Christianity Lounge

[Blade Runner]

What is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 7.27.)

I highly doubt these two Saints would "disagree" in the way you are picking that Chrysostom line out. But remember, the "works of the law" for St. Paul are the pharisaical traditions, not doing good works and certainly not talking about what Basil says in his liturgy, which is in the gospel as well, "and He will render to each man, according to his works". (Romans 2:6, Matthew 16:27, 2 Tim 4)

Houston, you have a problem.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I highly doubt these two Saints would "disagree" in the way you are picking that Chrysostom line out. But remember, the "works of the law" for St. Paul are the pharisaical traditions, not doing good works and certainly not talking about what Basil says in his liturgy, which is in the gospel as well, "and He will render to each man, according to his works". (Romans 2:6, Matthew 16:27, 2 Tim 4)

Houston, you have a problem.

The "works of the Law" are the only works which God considers good, and even then, Justification is not by doing them but by faith in Christ. God will render to each man according to their works. Justification by Faith alone is not opposed to that statement.

 

[Aboulia]

The crux of this argument is whether you can separate works from faith. Perhaps you should explore that instead.

A bricklayer lays bricks. A lawyer works with law/regulations. A manager manages people/things. A Christian is one who attempts to follow Christ, not that they're necessarily any good at it, but if they turn out to be a Judas, (correct me if I'm wrong) Calvinism would say they were never saved in the first place. Which seems to introduce an unnecessary legalism to OSAS doctrine and also has lead to the idea that you can separate beliefs from your actions in the world. How do you figure out what a woman believes? By words or actions?

Here's from the ROCOR prayer book (morning prayers)

O my plenteously merciful and all merciful God, Lord Jesus Christ, through Thy great love Thou didst come down and become incarnate so that Thou mightest save all. And again, O Saviour. save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee. For if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty; yea, Thou Who art great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death. If, then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for Thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory. And let Satan not seize me and boast, O Word, that he hath torn me from Thy hand and fold. But whether I desire it or not, save me, O Christ my Saviour, forestall me quickly, for I perish. Thou art my God from my mother’s womb. Vouchsafe me, O Lord, to love Thee now as fervently as I once loved sin itself, and also to work for Thee without idleness, diligently, as I worked before for deceptive Satan. But supremely shall I work for Thee, my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

If you find a problem with that @GodfatherPartTwo it's on your end

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The crux of this argument is whether you can separate works from faith. Perhaps you should explore that instead.

I believe in one sense you can and in another you can't.

For example, in James 2:24, faith and works are connected, distinct but not separated: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

But then you have Romans 4:5, where faith and works are not only distinct, but are separated: "But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

The word "justification" is not always used in the same exact way every time, especially by different authors who use different "theological language." One should look at the context to see how each author is defining their own terms.

The Protestant perspective believes in both. We don't believe that we have to pit James against Paul. Justification (according to the way Paul uses it) is by faith alone, not by works. But Sanctification (what James means by justification) does indeed consist in faith and works. This is why we consider it necessary to recognize the distinction between Justification and Sanctification, otherwise we fall into a false dichotomy and fall short of the Bible's full testimony.

A Christian is one who attempts to follow Christ, not that they're necessarily any good at it, but if they turn out to be a Judas, (correct me if I'm wrong) Calvinism would say they were never saved in the first place. Which seems to introduce an unnecessary legalism to OSAS doctrine and also has lead to the idea that you can separate beliefs from your actions in the world.

I would agree that OSAS has a legal, rather a covenantal layer to it. But I wouldn't call that "legalism." For us, legalism means strict adherence to rules viz. works-based salvation. OSAS is based on God's grace, not adherence to law.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Here's from the ROCOR prayer book (morning prayers)

O my plenteously merciful and all merciful God, Lord Jesus Christ, through Thy great love Thou didst come down and become incarnate so that Thou mightest save all. And again, O Saviour. save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee. For if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty; yea, Thou Who art great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death. If, then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for Thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory. And let Satan not seize me and boast, O Word, that he hath torn me from Thy hand and fold. But whether I desire it or not, save me, O Christ my Saviour, forestall me quickly, for I perish. Thou art my God from my mother’s womb. Vouchsafe me, O Lord, to love Thee now as fervently as I once loved sin itself, and also to work for Thee without idleness, diligently, as I worked before for deceptive Satan. But supremely shall I work for Thee, my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

If you find a problem with that @GodfatherPartTwo it's on your end

That's an excellent prayer.

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

What kind of Protestant are you? It's not the same kind as the Pilgrims. OSAS is not a strictly Calvinist doctrine. Non-Calvinists believe in it as well.

Who said pilgrim has anything to do with the group that sailed on the Mayflower? I'm sure you've heard of both John Bunyan & John Wayne?

Obviously, OSAS is not just used by Calvinists, but it is kind of an essential doctrine there. My main point is that no one can speak for what all Protestants believe because of the decentralized, grassroots nature of everything south of the 95 theses. A copy of a copy of a copy does not in fact bring anyone closer to the original/source.

The thread is about Christianity in the USA, and the vast majority identify as some form of Protestant, but what essential doctrines must one hold to be considered 'Protestant'? It seems to be more defined by what it is not, or what it is against, than actually having an identity of its own. Ask 10 mainstream American Christians what it means to be a Christian and you'll get 10 different answers.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

A copy of a copy of a copy does not in fact bring anyone closer to the original/source.

Huh? This is Bart Ehrman level. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ecclesiologies took their shape.

The thread is about Christianity in the USA, and the vast majority identify as some form of Protestant, but what essential doctrines must one hold to be considered 'Protestant'? It seems to be more defined by what it is not, or what it is against, than actually having an identity of its own. Ask 10 mainstream American Christians what it means to be a Christian and you'll get 10 different answers.

Can't speak for your kind of "Protestant." But the historical Protestant tradition has been summed up well in the Five Solas. You would be hard pressed to find any Protestant to reject any one of those. Even the broader Evangelical movement is still fairly solid on them, the conservatives at least. Your "10 different answers" comment is also a stretch. I have the hunch that if you ask 10 American Christians what it means to be a Christian, most of the answers you get will be something to the effect of being a follower or believer in Jesus.

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

Huh? This is Bart Ehrman level. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ecclesiologies took their shape.

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.
Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?
As far as I am concerned, anyone who preaches Jesus as the Christ and believes in Him as God's only Son (who died and rose again to redeem all of creation) & the only way to the Father and is a follower of Him, can be considered a Christian.
However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).
Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

 

[Blade Runner]

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.
Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?
As far as I am concerned, anyone who preaches Jesus as the Christ and believes in Him as God's only Son (who died and rose again to redeem all of creation) & the only way to the Father and is a follower of Him, can be considered a Christian.
However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).
Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

Good points.

A quick summary of what you say, and many others have said, is that the question "What must I do to be saved?" is not asking "What must I do minimally to be saved?" which is how most humans tend to take it, and most broken humans who want people on their side (simple living, assurance, followers) will tend to put forth.

That's the point. Good teachings and faith traditions don't focus on the lowest of the low to encourage humanity towards better things, especially godly things.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.

I didn't mean it as a low blow. That is literally how Ehrman has articulated the Bible. If you are consistent with that kind of epistemology, you'll follow it right out of Christianity altogether.

Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

I recommend that you read the Institutes. "Calvin vs 1500 years of tradition" is both anachronistic and inaccurate. The idea that the first 1500 years is a monolith is a myth. The fact that you have multiple churches claiming to be "the church of the first 1500 years" is all the evidence you need to see that.

Your first question, the answer is a bit of both. I don't see a dichotomy there. Second question, no, not all the theology was incorrect, but it's imprecise to flatten out the first 1500 years as if there were no doctrinal developments, schisms, controversies, political maneuverings, etc.

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?

If a church contains a tradition that is not in Scripture, then the "fault" is in that church and not the Scripture. This is not a "flaw" or a bug, but a feature.

Acts 2:42: And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

Not sure what you see in this other than what it says. In context, the Apostle's teaching = the Gospel.

What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?

How is this an evidence against Sola Scriptura? Are these unrecorded things we need to know? Does Oral Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? Why not read the previous chapter?

John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).

No one's arguing against this.

Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

If Protestants split hairs over what the Bible teaches, how much more do you think non-Protestants split hairs over what the Bible doesn't teach? As I said above, look into the history of the schisms. The idea that the first 1500 years was the Church living in static harmony is a lie.

 

[starlight]

I didn't mean it as a low blow. That is literally how Ehrman has articulated the Bible. If you are consistent with that kind of epistemology, you'll follow it right out of Christianity altogether.


I recommend that you read the Institutes. "Calvin vs 1500 years of tradition" is both anachronistic and inaccurate. The idea that the first 1500 years is a monolith is a myth. The fact that you have multiple churches claiming to be "the church of the first 1500 years" is all the evidence you need to see that.

Your first question, the answer is a bit of both. I don't see a dichotomy there. Second question, no, not all the theology was incorrect, but it's imprecise to flatten out the first 1500 years as if there were no doctrinal developments, schisms, controversies, political maneuverings, etc.


If a church contains a tradition that is not in Scripture, then the "fault" is in that church and not the Scripture. This is not a "flaw" or a bug, but a feature.

Acts 2:42: And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

Not sure what you see in this other than what it says. In context, the Apostle's teaching = the Gospel.


How is this an evidence against Sola Scriptura? Are these unrecorded things we need to know? Does Oral Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? Why not read the previous chapter?

John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


No one's arguing against this.


If Protestants split hairs over what the Bible teaches, how much more do you think non-Protestants split hairs over what the Bible doesn't teach? As I said above, look into the history of the schisms. The idea that the first 1500 years was the Church living in static harmony is a lie.

Also, just to add on to what you already wrote, about the first 1500 years of Christianity and Luther and the Reformation: his 95 Theses were a critique of heresies of the Catholic church at that very specific time. Ironically, many of those very theses and critiques were addressed and utilized during the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done given that the Catholic church had vilified, exiled, and excommunicated many devote Catholics with no possible reconciliation.

 

[scary_robot_music]

This is unfortunately true but IIMT is not the only one. In fact, this is probably true for a large section of the forum. People still have a politics first, Christ in a distant second mindset.

I think it has to be this way when you have different kinds of Christians on equal footing. Let me explain.

When RVF first turned officially Christian I thought awesome, hopefully there will be a lot of respectful and meaningful discussions of Christianity and theology done is a harmonious spirit of Christian brotherhood, and this will help me figure out which branch of Christianity is the most correct, or at least best for me.

How naive I was. Instead we got bitter infighting between mainstream Catholics, sedevacantist Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants and endless tedious debates over stuff like the filioque. It got me no closer to choosing a denomination. In fact, I ended up further from choosing and the only useful takeaway I got was that the different branches of Christianity are almost entirely different religions. They call themselves Christian and worship a figure called Jesus Christ, but their ideas about that figure and how to worship Him are very, very different. It's almost impossible for the different denominations to get along unless you have one branch declared dominant like in RVF 2.0, or you segregate them as we do at CiK. Once you do the latter, I think you have a bunch of guys who basically agree on everything, so there's not that much to post about. The bitter fighting between the denominations isn't fun (for me at least) but it does drive more activity on the forum.

Regardless, these almost entirely different religions that call themselves Christian do easily agree on many surface things like abortion and pornography being bad, strongly disagreeing with liberals and leftists in general, not blaspheming Christ, and so on. So, it's much easier to have all different types of Christians talk culture and politics together than theology. I myself enjoy being able to discuss the events of the day here without godless people being able to resort to blasphemy and their enthusiasm about homosexuality as trump cards.

Back to theology, you once did a lengthy debate with an Orthodox member that was an exception to the uncharitable mudslinging I mention above. You talked a lot about the visible vs. the invisible church, and neither you nor the guy you were debating flew off the handle and resorted to personal attacks at any time. It was very helpful to me, and the kind of thing I'd hoped to see much more often on RVF 2.0 and here. I wish I'd copied it out and kept it to refer to, but it was a while ago and I have no idea where to look now.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I think it has to be this way when you have different kinds of Christians on equal footing. Let me explain.

I hear what you're saying, and a lot of it is true, but I still stand by my point. That there are members who very clearly are politically minded first with Christianity being more of a window dressing to them. My desire is to tempt them to dive into their faith more deeply. This is not just a forum problem, but a broader cultural problem.

I think "on the outside, looking in" some of the theological topics we've gotten into can come across as more disparate than they really are. There are real differences across denominations, I don't deny it, but I would be careful to not go so far as to call them different religions. For the things we argue about, there are many other things that we aren't arguing about because on those we agree. The disagreements can become underscored and the agreements can become invisible. Be wary of that.

As for the political side, there are plenty of disagreements in that area as well. We have people who support abortion. People who are always Trump, never Trump, sometimes Trump, whatever. The funny thing is, many of us are on the right-side of the spectrum because of our Chrsitianity, despite coming from different denominations.

 

[scary_robot_music]

asdf

For the things we argue about, there are many other things that we aren't arguing about because on those we agree. The disagreements can become underscored and the agreements can become invisible. Be wary of that.

Good point. That said, my takeaway from RVF 2.0 before Roosh banned all non-Orthodox thought was definitely that Catholicism (all flavors), Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are essentially entirely different religions. Each only has slightly more in common with the other than they all have in common with Islam, in my opinion. I could be wrong, as you point out.

I'm not even saying the guys who'd do the endless fighting with other types of Christians are necessarily wrong. Maybe God does care deeply about which branch you choose and maybe if you choose wrong or just refuse to choose like me, you are putting your eternal soul in peril. Who knows. I don't.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Good point. That said, my takeaway from RVF 2.0 before Roosh banned all non-Orthodox thought was definitely that Catholicism (all flavors), Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are essentially entirely different religions. Each only has slightly more in common with the other than they all have in common with Islam, in my opinion. I could be wrong, as you point out.

I agree with this point. I'm sorry to go into a religious rant but I will try my best to explain.

There is and can only ever be one true Church that was founded by Jesus Christ. Surely we all agree He didn't found muliple Churches, right? We all agree there was one Church at the beginning, right? From there it's just a matter of looking at history and using a little bit of logic and common sense to follow the trail and understand where things stand today.

"Catholics" used to be a part of the "Orthodox" Church in the first millenium - which in those days was simply "the Church" - and now they aren't. There were 5 patriarchates - Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem. One of them pulled an Eric Cartman. Another way to look at it is like a band member that leaves the band and keeps using the name, claiming to be the real band, because they think their contributions were oh so more important and valuable than the rest, meanwhile the other 4 original people are still there, doing their thing, and they have nothing to prove to anyone. The person who left may even get super famous but they will never be "the Beatles", or whatever.

So let's look at what these words mean. "Orthodox" in our context means correct, traditional, authentic; some would translate it as "right or correct belief". What is meant by this is that the "Orthodox" Church is the one true, Catholic (which means universal) and Apostolic Church. There are minimal if any changes from the original. Apostolic means we can trace authority from today all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles. We literally know the name of every single man who laid hands on another man and transferred the authority, all the way back to Christ Himself. It is a factually and historically true statement which cannot be argued against in good faith.

The disagreement is primarily that "Catholics" claim that the Orthodox left them and thereby lost some (or all, depending on who you talk to) legitimacy at some point, and the Orthodox claim the opposite (which is objectively true and correct), but there is no doubt of the historical authenticity and lineage of the Orthodox Church going back to Christ and the Apostles. The two Churches also recognize each others sacrements to some degree, though they are not in communion. This is why Catholics are often Chrismated into the Orthodox Church (not fully re-baptized), and don't require full baptism (Catholic baptism is also lacking, as it often isn't done with a full triple immersion, which is a bigger deal than it sounds, but that's another issue).

Protestants (speaking as someone who was raised in various flavors of protestantism) are a whole other can of worms. It goes without saying that while protestents certainly may enjoy the Grace of God, Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit to some degree, they cannot ever claim to be members of the original, one, true Church, and they do not have any direct legacy regarding it. Protestantism is a new innovation which copies some aspect of the Orthodox faith but has no connection to the original. It is like coke and pepsi.

That being said there are a ton of really wonderful, genuine, well-meaning people who really do love Christ and are protestants or Catholics (like my own parents, for example). These people are equally worthy of love and respect as any Orthodox Christian. I'm also not going to suggest that it's impossible to achieve salvation outside of the Orthodox Church, because only God really knows who is truly saved, but they are most certainly missing out on receiving His most pure body and precious blood and cannot ever be considered as part of the universal body of Christ in the same way that Orthodox Christians are.

This is unfortunately "the truth" as it stands today as I understand it, and I've done a LOT of research and debate on this subject, before coming to this conclusion and seeking out the Orthodox Church. The reason I say it's "unfortunate" is that some folks are really missing out, and there's simply no other way to sugar coat it. Personally I would love nothing more than for all followers of Christ to unite and be part of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. I am encouraged every day and I see so many Orthodox Catachumens and that is probably the largest reason why I donate so much of my time to this forum. I pray that my efforts may in some small part bring even one single person person closer to the truth and taking that step towards Christ and His Church.

I rarely post these kind of passionate rants so I hope everyone will forgive me this one time. I love you all and I pray that every one of you will truly come to know Christ and find the salvation that only He can provide.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[FrancisK]

I agree with this point. I'm sorry to go into a religious rant but I will try my best to explain.

There is and can only ever be one true Church that was founded by Jesus Christ. Surely we all agree He didn't found muliple Churches, right? We all agree there was one Church at the beginning, right? From there it's just a matter of looking at history and using a little bit of logic and common sense to follow the trail and understand where things stand today.

"Catholics" used to be a part of the "Orthodox" Church in the first millenium - which in those days was simply "the Church" - and now they aren't. There were 5 patriarchates - Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem. One of them pulled an Eric Cartman. Another way to look at it is like a band member that leaves the band and keeps using the name, claiming to be the real band, because they think their contributions were oh so more important and valuable than the rest, meanwhile the other 4 original people are still there, doing their thing, and they have nothing to prove to anyone. The person who left may even get super famous but they will never be "the Beatles", or whatever.

So let's look at what these words mean. "Orthodox" in our context means correct, traditional, authentic; some would translate it as "right or correct belief". What is meant by this is that the "Orthodox" Church is the one true, Catholic (which means universal) and Apostolic Church. There are minimal if any changes from the original. Apostolic means we can trace authority from today all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles. We literally know the name of every single man who laid hands on another man and transferred the authority, all the way back to Christ Himself. It is a factually and historically true statement which cannot be argued against in good faith.

The disagreement is primarily that "Catholics" claim that the Orthodox left them and thereby lost some (or all, depending on who you talk to) legitimacy at some point, and the Orthodox claim the opposite (which is objectively true and correct), but there is no doubt of the historical authenticity and lineage of the Orthodox Church going back to Christ and the Apostles. The two Churches also recognize each others sacrements to some degree, though they are not in communion. This is why Catholics are often Chrismated into the Orthodox Church (not fully re-baptized), and don't require full baptism (Catholic baptism is also lacking, as it often isn't done with a full triple immersion, which is a bigger deal than it sounds, but that's another issue).

Protestants (speaking as someone who was raised in various flavors of protestantism) are a whole other can of worms. It goes without saying that while protestents certainly may enjoy the Grace of God, Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit to some degree, they cannot ever claim to be members of the original, one, true Church, and they do not have any direct legacy regarding it. Protestantism is a new innovation which copies some aspect of the Orthodox faith but has no connection to the original. It is like coke and pepsi.

That being said there are a ton of really wonderful, genuine, well-meaning people who genuinely do love Christ and are protestants or Catholics. These people are equally worthy of love and respect as any Orthodox Christian. I'm also not going to suggest that it's impossible to achieve salvation outside of the Orthodox Church, because only God really knows who is truly saved, but they are most certainly missing out on receiving His most pure body and precious blood and cannot ever be considered as part of the universal body of Christ in the same way that Orthodox Christians are.

This is unfortunately "the truth" as it stands today as I understand it, and I've done a LOT of research and debate on this subject, before coming to this conclusion and seeking out the Orthodox Church. The reason I say it's "unfortunate" is that some folks are really missing out, and there's simply no other way to sugar coat it. Personally I would love nothing more than for all followers of Christ to unite and be part of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. I am encouraged every day and I see so many Orthodox Catachumens and that is probably the largest reason why I donate so much of my time to this forum. I pray that my efforts may in some small part bring even one single person person closer to the truth and taking that step towards Christ and His Church.

I rarely post these kind of passionate rants so I hope everyone will forgive me this one time. I love you all and I pray that every one of you will truly come to know Christ and find the salvation that only He can provide.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

What would you say to someone like myself whose people practice an extremely conservative and traditional form of Catholicism in Aramaic that dates itself to the very beginning. I don't ask contentiously, I'm simply curious as to what you have to say.

 

[FrancisK]

I feel very sorry to admit it, but I must confess that I fall into this category. I realize that I don't really don't bring anything of value here in the long run, spiritually or temporally. My post-to-reaction-score ratio has never topped 4:1. Numbers don't lie.

As I once read years ago: "The only consistent feature of all of your dissatisfying relationships is YOU."

Whatever, I'll just plug away at trade school and try to make myself useful to society "pulling wrenches." At the end of the day, the only person living who cares whether or not I end up dead in a ditch is my psychotic, emotionally crippled elderly mother, for whom I'm naught but a financial crutch and an emotional whipping-post.

I'll make a deal with the forum: if this post gets at least 10 dislikes in the next week, I'll quit posting here forever.

You are our brother in Christ, you belong with us together and we care about you as does Christ. Don't ever doubt that, reaction score is the most meaningless thing on this forum, we stand behind you as brothers who walk together.

 

[Servant of Christ]

What would you say to someone like myself whose people practice an extremely conservative and traditional form of Catholicism in Aramaic that dates itself to the very beginning. I don't ask contentiously, I'm simply curious as to what you have to say.

I would say, please tell me more about it, it sounds interesting.

 

[FrancisK]

I would say, please tell me more about it, it sounds interesting.

I'm Chaldean, I speak Aramaic our mass is in Aramaic and while we eventually aligned with Rome, for better or worse, our traditions come from the first century which were founded by Jesus and very distinct from modern Catholicism.

 

[analyst_green]

I'm Chaldean, I speak Aramaic our mass is in Aramaic and while we eventually aligned with Rome, for better or worse, our traditions come from the first century which were founded by Jesus and very distinct from modern Catholicism.

I think that would count as Eastern Catholic like the ones in Lebanon, Ukraine, or Greece right? I have a lot of respect for our Eastern Catholic Brothers because outwardly you appear to have almost the same exact praxis and theology as us Orthodox. You still have icons, married priests, no filioque, etc. It is wonderful you've managed to keep these traditions alive.

However, your church is in communion with Rome. You consider the pope to be infallible and the head of the whole church. We consider that the Church is only headed by Jesus Christ and only He is infallible. And that every single Bishop is equal in authority. Which means as far as we're concerned, you are not part of the one holy, Catholic, apostolic church established by Christ's apostles. At some point you separated and joined Rome.

And we hold this fact as much more important than the outward aspects. In fact, there are Western rite Orthodox parishes where the liturgy is served in a style just like in ancient Rome. It looks more like Catholic mass than most Orthodox liturgies. And yet they are still entirely Orthodox because being a part of the Church and shared dogma is what matters, not externals.

Also, Rome innovated certain theological ideas, ideas which we hold to be heresies, 200 years before the great schism. And yet we did not split from Rome even then when they were preaching against what we hold to be Truth. They split from us. The Greeks literally begged the Latins to come back during their final meeting but the Latins refused.