testament still specifically does, then I don't see a conflict with what was believed before, it's just one less place where it's specified... So the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still holds.

...then again, maybe some will see it as a slippery slope toward eventually denying the Immaculate Conception?


Immaculate Conception is very different - it is the doctrine that the Blessed Mother was born without hereditary sin.

User avatar
Oterro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16939
Founded: May 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Oterro » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:56 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
OrangeCats wrote:
I don't get the impression that Catholic doctrine would change on that point, only the way it's worded in the Old Testament prophecy. It doesn't look like they'd change the reference to her being a virgin in the New Testament.


They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?
we, unlike the bourgeoisie, have nothing to lose and therefore our expression will be the only honest one, our words will be the only challenging ones and our art will be the one revolutionary expression. We need new noise and new voices and new canvases to become something more than the last poets of a useless generation.

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:59 pm

Oterro wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?


Source? Because I'm pretty sure the Catholic church considers itself the same church from early Christianity (the uninterrupted Apostolic line), not to mention the papacy did exist (through the Bishop of Rome) and as early as Saint Augustine, there was support for the papacy and it's theological authority.

User avatar
Ceannairceach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26637
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ceannairceach » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:59 pm

Did they fix the part about homosexuality?

@}-;-'---

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most..." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 112592
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:00 pm

Oterro wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?

They were established at the same time and were essentially the same church. The formal break didn't come until 1054, though there is a whole history of disagreements leading up to it. Arch will correct me, if need be, I'm sure.
Last edited by Farnhamia on Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:00 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:Did they fix the part about homosexuality?


No, we are still suppose to stone them. Why? :eyebrow: *picks up rock, looks at you*

User avatar
Oterro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16939
Founded: May 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Oterro » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:00 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Oterro wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?


Source? Because I'm pretty sure the Catholic church considers itself the same church from early Christianity (the uninterrupted Apostolic line), not to mention the papacy did exist (through the Bishop of Rome) and as early as Saint Augustine, there was support for the papacy and it's theological authority.


I'll try and find a source; as of now, it's the division of the Roman empire and Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

Give me a few minutes.
we, unlike the bourgeoisie, have nothing to lose and therefore our expression will be the only honest one, our words will be the only challenging ones and our art will be the one revolutionary expression. We need new noise and new voices and new canvases to become something more than the last poets of a useless generation.

User avatar
Ceannairceach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26637
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ceannairceach » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:02 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:Did they fix the part about homosexuality?


No, we are still suppose to stone them. Why? :eyebrow: *picks up rock, looks at you*

Oh, you know... Change the the word "Stone" to "Get stoned with"... The usual.

Anyway, I've heard and read that their is a part--can quote it for the life of me--that is meant to condemn male prostitutes, not homosexuals.

@}-;-'---

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most..." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Angleter
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12359
Founded: Apr 27, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Angleter » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:02 pm

Oterro wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.


I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?


Well, both were created when the initial church split- the Patriarch of Rome, who had always been 'first among equals' in the church, formed the Catholic Church; and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria all formed the Orthodox Church. Catholics will claim the Orthodox are the schismatics, and vice versa. Efforts have recently been made towards reconciliation and reunification, but to little avail.
[align=center]"I gotta tell you, this is just crazy, huh! This is just nuts, OK! Jeezo man."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Basaviya, Haganham, Kager South, Shrillland

Advertisement

Remove ads