Constantine and the RCC

[Fidei Defensor]

7 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I disagree but if this is how you judge the Roman Churches exaistence than how can you say:

If the Roman Church didn't exsist until 1054 than how did the Roman Church add the Filioque clause which eventually led to the split?

the other part of the split was the Eastern Church finally rejecting Romes authority. Before the Filioque clause being added, for the most part there was harmony in the church. So how can the Orthodox Church reject something from a Church that didn't exsist until 1054. All the Councils that were called relied on the Bishop of Rome to ratify otherwise it was not considered. This might be a point of disagreement from Protestants, but as far as I know it's not denied by the Orthodox. Before the final schism of 1054 the pope was viewed as first among equals (in relation to the patriarchs). Than there's the Church's Fathers that write extensive about the Catholic Church. There has always been different rites within the Church, there is a byzatine Catholic Church. They are the ones that returned to the Church before the final split. 

 

In spirit you are right, the Roman Church was already in its adolescence when they added filoque clause. I am of the view that church however is not its own entity until it is recognized as separate institution by its opposition or other churches, which happened in 1054 A.D. When the Roman Church added the Filoque and its Latin Rite, it was still part of Eastern Church until the Great Schism (1054 A.D.), just as Protestants were still part of Catholic Church until they were officially denounced by Pope Leo X and the Papal Bull. Martin Luther actually was trying to reform the Catholic Church, and his later dark history is testimony to his despair, he had no intention of creating a separate church, the same went for John Weasley later, who wanted to reform the Church of England, but ended up with Methodist and Moravian offshoot of Charismaticism called "The First Great Awakening." My point with respect is that church is not its unique and separate identity until recognized by its opposition. For Protestants it was when Roman Catholic Church declared them Excommunicated and enemies of the church, for the Anglican Church it was when Henry VIII broke from Rome and became head of the Church (very Byzantine, Eastern Orthodoxy would approve of a monarch ruling church and state, see how Byzantium was run ecclesiastically with the emperor leading both temporal and spiritual).

You are right Judas that in spirit and in spirituality the Roman Church existed before 1054 A.D., but they weren't officially recognized as the Church that reigns to day from St. Peters until they broke with the Eastern Orthodoxy Episcopate and Patriarchs, which again happened in 1054 A.D. I am taking my view form history, that an organization or church doesn't really exist as separate from where it came out of until it is recognized by those around it, this was case for St. Francis of Assisi and his brothers who wanted there new order to be recognized or Ignatius of Loyola and his desire to start the Society of Jesus (The Jesuites, interestingly Jesuit was a son of Tribe of Asher, one of tribes of Israel), she needed to get recognized by the Pope as separate order of Catholic Church. Another way of putting it for others reading is a country isn't as country until its recognized by other countries.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Fidei Defensor

[Spock]

51 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

In spirit you are right, the Roman Church was already in its adolescence when they added filoque clause. I am of the view that church however is not its own entity until it is recognized as separate institution by its opposition or other churches, which happened in 1054 A.D. When the Roman Church added the Filoque and its Latin Rite, it was still part of Eastern Church until the Great Schism (1054 A.D.), just as Protestants were still part of Catholic Church until they were officially denounced by Pope Leo X and the Papal Bull. Martin Luther actually was trying to reform the Catholic Church, and his later dark history is testimony to his despair, he had no intention of creating a separate church, the same went for John Weasley later, who wanted to reform the Church of England, but ended up with Methodist and Moravian offshoot of Charismaticism called "The First Great Awakening." My point with respect is that church is not its unique and separate identity until recognized by its opposition. For Protestants it was when Roman Catholic Church declared them Excommunicated and enemies of the church, for the Anglican Church it was when Henry VIII broke from Rome and became head of the Church (very Byzantine, Eastern Orthodoxy would approve of a monarch ruling church and state, see how Byzantium was run ecclesiastically with the emperor leading both temporal and spiritual).

You are right Judas that in spirit and in spirituality the Roman Church existed before 1054 A.D., but they weren't officially recognized as the Church that reigns to day from St. Peters until they broke with the Eastern Orthodoxy Episcopate and Patriarchs, which again happened in 1054 A.D. I am taking my view form history, that an organization or church doesn't really exist as separate from where it came out of until it is recognized by those around it, this was case for St. Francis of Assisi and his brothers who wanted there new order to be recognized or Ignatius of Loyola and his desire to start the Society of Jesus (The Jesuites, interestingly Jesuit was a son of Tribe of Asher, one of tribes of Israel), she needed to get recognized by the Pope as separate order of Catholic Church. Another way of putting it for others reading is a country isn't as country until its recognized by other countries.

Fidei,

at the risk of embarrassing you, I would just like to say how much I have enjoyed reading your posts this weekend.  And it's not even because we seem to agree on more than not. I learn things reading your posts and your tone is so refreshing. I hope you bless us with more of your personality, presence, and power of word. 

Cheers bro,

spock

[Fidei Defensor]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 5:14 AM, Spock said:

The Crusaders did a good work?  What did they do that was good?  The Muslims still had control of the Mid East and imposed their will for hundreds of years after the few years the crusaders won back Jerusalem. 

The Crusaders major contribution was that their descendants who were Milites Christi and Fedi Defensors repelled the Ottoman Turks in Battle of Lepanto, The Battle of Malta, and the Husburg Wars. The Ottomans were preparing to take the whole of Europe, but miraculous defeats happened. For example at Battle of Malta, an estimated 6,100 Maltese Crusaders (including Knights of St. John, formerly The Knights Hospitallers, 200 in strength) defeated an army and armada of 40,000 Ottoman Turks in a miracle. Martin Luther praised the results of the Battle of Lepanto. And while I am Pro-Reformation and Protestant, I better understood the concerns of Catholic Church that splintering Christendom while Ottoman Turks were beginning to invade was risky to say the least.

If it weren't for Holy League and Catholic Crusaders, there would have been no more Protestants, no more Christians. The entirety of Europe would have become a Caliphate or Ummah under the Crescent of Islam.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Fidei Defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

26 minutes ago, Spock said:

Fidei,

at the risk of embarrassing you, I would just like to say how much I have enjoyed reading your posts this weekend.  And it's not even because we seem to agree on more than not. I learn things reading your posts and your tone is so refreshing. I hope you bless us with more of your personality, presence, and power of word. 

Cheers bro,

spock

You do me great honor. I learned a respectful tone from being around so many different brothers and sisters in Christ. I had a ecumenical (not ecumenism) or inter-denominational upbringing and so it makes me ready to put on someone's else' shoes and see it from their point of view, while maintaining my convictions. I owe to Christ, he allowed me to be born and live in place where I got to relate in a melting pot of the Messiah's followers.  

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, Fidei Defensor said:

In spirit you are right, the Roman Church was already in its adolescence when they added filoque clause.

Okay, I see what you're saying.  But Before 1054 the Church was referred to as the Catholic Church. But (correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying it was called the Byzatine Church. 

[Fidei Defensor]

7 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Okay, I see what you're saying.  But Before 1054 the Church was referred to as the Catholic Church. But (correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying it was called the Byzatine Church. 

Here is the big confusion. The Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Church calls themselves The Catholic Church, because that line is in Nicene Creed. So the Byzantines and Eastern Orthodox to this day think they are Catholic and Roman (not Greek or Slavic). So prior to 1054, the Roman Catholic Church as you know it was called the Catholic Church, because there was no schism yet. The Byzantines didn't start using Orthodox in their title of Church until afterwards, to denote that they are Supreme and Orthodox faith according to the Councils (Nicaea, Chalcedon, and so forth). The Roman Catholic Church today calls itself orthodox, because orthodox means "right belief" according to Council of Nicea and beyond, oppose to heretic in case of Nestorians, Arians, Copts, Gnostics, and so forth who were heretical Christianities, cults.

So to make it clear, I know its confusing because of semantics and how words are used. The Roman Catholic Church was called Catholic because Byzantine Church was called Catholic, but the Roman Church as you know it today did not become the distinct church that we know today with papacy and recognized as separate Church from Eastern Orthodox (Catholic) church until 1054 A.D.

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Fidei Defensor

[Spock]

30 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The Crusaders major contribution was that their descendants who were Milites Christi and Fedi Defensors repelled the Ottoman Turks in Battle of Lepanto, The Battle of Malta, and the Husburg Wars. The Ottomans were preparing to take the whole of Europe, but miraculous defeats happened. For example at Battle of Malta, an estimated 6,100 Maltese Crusaders (including Knights of St. John, formerly The Knights Hospitallers, 200 in strength) defeated an army and armada of 40,000 Ottoman Turks in a miracle. Martin Luther praised the results of the Battle of Lepanto. And while I am Pro-Reformation and Protestant, I better understood the concerns of Catholic Church that splintering Christendom while Ottoman Turks were beginning to invade was risky to say the least.

If it weren't for Holy League and Catholic Crusaders, there would have been no more Protestants, no more Christians. The entirety of Europe would have become a Caliphate or Ummah under the Crescent of Islam.

Interesting that you say the main contribution of the Crusaders were their descendants, as if the Crusaders themselves from 1091-1295 were pretty useless. 

I agree. 

http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

50 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Here is the big confusion. The Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Church calls themselves The Catholic Church, because that line is in Nicene Creed. So the Byzantines and Eastern Orthodox to this day think they are Catholic and Roman (not Greek or Slavic). So prior to 1054, the Roman Catholic Church as you know it was called the Catholic Church, because there was no schism yet. The Byzantines didn't start using Orthodox in their title of Church until afterwards, to denote that they are Supreme and Orthodox faith according to the Councils (Nicaea, Chalcedon, and so forth). The Roman Catholic Church today calls itself orthodox, because orthodox means "right belief" according to Council of Nicea and beyond, oppose to heretic in case of Nestorians, Arians, Copts, Gnostics, and so forth who were heretical Christianities, cults.

So to make it clear, I know its confusing because of semantics and how words are used. The Roman Catholic Church was called Catholic because Byzantine Church was called Catholic, but the Roman Church as you know it today did not become the distinct church that we know today with papacy and recognized as separate Church from Eastern Orthodox (Catholic) church until 1054 A.D.

 

Gotcha, kinda looking at different sides of the same coin. Than after 1054 the coin split into two. 

[Fidei Defensor]

2 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Gotcha, kinda looking at different sides of the same coin. Than after 1054 the coin split into two. 

Indeed, I have found reading Eastern Orthodox texts like "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware gave great insight into the other side of coin. Combining Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed studies makes for a great panoramic view of Church History, doxology, and theological studies.