The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Orthodox Church is unified, and Christ didn't make the others imho.

I'm sure Catholics disagree with that statement.

I'm sure. I'm not here to challenge them, just presenting my perspective which is the norm for the Orthodox, although there are Orthodox who consider Catholics to still have a valid continuity with the original Church despite serious deviations in doctrine and practice. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, for example (who will probably be the next Patriarch of Russia and the first one fluent in English), despite being very critical of Catholic theology, openly believes the Catholic Church to be valid, which is unusual. Most of our post schism saints and our monks, however, are extremely hostile to Catholicism, and see it as a purely human institution--which is not to say Catholics are condemned or are evil. Our Patriarch of Bulgaria (backed by his synod) refused to sign off on the Crete Document because, despite saying the Orthodox Church is the original, called Catholics "a" church; he said heretics cannot be called a church, as the Creed says there is only one Church; monks are about there in their attitude. So reconciliation is not a possibility at this point.

[Diopolis]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in papal supremacy? When did the modern doctrine develop?

Depends on the Church father and what you mean by Papal Supremacy.

The modern version of the doctrine was formalized in 1870 at the First Vatican Council.

That's papal infallibility. Papal supremacy was formalized in the thirteenth century at the second lateran council(the best of the second councils).

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

[Major-Tom]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

Elaborate. I don't think you're evil. You seem like a good dude, so why feel that way, man?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

Elaborate. I don't think you're evil. You seem like a good dude, so why feel that way, man?

I hold unorthodox views on many things.

My good works may have gone unnoticed.

I worry that I pray wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in papal supremacy?

It depends on which Fathers you mean, and it also depends on what you mean by "papal supremacy".

The Fathers who lived in the Latin-speaking world, particularly in Italy and Northwest Africa, did have a tendency to believe that the Pope of Rome was the leader of Christianity in some sense (although they wouldn't ascribe to him the same powers that current Popes hold).

The Fathers who lived in the Greek-speaking world generally regarded the Pope of Rome as a "first among equals", a symbolic figurehead, to be treated with reverence and respect, but having equal power with other bishops.

And the Fathers who lived further to the East and South, when you go beyond the Hellenized parts of Egypt and Syria, said almost nothing about the Pope of Rome and generally acted as if he didn't exist.

De facto, in ancient times, the Pope of Rome was a regional Christian leader, who held considerable power in the Western Roman provinces, varying degrees of influence (but no power) over the Christians in the Eastern Roman provinces, and zero sway over the Christians living outside of Roman imperial borders to the East and South, who barely even heard of him.

The Catholic Church essentially believes that the way things were in the Western Roman provinces is the way things should be across the entire world. The Orthodox Church believes that different parts of Christianity should govern themselves independently while remaining united in doctrine and worship (and, of course, in eucharistic communion).

When did the modern doctrine develop?

It was made official at the Second Lateran Council in the 13th century, as Diopolis mentioned. But its roots go back much further. As I said, Latin-speaking (i.e. Western Roman) Christians had long believed that the Pope of Rome was supposed to be some kind of special leader of Christianity. For many centuries, this belief co-existed with the Eastern belief that the Pope was nothing special, without splitting the Church. After all, the issue was mostly irrelevant in the Early Middle Ages, because the chaos and social collapse of the Roman world meant that the Pope couldn't possibly rule over Eastern Christians in practice anyway, even if they had agreed that he should. So the two groups of Christians could simply agree to disagree. In practice, the Church operated as the Orthodox believe that she should. Different bishops and patriarchs acted independently. The Latins went along with this because nothing else could have worked anyway.

But when the political and economic situation improved, it started to actually matter what you thought about the Pope. Because the Popes of Rome started trying to actually impose their will on the East. So the policy of "let's pretend the dispute doesn't exist" broke down, and the Great Schism happened.

[Major-Tom]

Elaborate. I don't think you're evil. You seem like a good dude, so why feel that way, man?

I hold unorthodox views on many things.

My good works may have gone unnoticed.

I worry that I pray wrong.

Put it this way - some of the greatest deeds often go unnoticed. That doesn't mean you're bad, it doesn't mean nobody cares, and it sure as hell isn't a reason to stop doing good works.

As for unorthodox views, who cares? I believe firmly that you can eat breakfast food as dinner, and I have tons of other weird ideas. But those ideas don't define us.

I'm not a Christian really, but if I've learned anything from Jesuits, Christians, theologians, is that everyone prays different. From what I know, and from what I've learned, prayer is done right so long as it is genuine and not selfish.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I hold unorthodox views on many things.

My good works may have gone unnoticed.

I worry that I pray wrong.

Put it this way - some of the greatest deeds often go unnoticed. That doesn't mean you're bad, it doesn't mean nobody cares, and it sure as hell isn't a reason to stop doing good works.

As for unorthodox views, who cares? I believe firmly that you can eat breakfast food as dinner, and I have tons of other weird ideas. But those ideas don't define us.

I'm not a Christian really, but if I've learned anything from Jesuits, Christians, theologians, is that everyone prays different. From what I know, and from what I've learned, prayer is done right so long as it is genuine and not selfish.

Thank you.

[Salus Maior]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

I don't even remember what you did last time you were here.

You're no more evil than anyone else or anyone here.

You are definitely worth saving, and I don't think you betrayed anyone?

[Constantinopolis]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

We all have some evil within us. We are all sinners. But we are also all worth saving. Remember what Christ said about those who repent:

“Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him.
Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
So He told them this parable, saying,
"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
"When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
"And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
"Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
"When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, `Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!'
"In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." ”
(Luke 15:1-10)

So, regarding the specific things you mentioned:

I hold unorthodox views on many things.

You could always change them.

My good works may have gone unnoticed.

There's nothing wrong with that. On the contrary. We shouldn't care if our good deeds are noticed by human beings.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4)

I worry that I pray wrong.

There's no such thing as praying wrong. God can hear your thoughts anyway; if your words didn't come out right, He still knows what you meant. But still, if you're worried about praying wrong, I recommend buying a prayer book. This one is quite good.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

We all have some evil within us. We are all sinners. But we are also all worth saving. Remember what Christ said about those who repent:

“Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him.
Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
So He told them this parable, saying,
"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
"When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
"And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
"Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
"When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, `Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!'
"In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." ”
(Luke 15:1-10)

So, regarding the specific things you mentioned:

I hold unorthodox views on many things.

You could always change them.

My good works may have gone unnoticed.

There's nothing wrong with that. On the contrary. We shouldn't care if our good deeds are noticed by human beings.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4)

I worry that I pray wrong.

There's no such thing as praying wrong. God can hear your thoughts anyway; if your words didn't come out right, He still knows what you meant. But still, if you're worried about praying wrong, I recommend buying a prayer book. This one is quite good.

I was talking in context to the thread, my good deeds are noticed by others.

[Angleter]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in papal supremacy? When did the modern doctrine develop?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.2, c. 180 AD - "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner... assemble in unauthorized meetings... by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful persons] who exist everywhere."

Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, c. 250 AD - "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

Also the Council of Serdica (343 AD) provided recourse to assistance by the bishop of Rome for bishops who claimed unfair treatment from judgement by their peers.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

Looking over the last thread, I see some of us were brusque with you over the abortion debate, but I wouldn't want you to think any of that was personal, just a highly contentious subject.

[Constantinopolis]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in papal supremacy? When did the modern doctrine develop?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.2, c. 180 AD - "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner... assemble in unauthorized meetings... by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful persons] who exist everywhere."

Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, c. 250 AD - "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

Also the Council of Serdica (343 AD) provided recourse to assistance by the bishop of Rome for bishops who claimed unfair treatment from judgement by their peers.

If "papal supremacy" meant simply holding the same doctrine as the Pope (as per Irenaeus), and maintaining communion with the Pope (as per Cyprian) and using the Pope as a court of last resort (as per the Council of Serdica), the Orthodox would have no objection to this (well, as long as the Pope himself hasn't fallen into heresy, which he hadn't at the time when those words were written).

The problem is that "papal supremacy", as the Catholic Church understands it, means a lot more than that. It means absolute power for the Pope in all ecclesiastical matters - at least in principle, even if this power isn't used (or is limited by bureaucracy) in practice.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The way I was treated in the last thread it made me ask, am I evil?

Am I even worth being saved? Have I betrayed everyone?

Looking over the last thread, I see some of us were brusque with you over the abortion debate, but I wouldn't want you to think any of that was personal, just a highly contentious subject.

Oh, ok.

I just kinda took it personally.

[Constantinopolis]

The Orthodox Church is unified, and Christ didn't make the others imho.

So are there any doctrinal differences between say, the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Churches? Or is it just a matter of what language the liturgy is in?

Orthodoxy actually keeps things extremely uniform in terms of doctrine and practice - it's how we express our unity. So there are no doctrinal differences. And the services held by different Orthodox churches on the same way are also virtually identical (the only differences are some of the melodies being used for certain hymns, and of course the language).

However, the Orthodox Church is decentralized in terms of administration. Think of it like having a federation of states, where all the states have to abide by a common charter which specifies certain rules that apply to all (in this case, rules about religious doctrine and forms of worship), but the states are otherwise free to run their own internal affairs. Each "state" within the Orthodox Church is governed by a council of bishops, called a Holy Synod. And these "states" are called jurisdictions, or churches (which can be confusing since the overarching body that contains them all is also called a Church).

So the difference between the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox is that they are different jurisdictions governed by different Holy Synods. This also means that they use different languages, yes, but a given jurisdiction isn't limited to using a single language. The Russian Orthodox Church mainly uses Russian and the Greek Orthodox Church mainly uses Greek, but they both also use other languages when needed (such as minority languages for some ethnic groups in Russia, or English/Spanish/French for Greek or Russian parishes in the West, etc).

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.2, c. 180 AD - "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner... assemble in unauthorized meetings... by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful persons] who exist everywhere."

Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, c. 250 AD - "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

Also the Council of Serdica (343 AD) provided recourse to assistance by the bishop of Rome for bishops who claimed unfair treatment from judgement by their peers.

If "papal supremacy" meant simply holding the same doctrine as the Pope (as per Irenaeus), and maintaining communion with the Pope (as per Cyprian) and using the Pope as a court of last resort (as per the Council of Serdica), the Orthodox would have no objection to this (well, as long as the Pope himself hasn't fallen into heresy, which he hadn't at the time when those words were written).

The problem is that "papal supremacy", as the Catholic Church understands it, means a lot more than that. It means absolute power for the Pope in all ecclesiastical matters - at least in principle, even if this power isn't used (or is limited by bureaucracy) in practice.

It doesn't help that we also have different understandings of what heresy actually is as a concept as well.

[Stonok]

May I ask a question of Catholics here?

Do you consider Protestants Christian? I have always considered the Catholics to be brethren though I have been a Protestant all my life, but I had to argue with a Catholic the other day because they refused to acknowledge Protestants as a denomination of Christianity. They said it wasn't founded by Christ, therefore was not part of Christianity, and only Catholicism was Christianity. Every time the subject comes up, they make a statement which seems rather ignorant, honestly, that being 'Christ is in Christianity, not Protestantism' - which makes no sense considering 1. Protestants generally use the term Christianity for themselves in the same manner Catholics do, and 2. it's nitpicking wordplay. Another reason they refuse to accept Protestants is because we do not "accept Mary". Surely this is not the opinion held by all Catholics...right?

[Vulkata II]

May I ask a question of Catholics here?

Do you consider Protestants Christian? I have always considered the Catholics to be brethren though I have been a Protestant all my life, but I had to argue with a Catholic the other day because they refused to acknowledge Protestants as a denomination of Christianity. They said it wasn't founded by Christ, therefore was not part of Christianity, and only Catholicism was Christianity. Every time the subject comes up, they make a statement which seems rather ignorant, honestly, that being 'Christ is in Christianity, not Protestantism' - which makes no sense considering 1. Protestants generally use the term Christianity for themselves in the same manner Catholics do, and 2. it's nitpicking wordplay. Another reason they refuse to accept Protestants is because we do not "accept Mary". Surely this is not the opinion held by all Catholics...right?

Not me compadre.

If it weren't for the corruption and evil sins of Pope Leon X then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. In my eyes the Protestants are just another branch of Christianity.

Think of each church being a plant, Orthodox and Cathcolism being the oldest branches and protestants being the younger ones. Honestly I don't mind having protestants around me and heck one of my friend is a protestant.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

May I ask a question of Catholics here?

Do you consider Protestants Christian? I have always considered the Catholics to be brethren though I have been a Protestant all my life, but I had to argue with a Catholic the other day because they refused to acknowledge Protestants as a denomination of Christianity. They said it wasn't founded by Christ, therefore was not part of Christianity, and only Catholicism was Christianity. Every time the subject comes up, they make a statement which seems rather ignorant, honestly, that being 'Christ is in Christianity, not Protestantism' - which makes no sense considering 1. Protestants generally use the term Christianity for themselves in the same manner Catholics do, and 2. it's nitpicking wordplay. Another reason they refuse to accept Protestants is because we do not "accept Mary". Surely this is not the opinion held by all Catholics...right?

You should remind your Catholic aquaintance that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that yes (most)Protestants and other non Catholics are validly baptized Christians.

[Stonok]

You should remind your Catholic aquaintance that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that yes (most)Protestants and other non Catholics are validly baptized Christians.

I did, specifically I said they were in opposition to their own Church's doctrine by their rejection of us, but they simply said "I'm not." and abstained from arguing further. They then continued their same dogma at a later date. I honestly don't think there's any shaking them.

[Vulkata II]

You should remind your Catholic aquaintance that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that yes (most)Protestants and other non Catholics are validly baptized Christians.

I did, specifically I said they were in opposition to their own Church's doctrine by their rejection of us, but they simply said "I'm not." and abstained from arguing further. They then continued their same dogma at a later date. I honestly don't think there's any shaking them.

There are Christians that know the bible and others that say they do.

[The of Japan]

I did, specifically I said they were in opposition to their own Church's doctrine by their rejection of us, but they simply said "I'm not." and abstained from arguing further. They then continued their same dogma at a later date. I honestly don't think there's any shaking them.

There are Christians that know the bible and others that say they do.

its bull to claim that you are not a true Christian if you don't support the archbishop of rome

[Salus Maior]

There are Christians that know the bible and others that say they do.

its bull to claim that you are not a true Christian if you don't support the archbishop of rome

One could argue the incorrectness of Christians who are not part of the Catholic Church, and one could argue that they should join with the Catholic Church. But that doesn't mean they aren't Christian at all.

Like Tars said, so long as they have a Trinitarian baptism it's valid.

[Maineiacs]

May I ask a question of Catholics here?

Do you consider Protestants Christian? I have always considered the Catholics to be brethren though I have been a Protestant all my life, but I had to argue with a Catholic the other day because they refused to acknowledge Protestants as a denomination of Christianity. They said it wasn't founded by Christ, therefore was not part of Christianity, and only Catholicism was Christianity. Every time the subject comes up, they make a statement which seems rather ignorant, honestly, that being 'Christ is in Christianity, not Protestantism' - which makes no sense considering 1. Protestants generally use the term Christianity for themselves in the same manner Catholics do, and 2. it's nitpicking wordplay. Another reason they refuse to accept Protestants is because we do not "accept Mary". Surely this is not the opinion held by all Catholics...right?

In my experience, it's been (some) Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christian.