So, in your opinion, when the church is not actively excommunicating flagrant heretics, that's fine and dandy?
Of course not. But you do realize that all leaders are not the same and not all have excellent administrative skills. Go back and read a history of the popes. Some took absolutely no heretical garbage at all. They were strong men and acted like it. Others, while perhaps better at prayer and contemplative issues, were not given to such strength of character when it came to issues of administration.
And, of course, we know that a few were outright scoundrels who never should have been in the Chair of St. Peter at all.
So why do the Eastern Orthodox still stubbornly reject the filioque, where the Roman Church affirms it? Or why doesn't the Roman Church, being the more ecumenically inclined, simply drop the filioque, in order to facilitate reconciliation?
I think one answer to your first question is that the Orthodox have not forgiven the Romans for their ineptness and ofttimes stupidity in administrating the Church. The Sack of Constantinople comes to mind. Some of the Orthodox still drag that out and rehash it every year, despite John Paul II asking forgiveness for this act. Perhaps the Orthodox might want to remember the words of our Lord in this respect:
"For if you forgive not men their sins against you, neither will your Father in Heaven forgive your sins."
Ooooooooooooooooooooooo!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
That's the issue between Calvinists and others (and you'll please note that the Calvinist view is federalist)
Just so we are on the same page, would you kindly define "federalist" for me. I believe you are referring to covenantal headship, but I wish to be sure.
Both the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox see the atonement as being for all individuals.
[color:"0000FF"]2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.[/color]
[color:"0000FF"]Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,[/color]
[color:"0000FF"]1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.[/color]
[color:"0000FF"]1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.[/color]
Now where would they git such a dopey idea as that? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
The difference between them lies in whether original sin inheres in all descendants of Adam or not, and thus whether Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan or to God.
In other words (if I am following this line of thinking correctly) was Satan made the federal head over mankind in place of Adam? Is that right?
I'm sorry, but to say that the guilt of original sin extends to all descendants of Adam is clearly and simply contrary to saying that the guilt of original sin does not extend to all descendants of Adam. These views are utterly contradictory. They are not two sides of the same coin.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
And so they are no longer Eastern Orthodox, because they are no longer in communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches.
They are every bit as Eastern Orthodox as the churches in Byzantium prior to 1054 were Eastern Orthodox. In fact, one might really say that we are the REAL Eastern Orthodoxy, since we practice the same eclessiology which was held from the time of Christ up to the schism of 1054 AD.
I said that they agree on the number, not the nature, of the Sacraments. For that matter the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches do not have identical views of the Sacraments, either. Regarding the Eucharist, the Roman Church teaches transubstantiation, for example, where the Eastern Orthodox do not really bother to define precisely what becomes of the elements.
Now it is you who are being ridiculous. Baptists consider baptism an ORDINANCE whereas Presbyterians consider baptism a sacrament which confers or promises grace. If you are going to be Reformed, for heaven's sake at least get that right!!
As for the issue of definition of the Eucharist, the Orthodox never had the heresy of Protestantism within their ranks, therefore, there was no need to define what we both MUTUALLY BELIEVE -- that the elements, upon consecration by a validly ordained priest, become the very same Body and Blood which was upon the Cross. Ask any Orthodox some time.
Don't even start on that. William has destroyed your opinion on this one entirely.
No, he didn't. He mentioned some quotes from a local council and some quotes from idividual Early Fathers. They are not the same as a binding ecummenical council. While he's at it, why doesn't he take the ridiculous statement by (Turtullean, I think) about the Phoenix rising from the ashes every 500 years and make that to be truth also. You guys keep failing to realize that there is a considerable difference between individual opinion and official teaching, and you create strawmen out of individual teaching to avoid the reality of what the Church taught and ordains through councils.
Or why not get a Roman Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox to discuss the meaning of Peter's Rock?
Yup....Paid $29.95 for two tickets last week. Very entertaining.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
