Orthodox Christianity

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Well, actually they do. Protestants are the only ones that have no saints that one can emulate or model ones life. We are justified by faith, we are not "saved" by faith alone. It is the works through faith that saves. You will give an account of your works, NOT your faith
To be fair, the Episcopal/Anglican church does celebrate days for saints. They are technically Protestants, from my understanding, but probably the closet to Catholic practice in liturgy.

And plenty of Protestant churches uses Biblical saints (believers in God) as lessons for life. That's very common, actually.
 
I

Is

Guest
Mary wasn't sinless.

“And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” Here they are extolling Jesus’ mother (as the Catholic Church does today), notice what Jesus’ reaction is v.28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28). The WORD of God was what Jesus said was more important, even than His earthly mother.

For one to be sinless as Mary is claimed to be means they have the glory of God. Yet God himself states “my glory I will not give another.” The only one who shares in this glory is Jesus (Jn.17:5), Mary did not have God’s glory, only Jesus did.

"And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." Luke 1:47

Mary knew she was a sinner in need of a being saved.
 

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
Christ said "not one of you are righteous". He did not say "not one of you are righteous, besides my mom here, she is totally perfect" :p

I always have wondered where the idea that Mary was without sin like Christ was. It never made sense to me, if she was Im pretty sure God would have told us all about it.
 
I

Is

Guest
Christ said "not one of you are righteous". He did not say "not one of you are righteous, besides my mom here, she is totally perfect" :p

I always have wondered where the idea that Mary was without sin like Christ was. It never made sense to me, if she was Im pretty sure God would have told us all about it.
The church of Rome is Babylonian "Mother and Child" worship.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
To be fair, the Episcopal/Anglican church does celebrate days for saints. They are technically Protestants, from my understanding, but probably the closet to Catholic practice in liturgy.

And plenty of Protestant churches uses Biblical saints (believers in God) as lessons for life. That's very common, actually.
If they celebrate it then they also have appointed individuals as saints.

Using Biblical characters is good, but if they cannot see a saint let us say in the 18th century or even early 20th century then the theory is not holding, since it is not being translated into one's life. It is more abstract and not attainable by them.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Let me ask you, since it's not in Scripture, where did it come from?
It came from the Church, the same Church that wrote the scriptures, and later canonized the letters that make up the Bible. All done through the auspices of the Holy Spirit working in and through the Body of Christ. The same as it functioned in Acts 15. It has been the standard for 2000 years.
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
It came from the Church, the same Church that wrote the scriptures, and later canonized the letters that make up the Bible. All done through the auspices of the Holy Spirit working in and through the Body of Christ. The same as it functioned in Acts 15. It has been the standard for 2000 years.
It came from the RCC, where most false doctrine/traditions comes from, not the true church.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
It came from the RCC, where most false doctrine/traditions comes from, not the true church.
Since the RCC was established after 1054 you are about 1200 years late.

What always puzzles me is that one condemns something that supposedly gave you your Bible. How can you be sure that, according to you, an apostate Church determined the Canon.
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,373
113
Since the RCC was established after 1054 you are about 1200 years late.

What always puzzles me is that one condemns something that supposedly gave you your Bible. How can you be sure that, according to you, an apostate Church determined the Canon.
The RCC was established in the fourth century AD and the Codex Vaticanus is not the only source, we also have the original Greek texts, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Sinaiticus, the later being written in the mid fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Christ said "not one of you are righteous". He did not say "not one of you are righteous, besides my mom here, she is totally perfect" :p
Where did Jesus say verbetium that no one is righteous? He didn't say the second part, I don't believe, but "no not one" was technically St Paul, technically quoting poetry (Psalms). How does one draw an absolute truth from a poem/song? Poetry is more a collection of emotional responses to God, rather than absolute truth from God. I don't believe Paul meant it universally, all people, because his reference had a context.

Unless by Jesus saying such, you mean He is the Word and everything in Scripture is thus from Him as the divine Son of God. Which is fine, I won't go into that because that's not really the topic. That's another can of worms, but if you want to be technical about who said what, Jesus did not say this quote. I know He said "no one is good but God" but I believe those (righteous and good) are two different Greek words, and they have different contexts. It'd actually be interesting for me to make a sort of study from this.

I always have wondered where the idea that Mary was without sin like Christ was. It never made sense to me, if she was Im pretty sure God would have told us all about it.
Haven't you ever wondered why Jesus didn't write anything Himself? If humility, then why does He reveal His divinity at all? Haven't you ever wondered why He would intrust His message to be delivered by flawed human beings with limitations on memory and limitations in understanding, esp when a great deal of His ministry dealt with misunderstandings/misuse of God's word? And even schooling those who ultimately wrote about Him? Were the Gospel writers perfect, flawless in their understanding?

If Jesus never Himself felt inclined to write His own thoughts, which great saints of the past did such as King David, then why would you expect all this concerning denominational differences, such as Mary, to be spelled out? It isn't in there because it wasn't an issue at the time. The Trinity is not in there either, nor was it firmly established in the Church for like three centuries, but I seldom see Protestants who accuse Catholics of making up doctrines after the fact question this fundamental belief (that they DO share with Catholics).

There are many things Protestants believe and practice that looks NOTHING like the first century Church. The first century Church had actual dinner Coummions, not little manufactured wafers and juice/wine. And that IS addressed in Scripture, but I don't see many churches saying, "you know, let's not have these peffy wafers remembering the Lord, let's have feasts, to foreshadow the feast we will partake when the Bridegroom marries." It's interesting the logic behind using such a small substance, that you take individually in your pews with little actual fellowship during, to celebrate such a great God. And the issue Paul had was not the size of the feast but the selfishness and gluttony or certain members.

Catholics imo, don't have the best theology, and flawed in many conclusions. I see problems with the Protestant approach as well. I just try to send things from both sides.
 
N

nw2u

Guest
Who is the woman spoken of in Rev. 12?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Yeah, and look at all those priests that looked like they were living exemplary lives until they found out they were molesting children.
Lol wow... that's about one of the most common, and yet most immature arguments against Catholicism. As if there are not any Protestant sex abusers or scandals.

Forgive me, but sin nor holiness is limited by labels.
 
Last edited:

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
The RCC was established in the fourth century AD and the Codex Vaticanus is not the only source, we also have the original Greek texts, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Sinaiticus, the later being written in the mid fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.
You better check your history again. Other than the Orientals who separated after the Council of Chalcedon, the RCC or the Pope of Rome separated at about 1054. I say about because at the time there was hope that Rome would come back as they did before. However, with the sack of Constantinople with the 4th Crusade by Rome, the split became more or less final. There were two other attempts, the last was the Council of Florence. Since then Rome has been officially separated from the Church. They adopted the nane Roman while the other four Pentarchs took the name Orthdox.

The finalization of the Canon has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
The RCC was established in the fourth century AD and the Codex Vaticanus is not the only source, we also have the original Greek texts, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Sinaiticus, the later being written in the mid fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.
You said it better than I wuz 'bout to..... :)
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,373
113
You better check your history again. Other than the Orientals who separated after the Council of Chalcedon, the RCC or the Pope of Rome separated at about 1054. I say about because at the time there was hope that Rome would come back as they did before. However, with the sack of Constantinople with the 4th Crusade by Rome, the split became more or less final. There were two other attempts, the last was the Council of Florence. Since then Rome has been officially separated from the Church. They adopted the nane Roman while the other four Pentarchs took the name Orthdox.

The finalization of the Canon has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.
Don't need to check them, as they are correct. The on-set of the RCC was when the Roman Emperor Constantine deemed Christianity the official religion of Rome. From that time forward the RCC began to take shape. Not only that, but Roman Catholicism believes that Peter (which is false) was their first pope. Therefore, according the RCC, its origins go back to Peter. I have a list of Pope's sir, which goes back before 1054, so you need to go recheck you info. Oh, never mind, I will supply it for you, but only up to 1054 AD:


  1. St. Peter (32-67)
  2. St. Linus (67-76)
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97)
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
  6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
  7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
  8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
  9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155)
  11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
  12. St. Soter (166-175)
  13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  14. St. Victor I (189-199)
  15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
  16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
  17. St. Urban I (222-30)
  18. St. Pontain (230-35)
  19. St. Anterus (235-36)
  20. St. Fabian (236-50)
  21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
  22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
  23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
  24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
  25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
  26. St. Felix I (269-274)
  27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
  28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
  29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
  30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
  31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
  32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
  33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
  34. St. Marcus (336)
  35. St. Julius I (337-52)
  36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
  37. St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
  38. St. Siricius (384-99)
  39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
  40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
  41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
  42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
  43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
  44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
  45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
  46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
  47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
  48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
  49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
  50. Anastasius II (496-98)
  51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
  52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
  53. St. John I (523-26)
  54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
  55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
  56. John II (533-35)
  57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
  58. St. Silverius (536-37)
  59. Vigilius (537-55)
  60. Pelagius I (556-61)
  61. John III (561-74)
  62. Benedict I (575-79)
  63. Pelagius II (579-90)
  64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
  65. Sabinian (604-606)
  66. Boniface III (607)
  67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
  68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
  69. Boniface V (619-25)
  70. Honorius I (625-38)
  71. Severinus (640)
  72. John IV (640-42)
  73. Theodore I (642-49)
  74. St. Martin I (649-55)
  75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
  76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
  77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
  78. Donus (676-78)
  79. St. Agatho (678-81)
  80. St. Leo II (682-83)
  81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
  82. John V (685-86)
  83. Conon (686-87)
  84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
  85. John VI (701-05)
  86. John VII (705-07)
  87. Sisinnius (708)
  88. Constantine (708-15)
  89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
  90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
  91. St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
  92. Stephen II (III) (752-57)
  93. St. Paul I (757-67)
  94. Stephen III (IV) (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
  95. Adrian I (772-95)
  96. St. Leo III (795-816)
  97. Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
  98. St. Paschal I (817-24)
  99. Eugene II (824-27)
  100. Valentine (827)
  101. Gregory IV (827-44)
  102. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope
  103. St. Leo IV (847-55)
  104. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
  105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
  106. Adrian II (867-72)
  107. John VIII (872-82)
  108. Marinus I (882-84)
  109. St. Adrian III (884-85)
  110. Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
  111. Formosus (891-96)
  112. Boniface VI (896)
  113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
  114. Romanus (897)
  115. Theodore II (897)
  116. John IX (898-900)
  117. Benedict IV (900-03)
  118. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
  119. Sergius III (904-11)
  120. Anastasius III (911-13)
  121. Lando (913-14)
  122. John X (914-28)
  123. Leo VI (928)
  124. Stephen VIII (929-31)
  125. John XI (931-35)
  126. Leo VII (936-39)
  127. Stephen IX (939-42)
  128. Marinus II (942-46)
  129. Agapetus II (946-55)
  130. John XII (955-63)
  131. Leo VIII (963-64)
  132. Benedict V (964)
  133. John XIII (965-72)
  134. Benedict VI (973-74)
  135. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
  136. John XIV (983-84)
  137. John XV (985-96)
  138. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
  139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
  140. John XVII (1003)
  141. John XVIII (1003-09)
  142. Sergius IV (1009-12)
  143. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
  144. John XIX (1024-32)
  145. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
  146. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
  147. Benedict IX (1045)
  148. Gregory VI (1045-46)
  149. Clement II (1046-47)
  150. Benedict IX (1047-48)
  151. Damasus II (1048)
  152. St. Leo IX (1049-54)


    Wow! Look at all those pope's prior to 1054 AD.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,727
3,661
113
It came from the Church, the same Church that wrote the scriptures, and later canonized the letters that make up the Bible. All done through the auspices of the Holy Spirit working in and through the Body of Christ. The same as it functioned in Acts 15. It has been the standard for 2000 years.
Oh, are you talking about the Jewish Scriptures written by Jews"? Both OT and NT. chuckle, Jesus already had recognized the OT and the NT was recognized long before Mother Church. Acts 15 had some of the very Jewish writers present. Rome is a sorry usurper.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Ahwatukee,

Don't need to check them, as they are correct. The on-set of the RCC was when the Roman Emperor Constantine deemed Christianity the official religion of Rome. From that time forward the RCC began to take shape. Not only that, but Roman Catholicism believes that Peter (which is false) was their first pope. Therefore, according the RCC, its origins go back to Peter. I have a list of Pope's sir, which goes back before 1054, so you need to go recheck you info. Oh, never mind, I will supply it for you, but only up to 1054 AD:
I understand what Rome states. You should know that the whole theory is based on the false Credals of Isidore and Constantine.

The fact that they use the word "Pope" has nothing to do with the supremacy of the papacy. They will also argue that "Primacy" means absolute universal authority over the whole Church. However, theologically and historically that has never occurred prior to their splitting after 1054.

The Pope never presided over an Ecumenical Council. In fact was absent from several.

Every early Church has a list of its bishops which is what the Pope was before 1054.

Also, Peter was never a bishop and if he would have been, Jerusalem would have been the seat, or secondly Antioch. The ONLY reason that Rome became the seat of Primacy is that it was the capital of the Empire. It has nothing to do with any theological reason nor with Peter.

You have been beguiled by Rome. You are not the only one. The entire western world was fooled and beguiled by them long before they actually split. The division did not begin with Constantine, but with the fall of Rome in 476. That one single event began the total isolation of Rome from the rest of the Roman Empire. In the chaos the only recognizable entity that had some authority was the Bishop of Rome. Because of the vacuum he assumed political power and began the geographic hegemony as well. It is because he exercised secular control absolutely, he thought that it could extend to the Church as well. The Church had been conciliar from the beginning with each and every bishop of equal status. Rome attempted to change it and the Pope's placed themselves above Christ as head of the Church and gave themselves the autority that belongs to Christ.
So, I suggest that you go back to your study of history since you have both been quite incorrect.

Next time don't make your ignorace so bold.