Roman Catholics

[Honorius]

Catholic means universal.

The oldest oficial church it's that of Armenia.

Ortodox kept more of the original church while catholics were and are innovating things.

Beside the supremacy of the pope there are other important practical differences between orthodox and catholic churches.

The orthodox monks are not in religious orders, and ortodox priests are forced to be married. Catholics don't pray to icons and believe in purgatory.

There are some churches called greco-catolic that are under the authority of the pope but keep most aspects of ortodoxy.

This were created and fought by political reasons.

For example most of Belarus was greco-catholic of bielorusian language while part of Lithuania in the Polish Union, but in the 1830's the russian tzars destroyed that church and forced them to russian ortodoxy.

This attitude was continued by comunists so in 1948 in Romania the greco catholic church was forbidden until 1989.

Ortodoxy it's not united like catholicism.In modern times each nation has her independent church led by a patriarch and a sinod.

Always has been some difference between greeks and slavonic orthodox despite some medieval unity.

 

Great job Kosmo. Catholic means universal, and Orthodox means straight line in Greek. The Catholics do the sign of the cross from top-bottom-right-left. The Orthodox do it top-bottom-left-right. The Orthodox church is extremely Conservative and never change their ways. The Catholics are more seceptible to change.

 

 

are u sure its right to left for catholics because i've always done it the other way same as ever catholic i know....or maybe im jsut confused LOL

[Gaius Octavius]

As Virgil alluded to, there are corresponding Rites (in the Catholic Church), to each Orthodox Church. There are also a number of other Rites in the west (Spain and Italy) that may no longer be practiced publically. There is an Ethopian College in Rome. The late Cardinal Agajanian of the Armenian Rite was once considered a candidate for Pope.

Some would hold that there have been more than seven Councils.

The Orthodox hold the Pope to be 'first among equals'.

St. Athanasius was referring to 'True God and True Man' and not to a 'man' alone.

Because Origen, or anyone else, said it, doesn't make it so. It just fits nicely into an argument.

Orthodox priests may not marry. Married men may become priests. Orthodox bishops are not married. If all Orthodox priests were forced to marry, there would be no bishops in those churches. The priests of the Eastern Rites carry on this tradition. A Greek Rite still exists in southern Italy.

The Sacraments of most (not all) Orthodox churches are fully valid in the Catholic Church.

It makes absolutely no difference how one makes the Sign of the Cross.

The Church started with Christ. A Rose is a Rose by whatever name.

Orthodox Christmas is on Jan. 7, because they use the Julian calandar.

Most of the differences between East and West can be resolved into 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. Not to mention the sheer politics involved and the splitting of the Roman Empire.

 

Personally, I wonder how many of the priests and pastors of all the churches presently existing really believe anything that they preach. There are very few St. Francis' around. But there is a lot of gold to be had.

[Pantagathus]

Personally, I wonder how many of the priests and pastors of all the churches presently existing really believe anything that they preach.

 

And along with that, I wonder with some of the aforementioned if they have any grasp on the geography of the world of Jesus Christ or if words like Galatians or Ephesians are just words meaning people who got converted...

[Pertinax]

Personally, I wonder how many of the priests and pastors of all the churches presently existing really believe anything that they preach.

 

And along with that, I wonder with some of the aforementioned if they have any grasp on the geography of the world of Jesus Christ or if words like Galatians or Ephesians are just words meaning people who got converted...

 

I am most intrigued as to the debate regarding the "Poverty of Christ" (and that he owned things only in common with his disciples) as a hugely subversive episode in the establishment of the church as a multinational corporation -I tentatively suggest this as the real moment of schism when the role of Christ's Vicar stepped outside of the spiritual realm and into international finance.Please put this in another thread if considerd oftop, but these two "contextual" posts provoked my thoughts.

[Rameses the Great]

Christianity was a religion for the meak. God even said, 'blessed are the meak for they shall inherit the Earth.' He also said, 'blessed is the poor for their's is the kingdom of heaven.'

 

You don't think Jesus followed through with this? Why was he born in a manger in Bethlehem? He could have been born in Jerusalem, no Athens, no, no, Rome much less!

 

The religion of the Romans and the Greeks were only for the rich people. Who served their gods through money. In Christianity it says, 'you cannot serve God and mammon.'

 

How did they convert people? Because they did not have money to offer? I think many people try to attack Christianity, while not hearing the whole story.

[Kosmo]

You are right. In orthodoxy a men does not become a priest if he it's not married or a monk.

The ordinary priests must be married, the ierarchy starting from bishops it's made from the monks. Monk priests are to be found only at monastries and such.

 

Pertinax, I'm not sure I understand you. The church stareted to get rich from the times of Constantine the Great.

Are you refering to dominican and franciscan theories? It sounds like you're quoting from "The name of the Rose" . That I was thinking of yesterday ...

[Primus Pilus]

I think many people try to attack Christianity, while not hearing the whole story.

 

Perhaps, but the reverse can also be true. Many people defend it/maintain belief also without understanding the whole story.

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't think that the last several posts are 'attacking' Christianity, rather criticizing what is perceived as defects. Faith and morals are not criticized, rather operations. Hierarchies and telereverendos live in great splendor (now and in the past). These are often caught with 'their pants down', so to speak, not practicing what they preach.

 

Valid criticism, today, can lead to a better Universal Church as it has in the past. Men have and do err and sin.

 

Exceptionally few know the whole story.

[Kosmo]

I'm reading a nice book, "The Scapegoat" of Rene Girard and one thing that I liked about it was his observation of antichristian and antieuropean bias.

If it's ok to criticize the crusades it's not ok to call the aztec religion a disgusting bloodbath. The aztec religion it's seen just from an anthropological and historical view while christianity it's the subject of violent moral criticism from Voltaire to today, even events in her long past.

The threads X vs. Y are pointless, but maybe a comparison between christianity and other religions will shed some light as we need something to compare the "good" and the "bad" of christianity. And I believe that christianity will come out nice from any comparison.

Of course a problem it's how each of us it's viewing things. For example some view the Holy Inquisition as a criminal organistion while I believe that it was justified and efficient self defence.

[brotus maximus]

when it comes to religion the way i've come to see it is that it is based on many things one of which i am going to speak here in which think is important

is that one man see's his religon on based on his values and therefore will see his religion a slightly different way then everyone else around him, so in a way everyones religion is based on the same morales and fundumental values and ideas but their own believes are different from everyone else.

 

 

 

if any one can understand this good cause i confused my self

 

sincerly

brotus maximus

A.K.A

kris

[Northern Neil]

And along with that, I wonder with some of the aforementioned if they have any grasp on the geography of the world of Jesus Christ or if words like Galatians or Ephesians are just words meaning people who got converted...

 

... or, indeed, whether or not Paul's letters to these people were supposed to apply to the rest of us, or whether he was speaking to those people only, making references to the particular cultures he was talking to.

[brotus maximus]

so in a sense of the word i think the last post i did what i was trying to say was that even though the main idea of christanity and catholics was to worship the Lord and Jesus Christ and the numeras saints that are based on the different geographysof the world(cause if u look a little u can see what i mean by it)but thats where it ends, so i go on to say that yes the people have that understanding of those "beliefs" it is like the way i see it for instance the people that are islamic jihad their islamic but they are basing their religios beliefs on their own ideas of what it is and have their own way of interprating what the messeges are fro their holy book(some jihads not saying islamic but some even have some of the rules changed to suit their jihad)

 

 

any way hopefully i dont start an argument with what said

 

sincerly

BrOtUs MaXiMuS

A.K.A

kris

[idahojeri]

so in a sense of the word i think the last post i did what i was trying to say was that even though the main idea of christanity and catholics was to worship the Lord and Jesus Christ and the numeras saints that are based on the different geographysof the world(cause if u look a little u can see what i mean by it)but thats where it ends, so i go on to say that yes the people have that understanding of those "beliefs" it is like the way i see it for instance the people that are islamic jihad their islamic but they are basing their religios beliefs on their own ideas of what it is and have their own way of interprating what the messeges are fro their holy book(some jihads not saying islamic but some even have some of the rules changed to suit their jihad)

 

 

any way hopefully i dont start an argument with what said

 

sincerly

BrOtUs MaXiMuS

A.K.A

kris

 

 

And along with that, I wonder with some of the aforementioned if they have any grasp on the geography of the world of Jesus Christ or if words like Galatians or Ephesians are just words meaning people who got converted...

 

... or, indeed, whether or not Paul's letters to these people were supposed to apply to the rest of us, or whether he was speaking to those people only, making references to the particular cultures he was talking to.

 

 

interesting debate. I have been reading and reading for years on the subject and hardly feel I have a toe hold. Yet I am always struck every time I read Ignatius (110 AD). 1 Clement (95 AD) and the Didache (variously put at 50-150 AD) how completely they mirror orthodox Christian views of today. Any good books on ancient civilization you really enjoyed? or that you thought were especially insightful? I just finished "Restless Youth in Rome" which was pretty good, but hardly answered all my questions on the subject.

 

Blessings, Jeri

[Dominus Rex]

Catholic means universal.

The oldest oficial church it's that of Armenia.

Ortodox kept more of the original church while catholics were and are innovating things.

Beside the supremacy of the pope there are other important practical differences between orthodox and catholic churches.

The orthodox monks are not in religious orders, and ortodox priests are forced to be married. Catholics don't pray to icons and believe in purgatory.

There are some churches called greco-catolic that are under the authority of the pope but keep most aspects of ortodoxy.

This were created and fought by political reasons.

For example most of Belarus was greco-catholic of bielorusian language while part of Lithuania in the Polish Union, but in the 1830's the russian tzars destroyed that church and forced them to russian ortodoxy.

This attitude was continued by comunists so in 1948 in Romania the greco catholic church was forbidden until 1989.

Ortodoxy it's not united like catholicism.In modern times each nation has her independent church led by a patriarch and a sinod.

Always has been some difference between greeks and slavonic orthodox despite some medieval unity.

 

Great job Kosmo. Catholic means universal, and Orthodox means straight line in Greek. The Catholics do the sign of the cross from top-bottom-right-left. The Orthodox do it top-bottom-left-right. The Orthodox church is extremely Conservative and never change their ways. The Catholics are more seceptible to change.

 

 

are u sure its right to left for catholics because i've always done it the other way same as ever catholic i know....or maybe im jsut confused LOL

 

Yes, I believe it is the other way, left to right, because that is the way I, and everybody I know, and our priest, do it. Top-bottom-left-right.

[Gaius Octavius]

Doesn't matter which way one makes the Sign of the Cross or if one bows or not.