|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:29:09 GMT -5
So every single person was either a Catholic, an Orthodox, or a heretic. I find that very hard to believe. very hard. Every single Christian was a Catholic up until the Protestant Reformation. Even Orthodox Christians are Catholic Christians (not Roman Catholic, but Universal Christians). Yes, all non-Catholic Christians before the Reformation were heretical sects. Just look it up. You won't find one non-Catholic Christian group that wasn't before the 16th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:36:42 GMT -5
So every single person was either a Catholic, an Orthodox, or a heretic. I find that very hard to believe. very hard. No, that's history. They were either part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (no such thing existed for 1,000 years as "Catholic vs Orthodox", that came after The Great Schism) or they were heretics or never part of the Church to begin with. The Holy Apostles separated those that were part of the Apostolic Faith and those who were false teachers, or outside of the Apostolic Faith. The Early Church (1st-10th Century) fought against many heretical sects. Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorism, Patripassianism, Adoptionism, are but a few of heresies that was defended by early heretical sects. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church separated what was true Apostolic teachings and what was not (what was in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the Fathers and what was not). I suggest you read Renowned Protestant Scholar J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines". In IC.XC, Ramon Yep. 100% true. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:37:42 GMT -5
Pick up a secular history book. You won't find one non-heretical group outside of The Catholic Church before the 16th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:41:23 GMT -5
depends on what history books you read imo. That's why I suggested you read "secular" historical books. They cannot be accused of being biased towards Catholicism. You'll get an unbiased source right there and you'll be able to accept it as truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:41:53 GMT -5
Em, if you dig hard enough you will find the truth of history. It is what it is. Kinda like googling the obama christian terrorist thing....you did not find anything, but if you google the history of the Church you will find your answer. Amen.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:43:12 GMT -5
No, that's history. They were either part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (no such thing existed for 1,000 years as "Catholic vs Orthodox", that came after The Great Schism) or they were heretics or never part of the Church to begin with. The Holy Apostles separated those that were part of the Apostolic Faith and those who were false teachers, or outside of the Apostolic Faith. The Early Church (1st-10th Century) fought against many heretical sects. Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorism, Patripassianism, Adoptionism, are but a few of heresies that was defended by early heretical sects. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church separated what was true Apostolic teachings and what was not (what was in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the Fathers and what was not). I suggest you read Renowned Protestant Scholar J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines". In IC.XC, Ramon Do you believe the Orthodox church is the one true church like the Catholics believe they are? Whoah! Whoever said that Catholics believe that we are the one true Church? When you state that, how do you mean? (And, Orthodox Christians "are" members of The Church that Jesus Christ founded...they are Apostolically succeeded) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:50:46 GMT -5
]First of all we both know that the Catholics ruled through the sword and not love, killing whoever stood in their way. "You" may know that, but you can't impose your personal opinion on the rest of the world. Historically speaking, it is The Catholic Church that has maintained civilization when Paganism was trying to take foot. It was The Catholic Church that brought down Roman Paganism. We created hospitals, the college system, the institution of charity, etc...all things that had to have come out of love. During The Dark Ages, only Catholics were attending the sick while the secular world abandoned them. When The Muslims were encroaching on The Orthodox Brothers to wipe out Christianity, who did they call? The Catholic Church and thus began the Crusades that won Christianity back access to The Holy Lands. I suggest you study history from a secular source to see what roll The Church had in mankind's development. Yet, you chose to pick on the "lesser" of two evils...right? No such character of significance ever existed. Never heard of him. Now if you meant to write "Augustine", then you're talking about a Catholic Priest who was the defender of Christianity against Heresies. Him? Me like!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:55:43 GMT -5
Yep all those men were false teachers, but instead of pointed the finger at others why do you not just accept the crimes of Catholicism as the truth they are? P.S. What man was Millenneialism named after? Millennialism is a doctrine not a denomination. I do not believe any one here is denying what the Roman Church did. But at the same time, Protestants hunted down and kill Catholics and even each other. It wasn't a problem solely on the Roman Church. Even today, Christians are hunted each other (and non Christians are hunting down Christians), perhaps in a less literal sense, but the persecution are still there. You shouldn't point your finger at the Roman Church when Protestants were equally at fault. It certainty was a very evil time in Christian history, but why use the Inquisition as something to "attack" the Roman Church? It is irrelevant....... In IC.XC, Ramon Not only that, in reality, non-Catholic Christians far outdid the Catholics in committing heinous acts in the name of Christianity. Not that I personally like to bring it up because Christ taught us to "not" do this (as exampled when the adulterous was brought to Him to be judged by The Pharisees). But if one would like to, I do have all the non-Catholic Christian atrocities archived and can show how they were far more brutal and how they killed and tortured far more people than Catholics ever did. Again, those examples I posted are just a small taste. Of course, you'll never hear about that in America because this is a Protestant Country and they certainly would'nt "out" themselves or make themselves look bad. Personally, I couldn't care any less. Not my place to expose their sin. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:57:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 13:59:32 GMT -5
Yep all those men were false teachers, but instead of pointed the finger at others why do you not just accept the crimes of Catholicism as the truth they are? Don't you know that The Pope already apologized to the entire world on behalf of all Catholics for those things? Why do you bring them up if he already apologized for them? Once a person apologizes for something and hasn't repeated that sin, they are supposed to be forgiven unconditionally. Do you believe in that Christian teaching? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 14:04:25 GMT -5
I point a finger at all of them, the Catholics that killed the so called heretics were not saved and those they were persecuting probably were (The unrighteous always persecute the righteous, and the ''reformers are just as guilty. How could you defend sects that believed that Jesus wasn't divine? How could you defend sects that believed that God was evil? How could you defend sects that stated that Jesus never died and was ressurected? "probably"? Probably is not a defense or an explaination. Do you have any "absolutely" type proof? If "probably" is going to be the basis for your attacks, then your attacks are groundless. Wow. I knew Calvin wasn't all there, but I never saw him as a Satanic teacher. As far as history shows, he was definetly wrong, but there was no evidence that he dabbled in Satanism. What evidence do you have to prove this? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 14:05:18 GMT -5
By the way who was St. Agustus of Hippo? Don't know. Googled him. He supposedly never existed. Who was he (to you that is)? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 14:06:58 GMT -5
Do you believe the Orthodox church is the one true church like the Catholics believe they are? Let me give some history. Since the time of the Holy Apostles, there was ONE Church, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Spirit. For 1,000 years, both the West (the Roman See), and East (the Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem) was the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, tracing her roots back to the Holy Apostles. Beginning at the 4th-5th century (or so), tension arose between the West and East (not much to cause a Schism, a little due to geographical separation). Finally, the West and East separated at 1054AD. Issues such the Roman Papacy, the filioque, cause the separation. Now only two Churches today has Apostolic Succession (the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, with the exception with some Eastern Churches such as the Oriental Orthodox Church which also have Apostolic Succession). If Scriptures are to be believed, then there still one Church today that has the fullness of the faith. Who has kept the faith of the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the Holy Fathers and Mothers of the Church, and the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils? For us Orthodox, we have kept the faith unaltered. For Catholics, the Catholic Church is the one that have kept the faith unaltered. The only way one will know is comparing what each Church teaches and what the Early Church (1st-10th Century) taught. What's in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the Holy Fathers........ In IC,XC, Ramon  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 14:08:01 GMT -5
Do you believe the Orthodox church is the one true church like the Catholics believe they are? Let me give some history. Since the time of the Holy Apostles, there was ONE Church, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Spirit. For 1,000 years, both the West (the Roman See), and East (the Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem) was the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, tracing her roots back to the Holy Apostles. Beginning at the 4th-5th century (or so), tension arose between the West and East (not much to cause a Schism, a little due to geographical separation). Finally, the West and East separated at 1054AD. Issues such the Roman Papacy, the filioque, cause the separation. Now only two Churches today has Apostolic Succession (the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, with the exception with some Eastern Churches such as the Oriental Orthodox Church which also have Apostolic Succession). If Scriptures are to be believed, then there still one Church today that has the fullness of the faith. Who has kept the faith of the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the Holy Fathers and Mothers of the Church, and the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils? For us Orthodox, we have kept the faith unaltered. For Catholics, the Catholic Church is the one that have kept the faith unaltered. The only way one will know is comparing what each Church teaches and what the Early Church (1st-10th Century) taught. What's in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the Holy Fathers........ In IC,XC, Ramon LOL! By the way Ramon, someone once did a study of how "apart" we are regarding our beliefs. Know what the "difference" came out to? 3%! Not much hey? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 14:18:02 GMT -5
Even today, Christians are hunted each other (and non Christians are hunting down Christians), perhaps in a less literal sense, but the persecution are still there. You shouldn't point your finger at the Roman Church when Protestants were equally at fault. It certainty was a very evil time in Christian history, but why use the Inquisition as something to "attack" the Roman Church? It is irrelevant....... In IC.XC, Ramon Look @ Northern Ireland today...  |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Apr 23, 2009 14:27:55 GMT -5
depends on what history books you read imo. That's why I suggested you read "secular" historical books. They cannot be accused of being biased towards Catholicism. You'll get an unbiased source right there and you'll be able to accept it as truth. Yes, that is why I told her to read J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines". He is not a Catholic or Orthodox, yet even his historical book agrees with my statements. Any secular historical book will prove our statements. By the way who was St. Agustus of Hippo? Don't know. Googled him. He supposedly never existed. Who was he (to you that is)? LOL! You funny Cepha! Yea, St. Agustus of Hippo never existed. LOL! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 23, 2009 14:29:52 GMT -5
No, I'm definetly not calling the Gnostics Christians!
I was thinking more about the Copts in Eqypt. Actually, I heard that in recent history, the Ecumenial Patriarch (or someone?) was talking with the leaders of the Coptic Church and they discovered that their theology was actually pretty much the same and the were going to reunite. I think the separation had more to do with cutural differences and linguistic differences. I need to research it more. My husband lived in Egypt for a while and he went to their Churches a lot. It's amazing that Christians have survived there in Egypt for so long!
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Apr 23, 2009 14:41:53 GMT -5
No, I'm definetly not calling the Gnostics Christians! I was thinking more about the Copts in Eqypt. Actually, I heard that in recent history, the Ecumenial Patriarch (or someone?) was talking with the leaders of the Coptic Church and they discovered that their theology was actually pretty much the same and the were going to reunite. I think the separation had more to do with cutural differences and linguistic differences. I need to research it more. My husband lived in Egypt for a while and he went to their Churches a lot. It's amazing that Christians have survived there in Egypt for so long! peace teresa Yes, there has been conferences with us and the Coptic (Oriental) Orthodox. Second, for reunification to happened, it must be agreed upon by the whole Church, and not just a group of Orthodox Bishops saying "We agree after all, let's reunified!". I haven't heard of any recent conference with the Oriental Orthodox in which the Orthodox Bishops/Priest discovered that both theologies were the same. I will research it though. The Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox are very close to each other. I believe we just have to agree upon a specific language (concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation) so that we do not misinterpret each other. The issue is not so much about theology but terminology. The Coptic Orthodox only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils. I believe reunification is close, but there are still some issues that need to be taken of. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 23, 2009 15:18:15 GMT -5
LOL! You funny Cepha! Yea, St. Agustus of Hippo never existed. LOL! In IC.XC, Ramon lol |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 23, 2009 16:18:00 GMT -5
still believe the early non-Catholic groups of Christians were "heretics" because they didn't have the entire Word of God.
|
|
