theculturewarrior Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 Hello: I posted this once before, but I don't think anybody replied. I'm thinking that in retrospect maybe I stated my argument poorly. The Church is often criticized by Evangelicals for venerating Mary, for believing that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, for reciting prayers and promoting their recitation and for requiring confession of sins to a priest. Many Evangelicals make the argument that the Early Church was a sola scriptura type Church along the lines of modern Evangelicalism. That doesn't wash with my knowledge of history. The Early Fathers, including St. Justin and St. Ignatius describe a Church with sacraments and Holy Orders, with the Eucharist at the Center. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox celebrate [b]Seven Sacraments, believe that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of the Lord, have confession, venerate Mary and the Saints, recite prayers, baptize infants, and look for precedence in the uniform consensus of the Fathers.[/b] The Oriental Orthodox separated from the Universal Church at about 450 AD and are said to have changed very little ever since. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church separated in 1054 and the they are said to have changed very little since. It would seem that the articles of Faith listed in bold belonged to the Universal Church. I've heard the argument that the Early Church apostasized and that Christianity wasn't present until the reformation (or was it until the Book of Mormon was "translated")? That doesn't even seem to wash from a Sola Scriptura POV. What gives? Where's the history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 26, 2005 Author Share Posted March 26, 2005 I should also say they have the so called "extra books" in their bibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 26, 2005 Author Share Posted March 26, 2005 bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 The story I've heard is that "original" Christians went into hiding until the Reformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I can tell you why the Orthodox won't change. They think that the East and the West must be together, both lungs must breathe in unison, for new doctrine/dogma to be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 Catholics and Orthodox would probably both agree that there are no new dogmas. Catholics would differ in that we believe that there are dogmas that haven't been promulgated yet, and that the Pope has the authority to do so. But that's besides the point. Regarding the Evangelicals, where's the history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 History would point to the Catholic Church. Even Eastern churches that went into schism have trickled back in. I belong to one that is a late commer. The thing is the Eastern Churches realize the need for the papacy and the split was completley political in most cases to begin with, mostly because of Muslim expansion that hindered the communications, although I'm sure there were arguements over what is to be believed. Whatever the case, the history is in the Church's favor and the Evangilicals can trace their roots ( The pentecostal churches) In the Methodist church. And those pentacostals first took up the name in 1911 (as it was the first real split in dogma and doctrine from Methodism). Evangelicals really come from one or more brands of Christianity and so I just lump them with pentacostals, and the two tend to be applicable for both groups. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 bump for history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 bump for any response. Come on, protestants. It's lonely in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 bump. -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I just don't think there's much to argue with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 You mean, it's unequivocally true, or I haven't provided enough substance? Mulls? Lumberjack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now