quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterD

I have a deep thought to ask you in a few simple words...Is the Lutheran Church created since it came from the Roman Church.

Not sure this leads to the Orthodox understanding of Grace.

Without arguing semantics, the Lutheran is a new group that did not exist before. Although they did come from the Roman Church, it is not my understanding the two are of the same essence.

But, the New Testament Church is "not" a new group. It is the one founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and it continues to this very day. There is no need to form a new denomination, or try to restore what Christ has established.

quote:

"The first important exchange of views between Orthodox and Protestants began in 1573, when a delegation of Lutheran scholars from Tubingen, led by Jakob Andreae and Martin Crusius, visited Constantinople and gave the Patriarch, Jeremias II, a copy of the Augsburg Confession translated into Greek.

quote:

...."During the Tubingen interlude, Lutherans and Orthodox both showed great courtesy to one another. A very differant spirit marked the first major contact between Orthodoxy and the Counter-Reformation."

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

It is sad that they can only trace their history to the 4th century or so. But, I do know they can trace the Bishop of Rome to at least Linus who was appointed by the Apostle Paul himself. And if every other RCC Bishop is under the Bishop of Rome, then that is how they can trace themselves back.

In the Orthodox Church, several Churches can trace their roots back to the Apostles. For example, Constantinople with St Andrew, Antioch with Sts Peter & Paul, Jerusalem with St James, Alexandria with St Mark, Corinthians with Sts Peter and Paul, India with St Thomas, etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Where or Who is the real Church? No, this thread is NOT to prove the RCC is the real Church. But if you think it is, then you’re welcome to discuss it.

Now, has this succession been broken somehow, or has it continue ever since? Is it possible that God would somehow forsake His Church for hundreds of years, and now revive it once again?

Or is following a succession of bishops not valid? Why would it be ok for someone to break away from the main Church and start a new denomination? Is this scriptural?

I know the RCC has claims to Apostolic Succession, but are they the only ones? How about the Orthodox Church? How about the Lutherans? How about the rest?

And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez


Now, has this succession been broken somehow, or has it continue ever since?

quote:

So when Constantine gathered the leading bishops at Nicea for a council to compare notes, the chaos was nearly hopeless!

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

PeterD, I have not read, "On the Invocation of the Name of Jesus" by Lev Gillet. Sounds interesting.

It is hard to answer your last question, because there are many. But if you're interested in reading any of them, I suggest the writings of St. Athanasius. I have not read it for a while. I think it's time for me to read some more.

quote:

The idea of Moscow as successor of Byzantium was assisted by a marriage. In 1472 Ivan III "the Great" (reigned 1462-1505) married Sophia, niece of the last Byzantine Emperor. Although Sophia had brothers and was not the legal heir to the throne, the marriage served to establish a dynastic link with Byzantium. The Grand Duke of Moscow began to assume the Byzantine titles of "autocrat" and "Tsar" (an adaptation of the Roman "Caesar") and to use the double-headed eagle of Byzantium as his State emblem. Men came to think of Moscow as "the Third Rome." The first Rome (so they argued) had fallen to the barbarians and then lapsed into heresy; the second Rome, Constantinople, had in turn fallen into heresy at the Council of Florence, and as a punishment had been taken by the Turks. Moscow therefore had succeeded Constantinople as the Third and last Rome, the center of Orthodox Christendom. The monk Philotheus of Pskov set forth this line of argument in a famous letter written in 1510 to Tsar Basil III:



I wish to add a few words on the present Orthodox Empire of îur ruler: he is on earth the sole Emperor (Tsar) of the Christians, the leader of the Apostolic Church which stands no longer Rome or in Constantinople, but in the blessed city of Moscow. She alone shines in the whole world brighter than the sun.… All Christian Empires are fallen and in their stead stands alone the Empire of our ruler in accordance with the Prophetical books. Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands and a fourth there will not be (Quoted in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium: an Introduction, p. 385).



This idea of Moscow the Third Rome had a certain appropriateness when applied to the Tsar: the Emperor of Byzantium once acted as champion and protector of Orthodoxy, and now the autocrat of Russia was called to perform the same task. But it could also be understood in other and less acceptable ways. If Moscow was the Third Rome, then should not the head of the Russian Church rank senior to the Patriarch of Constantinople? In fact this seniority has never been granted, and Russia has always ranked no higher than fifth among the Orthodox Churches, after Jerusalem. The concept of Moscow the Third Rome also encouraged a kind of Muscovite Messianism, and led Russians sometimes to think of themselves as a chosen people who could do no wrong; and if taken in a political as well as religious sense, it could be used to further the ends of Russian secular imperialism.

quote:

As St. Augustine believed strongly in the authority of bishops (under the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture, of course), it is no surprise that he also held to the importance of apostolic succession as well as an assurance of the faithfulness of those bishops to the apostolic teachings since the beginning of the Church.

During the Reformation, Lutherans in Germany eagerly sought to maintain the visible succession of bishops through the laying on of hands as a sign of the unity of the Church across time. As Phillip Melancthon says in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV,

it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. . . . we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches.

Of course, in Scandinavia, apostolic succession among Lutherans was maintained and is so down to this day. The ELCA, although heterodox in many ways, is through its relationship with the ECUSA seeking to re-establish apostolic succession among its bishops.

While apostolic succession is a Good Thing, all being said, it is important not to become entranced by a list of bishops going back to St. Peter and assume this bestows authority. After all, St. Augustine did not believe as Rome teaches today that ordination places an "indelible character" upon the soul of the ordained. Moreover, as St. Martin Chemnitz accurately observes,

There is a greater difference between the primitive apostolic church and the papal kingdom than there is between heaven and earth. Therefore they must prove that their church is apostolic before they can arrogate this privilege to themselves. (Examination of the Council of Trent, I.2.3.7)

Bearing an apostolic doctrine rather than an apostolic pedigree is clearly the more important of the two. In the early Church, these two meanings of apostolicity went together and were extremely effective in defending the Church against gnosticism and myriad other heresies. Lutherans maintain these happy fellow travellers have parted ways long ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

I am not sure where some people get their sources from regarding St Constantine. Under him we have the Nicene Creed; under him the Church proclaimed what was always known regarding the Holy Trinity; and after his reign we have the canons of the Holy Scripture; none of which is contested by the Protestants. Obviously, the Church did not fall apart with Constantine or after him.

There is a myth, especially from Chick Publication, that Constantine saw a sign in heaven, the Egyptian ankh. When I finally got to see what the sign on the shields of his solders looked like in the history books, it was nothing like the Egyptian ankh. Instead, it is 2 Greek letters on top of each other; the first two letters of Jesus Christ in Greek; not an Egyptian ankh. I realized then to no longer pay attention to these myths.

quote:

Roman mythology

These deities which were the most significant for the whole commune were distinguished among the huge amount of deities from roman mythology. The Romans were constantly in touch with other nations. They adopted some religious visions as well as influenced their neighbours’ religions as well.



Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus

The trinity which consisted of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus appeared relatively early in Roman mythology. Jupiter was worshiped by almost everyone as the deity of the sky. The image of the greatest deity- the father of all gods was also connected with him. The nickname “pater” was added to his name. He became the most important deity thanks to the influence of Etruscan. The designation of “The greatest” and “The Best” accompanied his name.
Mars was the war-god, the protector and the source of Roman power. He was considered as a deity of the fields- the genius of spring flora. Quirinus was his double.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dred

Welcome SavedHeart!

quote:

So when Constantine gathered the leading bishops at Nicea for a council to compare notes, the chaos was nearly hopeless!

And yet there was agreement on the order of 316 votes to 2. Was this a miracle of God blessing the bishops who had gathered or was the chaos not quite so bad as certain popular books and movies would have us believe? I'd say both.

That's just the thing. Despite the Roman persecution, there was one church and the practice of bishops appointing other bishops was uniform. Though Christian writings during those first centuries were sparse, there were clear signs this was a continuous practice form the first century.

Christianity had been made pure by persecution. Many of the bishops at Nicea bore visible marks of this on their bodies, since an intense persecution had so recently ended. This is why the assertion of some that Constantine strong-armed nearly all the bishops into endorsing the Creed is so very ludicrous. Bishops of the Church were not in the habit of obeying Emperors, regardless of threats and torture. Their habits did not change as bishops, such as Basil and Athanasius, so clearly showed when a pagan or Arians sometimes took the throne in the 4th century.

The doctrines in the Creed as well as the practice of succession of bishops were both matters of very uniform agreement at the Council of Nicea. Succession of bishops was not challenged by anyone. Undoubtedly, it would have been vigorously challenged if it had ever been a new practice. The one area of importance in which some chaos existed was regarding the question of what should be considered New Testament scripture. That took around a century more to entirely resolve, but the bishops of the Church, by their authority and communion in the Holy Spirit, managed to resolve it as well.

The irony is that so many people I encounter have so much more confidence in the precision of the New Testament Canon and in the authority of the books therein contained than they have in the authority of the Bishops of the Church who established that Canon. It is also strange that many think that 21st century English speaking individuals are in a better position to understand what the New Testament tells us than were the bishops of the early centuries who had continuously spoken and written in Greek from the time of the apostles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dred

The doctrines in the Creed as well as the practice of succession of bishops were both matters of very uniform agreement at the Council of Nicea. Succession of bishops was not challenged by anyone. Undoubtedly, it would have been vigorously challenged if it had ever been a new practice. The one area of importance in which some chaos existed was regarding the question of what should be considered New Testament scripture. That took around a century more to entirely resolve, but the bishops of the Church, by their authority and communion in the Holy Spirit, managed to resolve it as well.

quote:

The Ecumenical Councils and the Lutheran Confessions

We unanimously hold and teach, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Nicaea, that there is one divine essence, which is called and which is truly God, and that there are three persons in this one divine essence, equal in power and alike eternal: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All three are one divine essence, eternal, without division, without end, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, one creator and preserver of all things visible and invisible. The word “person” is to be understood as the Fathers employed the term in this connection, not as a part or a property of another but as that which exists of itself. Therefore all the heresies which are contrary to this article are rejected. Among these are the heresy of the Manichaeans, who assert that there are two gods, one good and one evil; also that of the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and others like them; also that of the Samosatenes, old and new... (Augsburg Confession I [German], pp. 27-28)

...we confess that there are two natures in Christ, namely, that the Word assumed the human nature into the unity of his person; that this same Christ suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that he was raised to rule, justify, and sanctify the believers, etc., according to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession III, p. 107)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterD

Thank you walterquez for allowing me this time,

...I'm wondering, presently is the Holy Spirit directed only through men from the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church? Reason, I ask this is because of what the LORD Jesus said, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Also from what Paul says, "Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father," who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me,

Please forgive me for the delay. I have not been very busy.

This and Grace is not something I can answer in a few post. At least I can't. One of the reasons is because the RCC and possibly the Protestants believe in created Grace. The Orthodox Church believes in "un"created Grace; that Grace is the Holy Spirit. When the RCC or Protestants receive Grace, they are receiving something created. When the Orthodox receives Grace, we believe it is God Himself and not something that was created. Because of our different understanding of Grace, it will not be easy to communicate, unless we understand the very core of what each understand about Grace and Holy Spirit.

quote:

The Ecumenical Councils and the Lutheran Confessions
...we confess that there are two natures in Christ, namely, that the Word assumed the human nature into the unity of his person; that this same Christ suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that he was raised to rule, justify, and sanctify the believers, etc., according to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession III, p. 107)

Our doctrine, faith, and confession do not divide the person of Christ, as Nestorius did. He denied the genuine sharing of the properties of the two natures in Christ and thus he actually divided the person, as Luther explains it in his treatise On the Councils [and the Church]. Nor do we mingle the natures and their properties together in one essence, as Eutyches erroneously taught. Nor do we deny or abolish the human nature in the person of Christ, or change the one nature into the other. Christ is, and remains to all eternity, God and man in one indivisible person. Next to the Holy Trinity this is the highest mystery, as the apostle testifies [I Tim. 3:16], and the sole foundation of our comfort, life, and salvation. (Epitome VIII:18, p. 489)

...as far as the discharge of Christ’s office is concerned, the person does not act in, with, through, or according to one nature only, but in, according to, with, and through both natures, or as the Council of Chalcedon declares, each nature according to its own properties acts in communion with the other. Thus Christ is our mediator, redeemer, king, high priest, head, shepherd, and so forth, not only according to one nature only, either the divine or the human, but according to both natures... (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VIII:46-47, p. 600)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedHeart

Council Of Nicea according to Eusebius

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

The Life Of The Blessed Emperor Constantine

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/Constantine/Life.html

This should clear up a few questions.

quote:



ORIGINAL: SavedHeart

The last thing in the world I, personally, would consider depending on for information regarding the events of the early church would be "popular books and movies", particularly the kind of stuff with the words DaVinci Code tucked in somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

I am not sure where some people get their sources from regarding St Constantine. Under him we have the Nicene Creed; under him the Church proclaimed what was always known regarding the Holy Trinity; and after his reign we have the canons of the Holy Scripture; none of which is contested by the Protestants. Obviously, the Church did not fall apart with Constantine or after him.

There is a myth, especially from Chick Publication, that Constantine saw a sign in heaven, the Egyptian ankh. When I finally got to see what the sign on the shields of his solders looked like in the history books, it was nothing like the Egyptian ankh. Instead, it is 2 Greek letters on top of each other; the first two letters of Jesus Christ in Greek; not an Egyptian ankh. I realized then to no longer pay attention to these myths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

PeterD, I have not read, "On the Invocation of the Name of Jesus" by Lev Gillet. Sounds interesting.

It is hard to answer your last question, because there are many. But if you're interested in reading any of them, I suggest the writings of St. Athanasius. I have not read it for a while. I think it's time for me to read some more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dred

quote:



ORIGINAL: SavedHeart

The last thing in the world I, personally, would consider depending on for information regarding the events of the early church would be "popular books and movies", particularly the kind of stuff with the words DaVinci Code tucked in somewhere.

I am happy to hear it. I used one statement our yours as a jumping off point into the primary discussion, not otherwise keeping your post in mind. It was unclear (and still is) precisely how you saw the "chaos." What you specifically mentioned, the Canon of scripture, is the area in which I expressed agreement. However, this is not evidence of a broken apostolic succession or even an incompetency in the bishops since the Canon had never formally been determined prior to that time. The early Church did not see Christianity as being held by written documents, but by Christians themselves. Christianity produces written documents, not the other way around.

So, yes, there was a kind of chaos. The persecuted churches had very limited contact with one another and not much was written during the period. So, written documents did not keep the Church in unity during this time. However, there was, evidently, significant unity, though it was, at least in part, not seen. Evidently, that is, because of the essentially universal adoption of the Creed by the more than 300 bishops present in Nicea. Through what did this unity come? Was it the canon of scripture? Certainly not, since that took some more time to establish. This unity was expressed through the bishops of the Church, through whom the faith has been transmitted to us wisely and safely. This unity of Christians realized in 325 did not come from widespread certainty concerning written documentation of what Jesus or His apostles said; it did not come from written documentation of every ordination of a bishop. It came through the bishops themselves from the Holy Spirit.

A distinction must be made between written documentation of every ordination and the ordinations themselves. As I said, succession of Bishops was the continual practice. Even many heretics had been properly ordained. In contrast to our present time, it was a very unusual thing during that time for anyone to pick up some religious document, declare himself a bishop and start up his own church. Christians knew better than to follow someone like that.

A miracle was seen in the 4th century. Christians had not had the opportunity to have large meetings or do much writing. The intense persecution initiated by Diocletian had only ended about a dozen years prior to Nicea. Yet without a Canon, with little in the way of writings, we have a universal agreement on the essential Christian faith come out of that council. By the end of the century, a NT canon is agreed upon and the Creed is refined to its final form without contradicting the Nicean version.

What got Christianity through those first centuries without an official Creed or Canon? What was there but the Holy Spirit working through a succession of bishops? Indeed the bishops gave us both the Creed and the NT within a generation of getting the opportunity to come together in council.