are both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches apostolic?
Jagon
Don't listen to me
if so, then why do they differ in teachings and practice?
0
Comments
-
bwiset ka, seryoso usapan dito, antay antay ka lang mamaya babasagin ko ngalangala mo
Oo naman. Sino ba sinusulatan ng mga apostol sa biblia? Mga tiga saan? Roma di ba? Saka mga probinsiya ng Greece? Saka maski ano gawin niyong pambabaligtad yang mga secta niyo eh kulani lang ng Iglesia Catolica na umusbong noong 16th Century kaya nga kayo eh mga sola scriptura at sola fide - mga doctrinang kinahoy niyo sa mga Repormistang palpak na wala namang nireporma kaya hanggang ngayon libo libo pa din ang mga ebanghelico protestante at hindi nagkakaisa sa iisang doctrina. Sola Scriptura nga sa wikipedia hinuhugot ni Equis eh oh lols. Mga panis hahaha. Pathetic. Kayo pa magtuturo sa amin? Saan niyo huhugutin ang aral? Sa wikipedia! Sola Wikipedia! lols.0 -
^please do not divert the topic, answer the question and present your rebuttal
Sinagot na kita ah. Apostolic. Hindi ba obvious na sinusulatan nga ng mga apostol yung mga iglesiang nasa ROMA, AT GRECIA: CORINTO, EFESO ETC.? Imposible namang mga ebanghelico/protestante yang sinusulatan eh sumulpot lang mga secta niyo nagsimula ang rebellion ni Lutero noong 16th Century?
And basically we don't differ in teachings. We share the belief in 7 sacraments, infant baptism, real presence, priesthood, tradition and scripture forming one deposit of faith. We share the same church fathers more or less.0 -
perhaps because even the apostles had differences from time to time.
oh yes they did, but they somehow found a way to sort things out. and didn't have to wait decades/centuries to do so.
Paul usually had different views, look at James and Paul, they are very different in their messages, but they never splitted and still considered themselves one.0 -
Delving into history, it was indeed all of Christianity but never any of these religions, sectarianism, etc.,etc.,.v v v v v
[img][/img]
Church History:Relevant for Modern Christianity
Church History, on the surface, seems irrelevant to 21st century Christianity. However, Christianity, unlike any other religion, is deeply rooted in history. Central to the Christian faith is the fact that God came to earth as a man -- Jesus Christ. He lived, loved and taught among humanity about 2000 years ago. The historical reality of His sacrifice, burial and resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The Bible is not a fairy tale, but a divinely inspired historical record of God's plan of redemption for a hurting world. To study church history is to see the hand of God at work amidst the strife, transgression and glory of man's ways.
# 30-70 AD) The Time of Jesus and the Apostles The death and resurrection of Christ.
# The Christian faith is birthed and the gospel of grace is preached.
Christianity: Simple Truth
Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others.^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Thus, could be gleaned that these early believers were Christians without any man-made labels.
Universality was still out of the way then and differentiators were just later man-made tags. They were just obscure Christians then and up to now, could be felt by anyone with true humility abounding in his/her deep inner spirit.
Didn't find any opposing wisdom between these apostles when upon the true and absolute recognition of GOD and HIS doctrines. And, most worthy is that they were just lowly christians without any grandeurs of these man-made structural edifices. Best to adhere with these foundations and early beginnings of these first christians.
Act 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
And most of all are these:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.0 -
they are apostolic. they may have developed different rituals but their founders can be traced to the Apostles and deacons of the first church.0
-
dude, wala akong denomination, I consider ALL christians regardless of ANY religion and denomination part of the church where I belong. So ang mga Roman Catholic, Protestants, kahit mga Iglesia pwede na rin, mga brothers and sisters ko sila
sigurado ako hindi kilala ni Cristo ang tao na ito...mapapahamak ang tao na ito sa araw ng paghuhukom...0 -
These early believers were Christians without any man-made labels.
Universality was still out of the way then and differentiators were just later man-made tags. They were just obscure Christians then and up to now, could be felt by anyone with true humility abounding in his/her deep inner spirit.
Didn't find any opposing wisdom between these apostles when upon the true and absolute recognition of GOD and HIS doctrines. And, most worthy is that they were just lowly christians without any grandeurs of these man-made structural edifices. Best to adhere with these foundations and early beginnings of these first christians.
Act 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
And most of all are these:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.0 -
if so, then why do they differ in teachings and practice?
Hi Jagon,
For sure they are both apostolic.
The question of why they differ in teachings and practice is a matter of history, i.e. how each arrived where they are at. The major differences are mainly developed in the Old Rome (Roman Catholic) -- a departure from what everybody else were doing in the east. This is where east and west started having the demarcation line. I will mention few examples.
There was a time that in the west, Old Rome used to sign the cross the same way as the Orthodox. Here's a quote from Catholic Encyclopedia (italicized for emphasis),At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left.
Then there's the teaching about original sin from which flows the Immaculate conception. This teaching was uniquely western see and not shared by any sees in the east, and can be attributed to St Augustine's unfamiliarity with the works of the Greek fathers. And because original sin was foreign to the teaching of the Church Fathers, Immaculate Conception from which it flows is also rejected in the east.
Filioque, though had served the Old Rome in her fight with the Arians, was never expressed in the Nicene creed. The insertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" is also rejected in the east. To this day the western rite still confess this but not, afaik, the eastern rite (those whose liturgy is the same as the Orthodox).
Then there's the papacy.
Of the five patriarchates mentioned in Nicean Council only Rome developed doctrines and practices different from the rest.
Please forgive me if I missed on some details, but these are verifiable differences between what we now know Roman Catholic and the Orthodox -- who confess themselves catholic, but not Roman.
Thanks,
benMarcing0 -
dude, wala akong denomination, I consider ALL christians regardless of ANY religion and denomination part of the church where I belong. So ang mga Roman Catholic, Protestants, kahit mga Iglesia pwede na rin, mga brothers and sisters ko sila
tanong lang po, sa paanong paran po kayo naging Kristiyano? sino po ang nag-introduce sa inyo kay Kristo? at kailan po kayo nagbasa/buklat ng Biblia?
Salamat po peace!0 -
benMarcing wrote: »Hi Jagon,
For sure they are both apostolic.
The question of why they differ in teachings and practice is a matter of history, i.e. how each arrived where they are at. The major differences are mainly developed in the Old Rome (Roman Catholic) -- a departure from what everybody else were doing in the east. This is where east and west started having the demarcation line. I will mention few examples.
There was a time that in the west, Old Rome used to sign the cross the same way as the Orthodox. Here's a quote from Catholic Encyclopedia (italicized for emphasis),At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left.
Then there's the teaching about original sin from which flows the Immaculate conception. This teaching was uniquely western see and not shared by any sees in the east, and can be attributed to St Augustine's unfamiliarity with the works of the Greek fathers. And because original sin was foreign to the teaching of the Church Fathers, Immaculate Conception from which it flows is also rejected in the east.
Filioque, though had served the Old Rome in her fight with the Arians, was never expressed in the Nicene creed. The insertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" is also rejected in the east. To this day the western rite still confess this but not, afaik, the eastern rite (those whose liturgy is the same as the Orthodox).
Then there's the papacy.
Of the five patriarchates mentioned in Nicean Council only Rome developed doctrines and practices different from the rest.
Please forgive me if I missed on some details, but these are verifiable differences between what we now know Roman Catholic and the Orthodox -- who confess themselves catholic, but not Roman.
Thanks,
benMarcing
okay, so if the orthodox east are apostolic even tho they reject catholic dogma, the protestants are apostolic as well.
why not?tanong lang po, sa paanong paran po kayo naging Kristiyano? sino po ang nag-introduce sa inyo kay Kristo? at kailan po kayo nagbasa/buklat ng Biblia?
Salamat po peace!
nabaptise akong Roman Catholic, lumaki sa protestant school, nagkolehiyo sa roman catholic school, naging atiesta, ngayon kristiyano na lang ako.
lahat ng steps na dinaanan ko masasabi kong nakilala ko si Kristo. kahit nung naging atiesta ako.0 -
okay, so if the orthodox east are apostolic even tho they reject catholic dogma, the protestants are apostolic as well.
You can't compare Protestants with the Orthodox Church.
The Church rejects the teachings uniquely Roman Catholic, not the catholic dogma. The apostolicity of the Orthodox Church is based on the tradition of the apostles, not just being founded by them. Furthermore, apostolicity entails apostolic succession. Protestants don't have them, therefore they are not apostolic.
Protestants have some apostolic teaching, e.g. the Trinity and hypostatic union in Christ. Their teaching of these fundamental dogmas are sometimes even defective. With respect to hypostatic union, Protestants likely than not to fall into Nestorianism. And because they have no familiarity with the controversy associated with filioque, they don't also mind it.
Thanks,
benMarcing0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
In this Discussion
- Jagon 9 posts
- tiburcioSais 3 posts
- benMarcing 3 posts
- sophion 2 posts
- ElCid 2 posts
- Tokay 2 posts
- gutz_3110 1 post
- alchemistofophir 1 post
- almario38 1 post
- salermo 1 post
