Subject should be: Sell me on Orthodoxy or Catholicism

For starters, I grew up in a Church of Christ, so that's where my prejudices begin. I always questioned all doctrines inside and outside of that framework. I never understood or agreed with the refusal to integrate instruments into worship and other traditions in that church. However, I did agree with the idea that all churches were independent bodies that should only look to the Bible for instruction on how to follow/worship God through Christ's example. Anything I may say can be taken as ignorance of the practices of orthodox church/worship. In no way do I mean to offend anyone and am truly trying to create an open discussion to learn more.

Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Episcopalian churches made no sense to me. It seemed to me that the Roman Catholic Church found its favor and power through government and force. Papal infallibility seems like a farce and not biblically based. The Anglican split was solely because of a royal divorce. Futhermore, it seemed that the reformation was based on sound principles due to the corruption of the Church. Praying to saints asking that they pray for you is odd to me. I dislike the fact that the Episcopalian Church has seemed to embrace progressive values.

All that being said, maybe it's due to my natural conservative/traditional values, but there is something attractive about the Church in that it has survived and thrived througout history. Every time I have ventured into an old cathedral during a visit to Europe, I'm drawn into the imagery and symbolism that adorn the place and feel that I may be missing something.

So, with skepticism aside, I'd like to know more about your beliefs/experiences within the orthodox church. How am I suffering, if at all, by not attending a Catholic (or other) church even though I share the same basic beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, how they relate to one another, and their respective roles in my life?

I look forward to learning more from anyone who will share.

I, too, have been greatly intrigued by Orthodoxy. The Orthodox on this site have been a huge reason why. In case you want some stuff to read while waiting for k2aggie, or any other Orthodox, to respond, I started a very similar thread last year. It may address some of your questions:

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2857814/replies

Quote:

---

I, too, have been greatly intrigued by Orthodoxy. The Orthodox on this site have been a huge reason why.

---

Agree. Some of the best ambassadors I have read.

I was raised in a staunch southern baptist house. I pretty much was agnostic in college, but went to church out of a kind of stubbornness as a young adult. I felt that my life was better - I was better - when I attended church, so I kept going. I was volunteering at First Baptist in Houston with an ESL computer program they ran, and I distinctly remember our gospel reading being the bread of life discourse from the Gospel of John, and pondering how...plain face reading really didn't make any sense. Around that time I got really jaded, seeing the great work that was being done by a small group in the church that was so hungry for resources and help, and then going to the packed church on Sunday where nobody seemed to care. I got mad. I quit going to church altogether.

Then I had a bit of a philosophical crisis and decided to try to blank slate my way to some position in a more intentional way. I hadn't really meant to become agnostic, so I figured if that was where I wound up, I should at least do it on purpose.

I had a very close friend growing up who was Orthodox. One of my fish when I was a senior is a devout Orthodox Christian (I know he lurks on this forum because he critiques my posts from time to time - hi buddy). We became close friends during and after school. So I got exposure to it from them, but I was firmly, utterly, completely against anything not Baptist. We had some great arguments. He was really bad at explaining things, and it frustrated me.

So I started reading books. I read Bishop Ware's The Orthodox Church and then the Orthodox way. I read Luther's small and large catechism and quite a bit about Lutheranism. I read some of Wesley. I read Locke and Aristotle and Plato - hey, touch 'em all right?

Then, probably most importantly, I started to read the Ante-Nicene fathers. I had no idea these writings existed, I'd never really heard of them except vague references to "Justin Martyr". And what I found was shocking. I'd been taught, I always believed that the Baptist church was a reversion to the early church of the NT. But what I found was exactly the opposite - that the Baptists beliefs did not seem to be represented at all.

I reasoned - the early Church existed, Christ taught the Apostles something, and they taught their disciples something. So the earlier I go, the more likely I was to find that something. I came to believe it is found in the Orthodox Church. The more I read, the more I learn... and most importantly, the more I participate in the liturgical life of the Church, the more convinced I am.

The final decision came after reading Archbishop Chrysostomos' work Themes in Patristic Psychology. It sounds silly but I felt like I was hearing someone sing a song that I had always known but had never heard anyone else sing before. So.... I found a Church. I became a catechumen, I got baptized and chrismated. Here I am.

I believe that anyone who has been exposed to the same experience and information I have been exposed to would come to the same conclusions - I think I'm rational. I guess most people do. But most folks haven't read or heard of the Ante-Nicene fathers. They can't tell you why Nicaea happened, why St Gregory's Second Theological Oration (On the Son) is a pivotal point in Christian history. Why St Maximos lost his hand, why St Athanasius was exiled over and over again. These things matter, and they give the information people need to make good decisions.

Quote:

---

Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Episcopalian churches made no sense to me. It seemed to me that the Roman Catholic Church found its favor and power through government and force. Papal infallibility seems like a farce and not biblically based. The Anglican split was solely because of a royal divorce. Futhermore, it seemed that the reformation was based on sound principles due to the corruption of the Church. Praying to saints asking that they pray for you is odd to me. I dislike the fact that the Episcopalian Church has seemed to embrace progressive values.

---

Most people in the West (me included) labor under a really bad, anachronistic, and simply ahistorical view of the church before the Reformation. A lot of what we "know" about Rome is wrong. Even more that many in the West think about Orthodoxy is wrong too - most think we're just Roman Catholic, only different.

Quote:

---

So, with skepticism aside, I'd like to know more about your beliefs/experiences within the orthodox church. How am I suffering, if at all, by not attending a Catholic (or other) church even though I share the same basic beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, how they relate to one another, and their respective roles in my life?

---

Do you? This is the question.

Orthodox and Catholics, strictly speaking, do not. We have a different Symbol of Faith (the dang ole filioque controversy). This separates Orthodoxy from all of the West, because the West retains the Filioque they inherited from Rome. Many Protestants don't have a defined symbol of faith at all, and with it they lose the criteria of belief - what is and isn't true, what we do and do not confess about God, and so on.

And not just God and who and how He is, and how He interacts with us, but also the means and mechanism of that interaction - church structure (ecclesiology), means of grace, methods of worship, and ultimately soteriology: not only how we are saved but even what it means to be saved.

It all builds and spirals out of control. For me, Orthodoxy wasn't a variance of Christianity. It was an altogether different faith, a different religion. It took me a really long time to get over that - I actually spent about a year thinking there was no way I could convert because I was actually leaving the faith I was raised in. I wished I'd been born Orthodox, because I thought it was true but it seemed impossible to make such a big move.

Thanks for sharing. I am 62 y/o, raised Baptist, and like you had never been taught anything about the Church fathers. And we were in Church at least three times a week. Thank you so much for opening up all this information to me and I can not help but question why none of this was discussed in the Baptist Church. Obviously, Christianity did not begin with the Reformation.

I have deeply benefited with my Orthodox prayer book that I use twice a day and would probably convert except I feel the non denominational Church I am at now is where God wants me to be for a myriad of reasons.

Do I? Maybe not. I admitted my ignorance at the outset. My knowledge of the histories of both churches is superficial at best, which is why I want to learn more. The fact that eastern orthodoxy rejects papal primacy is something that is more easily squared in my mind. In the most basic sense, I see God as the Father/Creator. Christ is God in the form of man who willingly took on our sin as a sacrifice to rectify us with the Father. The Holy Spirit is an extension of God in us after we accept Christ.

I can see quibbles. Christ is fully God and fully man, not only in the form of man. Philippians 2 says He is as much in the form of man as He is in the form of God. And the Holy Spirit is fully God, of the same essence as the Father. This is from the Second council. But I wasn't meaning to interrogate you on the (small-o) orthodoxy of your Trinitarian confession.

If you get a basic introduction to these beliefs, you'll start seeing the difference:

- Who Christ is (the Christology of the Church)
- What it means to be saved (the Soteriology of the Church, i.e., Theosis)
- What Grace is (the Mystagogy of the Church)
- How this is accomplished (the Ecclesiology of the Church)

It's 100% Christocentric from one end to the other. You could crosswise discuss Orthodoxy (right belief or right worship) and Orthopraxis (right practice) within each of these topics; they relate intimately.

Speaking from experience some of it for someone raised in the Baptist or Proestant tradition will be refreshing. Some will be challenging. Some will sound like hokey woo-woo stuff. I'm trying to think about how I could write a more simple thing...but Bishop Ware already wrote a great book, so I'd just refer you to that.

By the way, derm -- I know you often have talked about the monk vs layman "divide". I came across this, thought you might like it:

"Provided they live a worthy life, both those who choose to dwell in the midst of noise and hubbub and those who dwell in monasteries, mountains and caves can achieve salvation. Solely because of their faith in Him God bestows great blessings on them. Hence those who because of their laziness have failed to attain salvation will have no excuse to offer on the day of judgment. For He who promised to grant us salvation simply on account of our faith in Him is not a liar."

St. Symeon the New Theologian

Thanks. For everything.

Edited to add that my faith journey has been very similar to yours. I wish I had been exposed to Orthodoxy at a younger age.

Quote:

---

Subject should be: Sell me on Orthodoxy or Catholicism

---

Quote:

---

I always questioned all doctrines

---

If you always question all doctrines, then why not question both of the above that accuse Jesus of being a sinner?

"These Things You Should Have Done" by Paul Torason

Quote:

---

Did Jesus sin? Or was Jesus the only one to ever follow God's Law perfectly and not sin? If you believe Jesus was a perfect keeper of God's Law, then this book will intrigue you and challenge your beliefs about the Bible. That's because most New Testament doctrine teaches how Jesus violated the Sabbath, declared all foods clean, waived away the Law against adultery and violated many other Old Testament commands. How can that be?

---

Now, there's a great question for one who questions all doctrines.

The guy that wrote it must be a genius or something. :^)

k2aggie07 said:

---

Then, probably most importantly, I started to read the Ante-Nicene fathers. I had no idea these writings existed, I'd never really heard of them except vague references to "Justin Martyr". And what I found was shocking. I'd been taught, I always believed that the Baptist church was a reversion to the early church of the NT. But what I found was exactly the opposite - that the Baptists beliefs did not seem to be represented at all.

I reasoned - the early Church existed, Christ taught the Apostles something, and they taught their disciples something. So the earlier I go, the more likely I was to find that something. I came to believe it is found in the Orthodox Church. The more I read, the more I learn... and most importantly, the more I participate in the liturgical life of the Church, the more convinced I am.

---

Quick answer from my phone:

This was the turning point for me as well. I was stunned, and frankly felt that this information was deliberately withheld from me, to find that these types of writings existed. I grew up Southern Baptist, went non denominational and circled around to Presbyterian looking for something more traditional.

I am an avid reader, I study history and tend to very logical in my approach to most things. While I appreciated their zeal and love for Christ I became very frustrated by the lack of knowledge, theology and willingness to discuss why we believe what we do in the churches I attended. The churches had limited libraries in quantity and even more in scope all written by old American dudes with limited theological understanding.

The Orthodox Church, and its great emphasis on learning and wisdom, drew me in instantly. The Church History, Theology and the writings of some of the greatest minds on their day (St John Chrysostom, as its greatest student of the day, declined to head the school of Athens after his mentor passed) answered many of the questions I had. I felt like I had gone from a middle ages environment (Young Earth Baptists) to an enlightened and intelligent understanding of our faith.

I am also very fond of the liturgy and listen to this version frequently. The service is beautiful and reverent.



I have always stuggled with some form of every church I have attended. I truly feel as if I have found theological/liturgical perfection in the Orthodox Church.

I attend St Elias in Austin TX every chance I get and St George in Houston regularly.
I also love to attend the Orthodox services of other cities when I travel. The cultural/language differences of the liturgy is striking. I personally love the service in Slavonic.

It is truly a beautiful thing to be accepted as a fellow communicate and Brother in Christ every time I travel to a new city.

I've said this before, but St. George "Facebook Lives" their services each Sunday (and during most of Holy Week).

You can check out their page to see the services.

Their byzantine chanting is some of the coolest stuff to listen to.

Ok, so to the real OP. Sell you on Orthodoxy...

It is the faith of the apostles. Our entire premise, our reason of being is to preserve "as the prophets have seen, as the apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers have set forth in dogmas, as the whole world has understood, as Grace has shone forth, as the truth was demonstrated, as falsehood was banished, as wisdom was emboldened, as Christ has awarded; thus do we believe, thus we speak, thus we preach Christ our true God...this is the Faith of the apostles, this is the Faith of the fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this Faith hath established the whole world." (from the Sunday of Orthodoxy Liturgy).

It is a faith that meets you where you are. You can be as intellectual in it - because we have intellectuals and writing for a lifetime. You can be ascetic in it. Because the church calls us to do so. You can be contemplative and deep into the mysteries, because our faith is experiential. It is not emotional, it is not about us. It is about a real experience with God.

It is a faith that challenges you. No feel-goods. You will ask for mercy. You will struggle. You will prostrate and you will ask for forgiveness from God and others. You will stand in prayer, and bow before God. You will be in submission. You will have your pride checked and be humbled before God. You will fast and you will fail at fasting. You will ask God to help you to see your own sins. This is not a one and done faith. And that's the joy of it, because through it all we become close to Him. This is our joy.

It's a faith that has answers. It's not about opinions, but they're allowed. But when you have questions, there are real answers - satisfying ones. It's not true because it's logical, but it is true and therefore it is logical. And that's comforting.

Most of all it's a faith with a real payout today. We're not payable on death. That's not how it works. Orthodoxy is about union with Christ - today. And struggling to become like him through grace - today. And succeeding - today - through his great and wonderful promises.

And it has the best promises. We are to become the fullness of the stature of Christ: gods by grace what He is by nature. Not harps and a halo and sitting on a cloud. No, God wants to grant us grace to bring us up as far to Him as He came down to us when He became Man for our sakes. This is salvation - to be saved from death by being joined to the source of Life and Being.

That's Orthodoxy. Oh yeah... and beards. Men are expected to be men and women are expected to be women. And incense and candles and fire and singing.

And food, divine and normal. And coffee and beer.

If I would like an introduction to the Ante-Nicene writings, is there a good starting place?

Free on ccel.org, or you can buy a physical book on Amazon of course.

Thanks

The book on Amazon is like 3-4 bucks if you want it in e-book form.

When the Church was Young is great too. It's along the same vein (Pre-Nicene) and great.

I listen to it pretty regularly on Audible.

Looks like I have some more reading to do to get a better understanding. That liturgy video is intense. A huge change from my personal experience. That may be quite a hurdle to get over.

The point made about what the apostles taught is exactly the issue I have struggled with for so long. There had to be something original that has been morphed over time.

I'm not even sure that I want to switch in any way, because I do like the experience I have at church. I appreciate you all being so helpful.

You don't have to read, but it helps. It's hard to describe, but it's kind of like the difference between reading all the books you can find about Paris, and then going to Paris. Doesn't matter how much I tell you about Sainte-Chapelle, it is not the same as standing inside. The best way to "get" Orthodoxy is to go to Liturgy. Or any part of Orthopraxis (right practice) because any part of Orthopraxis reflects Orthodoxy (right belief / worship). I began with morning and evening prayers.

Its kinda like being an Aggie, in a way.

But just like you mentioned, it is a big change. First couple of Divine Liturgies I went to I was kinda thinking "uh... well... that was...nice..." ha! However, after a few (and going with someone who could kinda walk me through it) other church services became very different. I went to church with my parents one week and I realized how much I'd changed. I couldn't go to a baptist church any more. It wasn't "church" for me.

The Liturgy is physical. You typically stand the whole time. You cross yourself, you bow. You ask for mercy. During weekday services you prostrate yourself before God (we don't prostrate on Sundays, because every Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection and we stand as Sons).

We believe that during the Liturgy we are worshiping across time with all Christians, on earth and heaven. We are mystically in heaven, worshiping with the saints and the angels. During prayer, we are praying together as one person. During communion, we are in the Upper Room with Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians who ever have and ever will take commune with Christ. It's the same liturgy the church has been doing continuously as long as we have records - since at least 200 AD!

But, with all that, it isn't emotionally driven. I have felt extremely strong emotion at other church services. Moving songs, powerful hymns, and so on. Orthodoxy is not really about that. You can drum up emotion...we have insane emotional swings at football games or concerts. And church services can tap into that - do tap into that - which is why some of the more modern ones border on entertainment. Our Liturgy is not entertainment, it is a ministry, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." Can it be emotional? yes, of course. But it's not built on emotional response...if that makes sense?




'The rule of piety admits nothing new. All things are to be delivered to those who come after us with the same fidelity with which they were received by us. It is our duty to follow religion, not make religion follow us.'
-St. Vincent of Lerins

Howdy,

I am just recently lurking here on this board. Not sure why I never came here before but have landed here.

I have the opposite experience from those that have posted here. I grew up in the Orthodox Church. I was baptized as a child in St. Vladimir Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I currently attend a Methodist Church because I married a woman who was Methodist. I still consider myself Orthodox who attends a Protestant Church. I can echo the comments of those before me. It does not feel the same (although I respect everyone else's path). The Paris analogy is an outstanding one.

I have taken my family to an Orthodox service and even they can tell it is very different and I notice something stirring inside my children (they asked me for an Orthodox Cross like mine to wear!).

It is hard to give you an argument to sell you on this faith. Orthodoxy must be experienced. It is a calling.

The rejection of the papacy is based on a political split between east and west that carried into religion. The Pope, version of the patriarch of Rome, took advantage of political power due to aligning with the Franks instead of remaining with Constantinople while the Byzantines (Romans) were struggling with the Arabs and Bulgars to name a few. The Latin Christians began to elevate this patriarch in the coming centuries that broke with the traditions of the early church. Not claiming that the east was infallible. There was a LOT of meddling by the emperors in religious matters as well.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Liturgy is physical. You typically stand the whole time. You cross yourself, you bow. You ask for mercy. During weekday services you prostrate yourself before God (we don't prostrate on Sundays, because every Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection and we stand as Sons).

---

I heard the same thing from Fr Kees at St. George about not prostrating on Sunday.

That being said, one of the Sunday's that I attended St. Joseph (you weren't there that day), they did prostrate.

Never understood why, especially considering what Fr Kees and you have both said.

There are exceptions - off the top of my head we do prostrations at the elevation of the cross. We also sometimes follow Liturgy directly with vespers so the "liturgical day" is over (for example, Forgiveness Sunday at the start of Lent, we do the first Lenten Prayer of St Ephraim with prostrations immediately after church).

Quote:

---

The point made about what the apostles taught is exactly the issue I have struggled with for so long. There had to be something original that has been morphed over time.

---

That is the exact question answered in the book I posted.

Win At Life said:

---

Quote:

---

The point made about what the apostles taught is exactly the issue I have struggled with for so long. There had to be something original that has been morphed over time.

---

That is the exact question answered in the book I posted.

---

As long as you caveat that you aren't a Christian, but a Messianic Jew (I think) and that your views don't align with the Christianity at any point.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

Quote:

---

The point made about what the apostles taught is exactly the issue I have struggled with for so long. There had to be something original that has been morphed over time.

---

That is the exact question answered in the book I posted.

---

As long as you caveat that you aren't a Christian, but a Messianic Jew (I think) and that your views don't align with the Christianity at any point.

---

I would caveat it as aligning with scripture interpreted without contradictions in the First Century Jewish doctrine, errors and historical setting of a Roman gentile pagan occupying force to which it was given. Assign that any label you wish.

K2

I'd like to hear your definition of Synergy.

As I understand it, Orthodoxy believe that humans have a limited ability to do good. Through God's Grace, the ability to do good works is expanded.

This process of growing more like God is called Theosis and is interrelated with "The Ladder of Divine Ascent."

I'm trying to conceptualize how this process starts.

St Paul says we are God's fellow-workers, synergoi. We have free will, and always have the ability to choose to obey or disobey the commandments, to do good works or evil works. We don't have the freedom to pick our conditions, or what happens to us - this is providence - but we react by our own volition.

Good works are not salvific by themselves. Nothing is salvific but Christ, and nothing is salvific apart from Christ. Within Christ, when we are regenerated, He works in us, we work with Him - we have the ability to assent or refuse His invitations and providence. What we do, our "works", change who we are... we can choose to become more and more evil or selfish or depraved, or we can choose to become more and more like Him. None of the good we achieve comes from us, but it does require our free assent and willingness to first deny ourselves, and then take up their cross, and then follow Him.

One huge part of this is that human nature is not naturally in opposition to the divine. Christ is perfectly human, quintessentially human. So His human will and human nature is exactly like ours in every way save sin. This means that we naturally are not opposed to God's nature or will, we are not naturally in bondage. Sin is unnatural for us. So the bondage of the will is not in our nature, meaning what you and I share in common (i.e., what is common that makes us humans) but the bondage, if there is bondage, is part of our hypostasis or person (i.e., what makes us John or Sally or Steve).

So Christ is our model for synergy between the human and the divine. His divine will did not dominate His human will. His human will did not resist the divine will but freely chose obedience. One of the implicit issues with monergism is how we understand who Christ was and therefore who we are.

I love Fr Thomas Hopko's take on this, he says He can't violate our will. Not because His omnipotence is limited, but because we, by His grace, are created with this portion of divinity in us, in the divine image, which is rationality and freedom. So He knows everything, like the most complex computer program of all time. He knows us, He knows exactly what we will and won't do, and so He makes it all work with, through, and even in spite of our free decisions.

Quote:

---

For God, there is no past, present, and future. All knowledge of God is in God before anything even happens. All the whole knowledge of creation, the whole knowledge of everything that could be, and would be, and how it will be, is in the divine mind of God before anything creaturely even exists. That would be a dogma of ancient Orthodox Christian faith; there is no doubt about that.

But what we want to see now is that things do not happen because God knows them, God knows them because he knows they will happen. He knows what we will freely do, but our freedom is incredibly important. It is essential to remember that. If God decides to create angels and human beings, and, in some sense, even animals, but certainly let us just focus on human beings - if God creates human beings with freedom, that we can pick and choose to decide what we do or do not do - like whether I'll go to vespers, or whether I won't; whether I will help my neighbor, or whether I don't; whether I will tell the truth, or whether I will lie; whether I will be kind to someone, or whether I will be mean - I have that actual freedom.

Some writers, in fact some very important Christian writers, will say, "God will never violate the freedom of his creature. Once he gives the freedom, he will not violate it." But I think that we would have to go a step further, on the basis of Scripture and understanding of Scripture in the Tradition of our Church, by our great spiritual teachers, and that is that it is not simply the case that God will not violate our freedom. We have to say something stronger. We have to say, "God cannot violate our freedom." God cannot force us to do anything at all. He simply cannot do it.

He can do things in the natural order, for example, cause me to break my leg or something like that, but God cannot determine, in any way, how I will relate to my leg being brokenhow I will act, what I will choose, what I will do. We have this sovereign freedom given to us by God, that he not only will not violate, but he cannot violate.

What we want to focus on now is that God knows all those things. He makes us free and he knows what we will freely do, in any given circumstance, under any given possibility, within any given condition or situation, God literally knows what we will or will not do, and he knows what we will or will not do before we actually will or will not do it. But he doesn't cause us to will it, or not to will it.

....

If we wanted to define "divine providence" - I used to like to define "divine providence," when I taught in seminary, as "God doing the best he can with what he's got, and what he's got is us." In other words, God doing his best with us, in our freedom, and we are very volatile people. Some are very faithful, and they are with God. Others are not faithful at all, and they apostatize, and they hate God and they fight against God.

Most of us, or at least a lot of us, are waffling back and forth. Sometimes we are with God, sometimes we are against God. Sometimes we believe in him, sometimes we doubt him. Sometimes we surrender to him, sometimes we flee away from him. But God knew all that. He knew all that from all eternity, and here is the point; the point is: he makes his plan on that basis. That is what he does. He orchestrates the whole thing, and he orchestrates it according to what we will or will not do, and how we will or will not be, at any given moment.

...

But in any case, the theological point is absolute, and it is, in my opinion, beyond doubt, as a teaching of the Church. People may doubt the teaching, but the teaching is very, very clear: God designs everything on the basis of his knowledge, his foreknowledge. Then he calls all to be with him, and then he selects the elect, whom he knows will cooperate with him freely. That's how it works.

---

GQaggie said:

---

If I would like an introduction to the Ante-Nicene writings, is there a good starting place?

---

GREAT book: The Fathers Know Best

Interesting book but I have found at least one quote taken completely out of context re: Papal primacy. So... as always, ymmv.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Interesting book but I have found at least one quote taken completely out of context re: Papal primacy. So... as always, ymmv.

---

I brought this up on the other thread as a common problem.

I don't know the quote, but I've listened to Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers many times and he is a very impressive apologist.

Again, don't know the quote, but my guess he will/would have a thorough answer as to why it makes sense.

Thanks.

I've been trying to compare it vs Lutheranism, an really do struggle to see a tangible difference (though I'm sure there are ones).

Certainly Lutherans don't 100% agree with Theosis, but a similar view.

The biggest difference I see is that Lutherans are taking a mongeristic view towards salvation by saying that only God can save us (and good works are a byproduct of that saving grace., and Orthodox say that works do not create salvation, only God, but that Good Works help us become more like God.

The quote that made me put the book on my shelf and stop thumbing through it was:

Quote:

---

"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian's Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

---

It's a very selective editing of a letter written by Firmilion about Pope Stephen to St Cyprian around AD 253.

The only reason I noticed it is because I'd looked it up before. Basically Firmilion was complaining bitterly against the Pope, saying that the only person he'd excommunicated was himself, because unity was divine - "he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity". He says Stephen makes a claim to authority because of the chair of Peter, but it's an empty claim. He even compares the pope to Judas, and says Rome "vainly pretends the authority of the apostles".


Firmilion's words are an indictment of the Papacy to this day.

It was just a horrible, horrible cut and paste with ellipses that an unassuming reader would think this is a historical witness for papal supremacy. What it really is, in fact, is a historical witness to the claim of papal supremacy, and the rest of the church rejecting it (St Cyprian clearly didn't think Pope Stephen had any standing outside of his own Episcopate, and called a council that condemned Stephen in Carthage, unanimously with 85 bishops assenting. Fermilion was the bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in central day Turkey.)

The full quote is here.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2812730/replies/47946158