Only the Orthodox Church can claim to have it's roots since the 1st century.

[ialmisry]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops.  

Are you claiming that we don't have a Bishop of Jerusalem? Or that the Latin Bishop of Jerusalem shouldn't have the title "Patriarch"?

If the latter, the Melkites have been saying that for some time now.

Yes, both the Orthodox and those in submission to the Vatican. Of course, the Orthodox don't have a problem with a vacuum, as we have a Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I've give the Crusader Patriarch credit, he is better to his flock than ours is to his.

 

[Achronos]

What commonly passes as the Roman Church today did not exist in the 1st century.

If you actually read the rest of my post you would see that I pointed that out.

 

[Papist]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

 

[deusveritasest]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops.  

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

The Apostolic Church of Rome had Apostolic origins but your church does not (at least not in the mystical sense of Apostolic Succession).

We are the same Church.

*yawn*

I'm not going to continue with this game.

 

[deusveritasest]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

What right do you have to point that out? You and Isa are the two people on this board who play that game the most.

 

[deusveritasest]

What commonly passes as the Roman Church today did not exist in the 1st century.

If you actually read the rest of my post you would see that I pointed that out.

I don't think so. I actually quoted near the end of your post. I read the whole thing. Feel free to show where you actually established that point.

 

[Wyatt]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

 

[FatherHLL]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

Oh, I think that is just about every forum of a religious nature.  But really it is not confined to forums of a religious nature, as other forums are simply "my thoughts are true and yours are not" or "my adherence is true and yours is not"

Nuh uh
Uh hu
etc. 

 

[Wyatt]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

Oh, I think that is just about every forum of a religious nature.  But really it is not confined to forums of a religious nature, as other forums are simply "my thoughts are true and yours are not" or "my adherence is true and yours is not"

Nuh uh
Uh hu
etc. 

Very true. I have never been a member of a forum where there wasn't a lot of squabbling going on. I must say that it is much more pleasant on this forum compared to some others I have participated in. It's really tiring trying to defend yourself against a majority of atheists who basically call you stupid for believing in a deity.

 

[ialmisry]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

What right do you have to point that out? You and Isa are the two people on this board who play that game the most.

You weren't supposed to point that out. It ruins the whining.

 

[FatherHLL]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

Oh, I think that is just about every forum of a religious nature.  But really it is not confined to forums of a religious nature, as other forums are simply "my thoughts are true and yours are not" or "my adherence is true and yours is not"

Nuh uh
Uh hu
etc. 

Very true. I have never been a member of a forum where there wasn't a lot of squabbling going on. I must say that it is much more pleasant on this forum compared to some others I have participated in. It's really tiring trying to defend yourself against a majority of atheists who basically call you stupid for believing in a deity.

Yes.  I am personally not bothered by them for saying we are stupid for believing in God, but can understand why many are bothered by it and rightly so.  Some of them are not exactly rocket scientists, and those who are on the more intelligent side are often ignorant of history and what Christianity actually holds.  However, more exhausting than the atheists are the wacky beyond-protestant heretics--non-trinitarians, "red-letterers" (eg the "only what Jesus said and forget the rest of Scripture" crowd), and kooky cultists who think they personally have a corner on prophecy.  I am certainly leaving out a few, but the reality is maddening on some forums.  I actually prefer the atheists to the latter.  Actually, on one forum I participate in, the atheists are fairly reasonable, whereas some of the pseudo-Christian cultists make "Christianity" as they would call it look ridiculous.     

 

[Wyatt]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

Oh, I think that is just about every forum of a religious nature.  But really it is not confined to forums of a religious nature, as other forums are simply "my thoughts are true and yours are not" or "my adherence is true and yours is not"

Nuh uh
Uh hu
etc.  

Very true. I have never been a member of a forum where there wasn't a lot of squabbling going on. I must say that it is much more pleasant on this forum compared to some others I have participated in. It's really tiring trying to defend yourself against a majority of atheists who basically call you stupid for believing in a deity.

Yes.  I am personally not bothered by them for saying we are stupid for believing in God, but can understand why many are bothered by it and rightly so.   Some of them are not exactly rocket scientists, and those who are on the more intelligent side are often ignorant of history and what Christianity actually holds.  However, more exhausting than the atheists are the wacky beyond-protestant heretics--non-trinitarians, "red-letterers" (eg the "only what Jesus said and forget the rest of Scripture" crowd), and kooky cultists who think they personally have a corner on prophecy.  I am certainly leaving out a few, but the reality is maddening on some forums.  I actually prefer the atheists to the latter.  Actually, on one forum I participate in, the atheists are fairly reasonable, whereas some of the pseudo-Christian cultists make "Christianity" as they would call it look ridiculous.      

I hear ya. My pet peeve heretical group is the Oneness Pentecostals. Part of it is because there is a whole branch of my family (second cousins) that are Oneness Pentecostals, and I was exposed to their "church" as a child, and secondly is I currently have a friend who is one and gives me static constantly about being Catholic. For them, they don't focus on the red letters so much. They super-emphasize the book of Acts, or rather their misinterpretation of it.

 

[deusveritasest]

However, more exhausting than the atheists are the wacky beyond-protestant heretics--non-trinitarians, "red-letterers" (eg the "only what Jesus said and forget the rest of Scripture" crowd)

Amen to that!

I unfortunately have lots of experience with this sort.

 

[stanley123]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. ...

Still, I think that it can be argued that there are certain practices and teachings in apostolic times which have been abandoned by the Orthodox Church. For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

 

[deusveritasest]

For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

I don't think that's really the Apostolic teaching. I think was that slaves should be obedient to their masters, which has a very different connotation from subject. "Subject" implies an affirmation of the righteousness of the relationship of slavery, whereas "obedient" simply affirms in the context of that relationship that the believing slave should bear it in obedience to his/her master, while not necessarily affirming that the existence of the relationship is rightful. It's possible that the Orthodox Church's attitude on the rightfulness of slavery has developed while not contradicting the obedience part.

 

[PJ]

Actually, on one forum I participate in, the atheists are fairly reasonable, whereas some of the pseudo-Christian cultists make "Christianity" as they would call it look ridiculous.      

The topics of Christianity looking ridiculous and conversations with atheists makes me think of a story I read some years ago. (This is from a Q/A from Anthony Dragani. The actual story is in boldface.)

Papal Primacy #3: How do you reconcile Papal Infallibility with Byzantine theology?

Regarding the Papacy, it is a profound blessing from God. Unfortunately, WE Catholics sometimes present it in the worst light possible. Allow me to give you an example:

A year or so ago I was eating dinner with a fellow Catholic. We were discussing matters of religion, and an Asian gentleman heard the conversation. He politely introduced himself, and wanted to learn what Catholicism was. He was a recent immigrant from Asia, and was nominally Buddhist. He asked us what Catholics believe. Before I had a chance, my friend answered:

"We believe in the Pope! Everyone must obey him in order to be saved."

This line of conversation went on for several minutes, with my friend emphasizing the necessity of "submission to Rome." There was no mention of Jesus or the Gospel message. This Asian man was noticeably disturbed, and quickly excused himself before I could get more than a word in. That was a lost opportunity.

In stark contrast, Pope John Paul has been striving to present the Papacy in a positive light. He has been working hard to explain the Papacy in the context of the Gospel message. Frankly, the Papacy only makes sense when understood in this context. Of all the exalted Papal titles, Pope John Paul prefers to be called "The Servant of the Servants of God."

This issue is at the very heart of the Orthodox / Catholic split. Eastern Orthodox Christians erroneously think of the Papacy in terms of "submission" to an earthly power. It doesn't help when some of us call them heretics and demand that they "grovel before the mighty throne of Peter." Orthodox Christians find this approach to be very distasteful, and it keeps them very wary of reunion with Rome.

The fact of the matter is that the Papacy is a magnificent gift for the benefit of the Church. The Papacy does not exist for its own benefit, but for the health and well-being of the entire Catholic Church. Pope John Paul has been stressing this in all of his contacts with the Orthodox world. When understood in this light, the Papacy actually becomes appealing to Eastern Orthodox Christians. In fact, I personally know of at least one former Orthodox priest who joined the Byzantine Catholic Church because of this positive understanding of the Papacy.

Likewise, the great authority of the Pope only makes sense when understood in light of the Pope's role as servant. This authority was not bestowed for the Pope's own glory. Rather, this authority was given by Christ as a tool to be used for the benefit of the Church.

In my work in this forum, I am striving to follow the example of Pope John Paul II and present an attractive and accurate understanding of the Papal ministry. I know as a fact that many Eastern Orthodox Christians are reading this forum, and I want them to understand that the Papacy is a blessing, not a curse. During the pontificate of Pope John Paul we have been blessed to witness the Papacy at its very best. His papacy clearly demonstrates that the Papal ministry is one of service.

For a better understanding of the Papacy, and it's past and present relationship with the Eastern Patriarchs, I would highly recommend reading "Rome and the Eastern Churches" by Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP. Father Nichols is a Roman Catholic priest, and a theologian highly respected in both the East and the West. Unfortunately this book is now out of print, but you can order it from interlibrary loan.

 

[FatherHLL]

"My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh! My Church is the true Church!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-uh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-hu!"
This is a very productive thread.

LOL. That sums up this forum, not just this thread. At the end of the day I know that our Church is the true Church, but it's still amusing to watch everyone else flop around about it.

Oh, I think that is just about every forum of a religious nature.  But really it is not confined to forums of a religious nature, as other forums are simply "my thoughts are true and yours are not" or "my adherence is true and yours is not"

Nuh uh
Uh hu
etc.  

Very true. I have never been a member of a forum where there wasn't a lot of squabbling going on. I must say that it is much more pleasant on this forum compared to some others I have participated in. It's really tiring trying to defend yourself against a majority of atheists who basically call you stupid for believing in a deity.

Yes.  I am personally not bothered by them for saying we are stupid for believing in God, but can understand why many are bothered by it and rightly so.   Some of them are not exactly rocket scientists, and those who are on the more intelligent side are often ignorant of history and what Christianity actually holds.  However, more exhausting than the atheists are the wacky beyond-protestant heretics--non-trinitarians, "red-letterers" (eg the "only what Jesus said and forget the rest of Scripture" crowd), and kooky cultists who think they personally have a corner on prophecy.  I am certainly leaving out a few, but the reality is maddening on some forums.  I actually prefer the atheists to the latter.  Actually, on one forum I participate in, the atheists are fairly reasonable, whereas some of the pseudo-Christian cultists make "Christianity" as they would call it look ridiculous.      

I hear ya. My pet peeve heretical group is the Oneness Pentecostals. Part of it is because there is a whole branch of my family (second cousins) that are Oneness Pentecostals, and I was exposed to their "church" as a child, and secondly is I currently have a friend who is one and gives me static constantly about being Catholic. For them, they don't focus on the red letters so much. They super-emphasize the book of Acts, or rather their misinterpretation of it.

Yes, Oneness Pentecostals and the internet don't mix well.  Another group is seventh day adventists, who seem to come and leave forums in swarms. 

 

[FatherHLL]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. ...

Still, I think that it can be argued that there are certain practices and teachings in apostolic times which have been abandoned by the Orthodox Church. For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

Oh, I don't know.  As slave and servant are the same word, it is a general principle that laborers are to listen to our superiors in work and are responsible to them.  "Servants, listen to your bosses."   

 

[deusveritasest]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. ...

Still, I think that it can be argued that there are certain practices and teachings in apostolic times which have been abandoned by the Orthodox Church. For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

Oh, I don't know.  As slave and servant are the same word, it is a general principle that laborers are to listen to our superiors in work and are responsible to them.   "Servants, listen to your bosses."   

Same word?

Could you explain the difference between doulos and diakonos?

 

[LBK]

Same word?

Could you explain the difference between doulos and diakonos?

Doulos is servant, worker or slave. Diakonos is someone who goes out seeking alms for the poor and needy. You oughta brush up on your Greek, Jameson. 

 

[deusveritasest]

I did a search for "servant Greek" and most of the returns referred to diakonos.

 

[stanley123]

For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

I don't think that's really the Apostolic teaching. I think was that slaves should be obedient to their masters, which has a very different connotation from subject. "Subject" implies an affirmation of the righteousness of the relationship of slavery, whereas "obedient" simply affirms in the context of that relationship that the believing slave should bear it in obedience to his/her master, while not necessarily affirming that the existence of the relationship is rightful. It's possible that the Orthodox Church's attitude on the rightfulness of slavery has developed while not contradicting the obedience part.

1 Peter 2:18
New International Version (©1984)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
King James Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

What does yur Bible say?
Some Orthodox Christians claim that the Roman Church has teachings which vary from those in apostolic times. This claim is pretty hollow when you consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has abandoned certain apostolic teachings as well. And as well, you appear to deny these apostolic teachings.

 

[ialmisry]

I did a search for "servant Greek" and most of the returns referred to diakonos.

doulos is owned by his master and is bound to him, i.e. a slave, diakonos works himself to death for his master.

 

[deusveritasest]

For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

I don't think that's really the Apostolic teaching. I think was that slaves should be obedient to their masters, which has a very different connotation from subject. "Subject" implies an affirmation of the righteousness of the relationship of slavery, whereas "obedient" simply affirms in the context of that relationship that the believing slave should bear it in obedience to his/her master, while not necessarily affirming that the existence of the relationship is rightful. It's possible that the Orthodox Church's attitude on the rightfulness of slavery has developed while not contradicting the obedience part.

1 Peter 2:18
New International Version (©1984)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
King James Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

What does yur Bible say?
Some Orthodox Christians claim that the Roman Church has teachings which vary from those in apostolic times. This claim is pretty hollow when you consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has abandoned certain apostolic teachings as well. And as well, you appear to deny these apostolic teachings.

That passage appears to be essentially what I was imagining in terms of calling slaves to be obedient to their masters, not necessarily calling society to have slaves.

 

[ialmisry]

For another example, take the teaching in apostolic times that slaves should be subject to their masters. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has abandoned this apostolic teaching?

I don't think that's really the Apostolic teaching. I think was that slaves should be obedient to their masters, which has a very different connotation from subject. "Subject" implies an affirmation of the righteousness of the relationship of slavery, whereas "obedient" simply affirms in the context of that relationship that the believing slave should bear it in obedience to his/her master, while not necessarily affirming that the existence of the relationship is rightful. It's possible that the Orthodox Church's attitude on the rightfulness of slavery has developed while not contradicting the obedience part.

1 Peter 2:18
New International Version (©1984)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
King James Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

What does yur Bible say?

Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς.

Some Orthodox Christians claim that the Roman Church has teachings which vary from those in apostolic times. This claim is pretty hollow when you consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has abandoned certain apostolic teachings as well. And as well, you appear to deny these apostolic teachings.

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that.  Neither Christ nor the Apostles laid any obligation to keep that institution (indeed, the Church choked it: for instance, married slaves could not be sold off, lest man put asunder what God had joined).

Why not have us all wear robes, speak Greek and Aramaic, obey a pagan (and persecuting) emperor.....where do you get the idea that all things are equally important?  Neither Christ nor the Apostles taught any such thing.

 

[Wyatt]

This claim is pretty hollow when you consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has abandoned certain apostolic teachings as well.

When it's us it's heresy, when it's them it's economy.

 

[ialmisry]

This claim is pretty hollow when you consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has abandoned certain apostolic teachings as well.

When it's us it's heresy, when it's them it's economy.

That's because you make the exception the rule.

 

[stanley123]

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that.  

You appear to be seriously in error on your claim that there are no slaves today. There is slavery today, and I believe that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching of apostolic times that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect. Therefore, it is pretty unconvincing when an Orthodox Christian claims that the Roman Church has abandoned some of the apostolic teachings.
Here are some of the FACES OF SLAVERY AND BONDAGE
IN THE 21st CENTURY:
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

 

[stanley123]

Why not have us all wear robes, speak Greek and Aramaic, obey a pagan (and persecuting) emperor.....where do you get the idea that all things are equally important? 

Not at all. I certainly do not place wearing robes or speaking in Greek on the same level as slavery.
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

 

[deusveritasest]

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that.  

You appear to be seriously in error on your claim that there are no slaves today. There is slavery today, and I believe that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching of apostolic times that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect. Therefore, it is pretty unconvincing when an Orthodox Christian claims that the Roman Church has abandoned some of the apostolic teachings.
Here are some of the FACES OF SLAVERY AND BONDAGE
IN THE 21st CENTURY:
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

Where do you get the idea that the OC has abandoned teaching slaves to be obedient to their masters?

 

[deusveritasest]

What does yur Bible say?

Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς.

I don't see doulos. Where is the word referring to slave/servant?

 

[LBK]

Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις

That's a pretty accurate definition of slave/servant, AFAIK. As I said, you oughta brush up on your Greek, Jameson.

 

[deusveritasest]

Stop being ridiculous. You can't just expect someone to know some given foreign language.

 

[LBK]

Stop being ridiculous. You can't just expect someone to know some given foreign language.

Then get a Greek and brush up on it.

 

[ialmisry]

What does yur Bible say?

Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς.

I don't see doulos. Where is the word referring to slave/servant?

oiketes is a house slave, practically a member of the family.  There's a connotation of devotion and loyalty, and even affection.

 

[ialmisry]

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that.  

You appear to be seriously in error on your claim that there are no slaves today. There is slavery today, and I believe that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching of apostolic times that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect. Therefore, it is pretty unconvincing when an Orthodox Christian claims that the Roman Church has abandoned some of the apostolic teachings.
Here are some of the FACES OF SLAVERY AND BONDAGE
IN THE 21st CENTURY:
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

Slavery is everywhere illegal on the planet. Abolished unfortunately doesn't mean eliminatged. That Apostolic obedience to civil autorities comes into play, besides the moral imperative.

As for your convincing yourself of the Vatican, you seem rather intent on that.  But your unconvincing attempts to bring the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church down to the level of the Protean Vatican lays only a foundation of sand.

 

[deusveritasest]

Stop being ridiculous. You can't just expect someone to know some given foreign language.

Then get a Greek and brush up on it.

:

 

[stanley123]

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that. 

You appear to be seriously in error on your claim that there are no slaves today. There is slavery today, and I believe that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching of apostolic times that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect. Therefore, it is pretty unconvincing when an Orthodox Christian claims that the Roman Church has abandoned some of the apostolic teachings.
Here are some of the FACES OF SLAVERY AND BONDAGE
IN THE 21st CENTURY:
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

Where do you get the idea that the OC has abandoned teaching slaves to be obedient to their masters?

Oh. So slaves are supposed to be obedient to their masters according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church? Is that it? Can you kindly supply a reference to some authoritative source for that?

 

[stanley123]

You haven't noticed that slavery has been abolished, and thus, there are no slaves to submit, if you are worried about that.  

You appear to be seriously in error on your claim that there are no slaves today. There is slavery today, and I believe that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching of apostolic times that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect. Therefore, it is pretty unconvincing when an Orthodox Christian claims that the Roman Church has abandoned some of the apostolic teachings.
Here are some of the FACES OF SLAVERY AND BONDAGE
IN THE 21st CENTURY:
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm

Slavery is everywhere illegal on the planet. Abolished unfortunately doesn't mean eliminatged. That Apostolic obedience to civil autorities comes into play, besides the moral imperative.

As for your convincing yourself of the Vatican, you seem rather intent on that.  But your unconvincing attempts to bring the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church down to the level of the Protean Vatican lays only a foundation of sand.

So do you still insist on claiming that "there are no slaves to submit"? Even after I have given you proof that there are slaves today?

 

[stanley123]

That Apostolic obedience to civil autorities comes into play, besides the moral imperative.

What is the moral imperative with reference to the idea that slaves should submit themselves to their masters?