View Full Version : Why don't the Orthodox call themselves Catholic?
Cary.Melvin
18th January 2006, 02:37 PM
The Creed states that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church has called herself catholic from antiquity. Were the Orthodox Chuches called Catholic prior to the schism? And when did the Orthodox Chruch start calling itself 'orthodox' and not 'catholic'? Was it after the schism? Who coined that term for the eastern churches?
Dewi Sant
18th January 2006, 02:42 PM
The Creed states that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church has called herself catholic from antiquity. Were the Orthodox Chuches called Catholic prior to the schism? And when did the Orthodox Chruch start calling itself 'orthodox' and not 'catholic'? Was it after the schism? Who coined that term for the eastern churches?
Catholic simply means only.
You will find that the Creed is used in Protestant services also.
Part of the Church of England liturgy said before the Eucharist is "Though we are many, we are one body because we all eat from one bread". This is what Catholic means.
Rilian
18th January 2006, 02:48 PM
I think the shorthand way of describing the western half of the church as "Catholic" and the Eastern half as "Orthodox" dates to around the time of the schism. Orthodoxy is certainly catholic as the creed means, it contains the fullness of faith. It is whole.
The short hand names don't really matter. Our main liturgical service book for instance has this printed on the first page "Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church".
Andrew
Cary.Melvin
18th January 2006, 03:01 PM
Ignatius of Antioch (~110 A.D.) used the term 'Catholic' and he was definitly in the East:
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
moses916
18th January 2006, 03:05 PM
Ignatius of Antioch (~110 A.D.) used the term 'Catholic' and he was definitly in the East:
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
Clearly St. Ignatius didn't experience the excommunication of the West, and we do call ourselves the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, however we don't claim to be RCC. And we don't mean Catholic as in RCC as well. :)
InnerPhyre
18th January 2006, 03:06 PM
If u wanna get technical, our official name is "The Way."
We are the Catholic Church. We do call ourselves that in the Creed. During the prayers for the catechumen, the priest prays "Unite...so and so....to your Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I imagine that Orthodox is used to avoid confusion between the two of us.
Fotios
18th January 2006, 04:00 PM
We Are..Orthodox Catholic..but since the vatican Religion wants catholic we'll use orthodox
HandmaidenOfGod
18th January 2006, 04:14 PM
We lost the name in a round of "rock, paper, scissors." ;)
moses916
18th January 2006, 04:18 PM
We lost the name in a round of "rock, paper, scissors." ;)
^_^ That just killed me, you gotta be careful what you say around me Handmaiden. ;)
But in all sincerity, all the Church Fathers of the East and of the West called the Church the Catholic Church. Does this mean they prophesized we should side with Rome hundreds of years later even though Rome changed many doctrines and added some dangerous lines here and there? I think not. :)
Monica, child of God
18th January 2006, 04:24 PM
Before autocephaly, the OCA's official name was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America. If you read older Orthodox books, such as the Orthodox Companion, authors will use the term Orthodox Catholic. But with the Eastern Rite of the Latin Catholic Church, I think people must have begun to drop Catholic to avoid confusion.
Personally, I do think of myself as an Orthodox Catholic Christian. If someone asks me if I am Catholic because they see me cross myself or my icons, I usually say that I am an Orthodox Christian because it causes less puzzled stares.
Monica
Rilian
18th January 2006, 04:28 PM
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
Yes, and St. Ignatius of Antioch shows us something incredibly important. The fullness of faith is found around the bishop and by extension the Eucharist (because it is Christ that is present in the Eucharist). When these things are present, the faith in its fullness “κατά όλος” (according to the whole) is found. That is where the “Catholic” Church is.
The church is not manifest in its fullness, it is not made catholic, from a single monarchial bishop ruling from any one single see. It is a shame that idea gained currency in the western church.
autumngirl
18th January 2006, 05:10 PM
Excuse me if me this sounds goofy (I'm still learning about Orthodoxy) but weren't the Catholics originally part of the Orthodox faith and they decided to branch off on their own? Or did I misread that somewhere?
Fotios
18th January 2006, 05:11 PM
Excuse me if me this sounds goofy (I'm still learning about Orthodoxy) but weren't the Catholics originally part of the Orthodox faith and they decided to branch off on their own? Or did I misread that somewhere?
That is correct..They Branched off when their Pope wanted Universal Jurisdiction and other perks
choirfiend
18th January 2006, 05:21 PM
BTW, Cary, that label of "Orthodox" looks good on you. You should make it real.
Cary.Melvin
18th January 2006, 05:30 PM
Excuse me if me this sounds goofy (I'm still learning about Orthodoxy) but weren't the Catholics originally part of the Orthodox faith and they decided to branch off on their own? Or did I misread that somewhere?
Or the Orthodox were part of the Catholic Church and they branched off on their own. I guess it depends on ones point of view.
choirfiend
18th January 2006, 05:37 PM
Nope, just depends on the truth! They are not both right. 1 vs 4, 4 vs 1, who is branching? But hey, this is TAW, so debate doesn't happen, right?
MariaRegina
18th January 2006, 05:38 PM
Or the Orthodox were part of the Catholic Church and they branched off on their own. I guess it depends on ones point of view.
There were five original Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem). Rome split while the other four remained in communion.
moses916
18th January 2006, 05:40 PM
I don't want to debate too much, but answer me these questions. Why did celibacy come into practice after 1000 years where priests in the West could have been married? and what about the Iconostasis, why did it also disappear in RCC after 1000 years of the West having it in the Church? What about the way the Eucharist is served (unleaveved as apposed to leavened)(and also the Body[wafer] instead of the Body and the Blood)? 1 patriarch rebelled against 4 patriarches and not 4 against 1. :)
Fotios
18th January 2006, 05:51 PM
Or the Orthodox were part of the Catholic Church and they branched off on their own. I guess it depends on ones point of view.
twould be the other way around..
RobNJ
18th January 2006, 06:16 PM
Well, let's just say we parted company ;)
(And personally, I think Orthodox has a better ring to it! :thumbsup: )
OrthoCanuck
18th January 2006, 06:34 PM
We are Catholic. Within the Church we call ourselves Catholic. When I entered the catechumenate I was asked if I want to join the "Holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic Church" (aka, The Orthdox Church). When dealing with non-Orthodox, we use Orthodox to avoid confusion. I'd rather be known as 'right-believing' by other Christians anyway.
Peace.
Greg the byzantine
18th January 2006, 07:02 PM
There's a reason that everybody crosses themeselves when they recite in the creed "I BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH"
autumngirl
18th January 2006, 07:21 PM
Okay I guess I was sort of right... LOL Thanks Aria, you said what I meant.. :-)
Michael the Iconographer
18th January 2006, 07:50 PM
Ignatius of Antioch (~110 A.D.) used the term 'Catholic' and he was definitly in the East:
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
Ignatius of Antioch was not referring to Roman Catholic when he used the term catholic. Catholic with a capital "c" and catholic with a lower case "c" mean two totally different things. He used the term with the lower case "c" which means universal. The Orthodox Church is called Orthodox because it is "correct in teaching," implying that all who are not Orthodox are heterodox. The real question here is what is it that keeps the Roman Catholics from being Orthodox. What is it that makes them heterodox.
Michael the Iconographer
18th January 2006, 07:52 PM
Or the Orthodox were part of the Catholic Church and they branched off on their own. I guess it depends on ones point of view.
How is it that 4 patriarchs parted ways with 1 patriarch and the 1 patriarch remained true to the faith? That is highly illogical. I rather think it is the other way. 1 patriarch became heterodox while the other 4 remained united in orthodoxy.
OIT
18th January 2006, 08:32 PM
How is it that 4 patriarchs parted ways with 1 patriarch and the 1 patriarch remained true to the faith? That is highly illogical. I rather think it is the other way. 1 patriarch became heterodox while the other 4 remained united in orthodoxy.
IMHO, that is a cheap-shot in proving Orthodoxy true. Orthodoxy is true based off its own Truth.
HandmaidenOfGod
18th January 2006, 09:04 PM
The REAL reason is that the Patriarch of Rome was miffed that the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't give him the recipe for Baklava after he had shared his recipe for cannolis.
Veritas_et_Puritas
18th January 2006, 09:12 PM
We lost the name in a round of "rock, paper, scissors." ;)
LOL! That is great. ^_^
The REAL reason is that the Patriarch of Rome was miffed that the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't give him the recipe for Baklava after he had shared his recipe for cannolis.
You are on a roll. Hahaha.
Greg the byzantine
18th January 2006, 09:32 PM
The REAL reason is that the Patriarch of Rome was miffed that the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't give him the recipe for Baklava after he had shared his recipe for cannolis.
Well that and he wouldn't share his supersoaker ;)
Dust and Ashes
18th January 2006, 09:36 PM
IMHO, that is a cheap-shot in proving Orthodoxy true. Orthodoxy is true based off its own Truth.
I don't think he was presenting it as the sole reason, just pointing out that logically, it wouldn't makes sense that 4 out of 5 sees went into error.
Michael the Iconographer
18th January 2006, 10:32 PM
The REAL reason is that the Patriarch of Rome was miffed that the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't give him the recipe for Baklava after he had shared his recipe for cannolis.
Make sure you give credit to the Reader Alexis of The Onion Dome for that one! :D
Michael the Iconographer
18th January 2006, 10:34 PM
IMHO, that is a cheap-shot in proving Orthodoxy true.
If it is such a cheap shot, then let us hear your deep philosophical and theological explanation! I am waiting.
HandmaidenOfGod
19th January 2006, 01:24 AM
Make sure you give credit to the Reader Alexis of The Onion Dome for that one! :D
Give credit my toe! I thought of that one all by myself! :P
OIT
19th January 2006, 02:25 AM
If it is such a cheap shot, then let us hear your deep philosophical and theological explanation! I am waiting.
The fact that four Patriarchs were right and one wrong means nothing. Patriarchs are bishops and can fail too (yes, even four can fail). I'm not saying they were wrong in the case of 1054, but at the same time, just because 4 are on one side of an argument and one on the other side doesn't make the 4 right.
Michael the Iconographer
19th January 2006, 03:03 AM
The fact that four Patriarchs were right and one wrong means nothing. Patriarchs are bishops and can fail too (yes, even four can fail). I'm not saying they were wrong in the case of 1054, but at the same time, just because 4 are on one side of an argument and one on the other side doesn't make the 4 right.
From a mathematical point of view it doesnt say anything at all? The argument that 80% of the patriarchs stayed Orthodox and 20% went heterodox? When you look at that in line with everything else I presented, it makes a pretty strong argument. But, I defer to your superior logic!
choirfiend
19th January 2006, 03:16 AM
It doesn't HAVE to say anything. Superiority and arrogance that bleed through in posts is starting rile my nerves.
In the council of Florence, all Orthodox bishops but St. Mark of Ephesus signed the false statement of unity with the RCC. He led the Orthodox Church (through the laity, which is the Church more than any council of bishops can even be!) to reject the council and to proclaim the Orthodox truths concerning the progression of the Holy Spirit from the Father. He is commemorated today.
Majority does not always equal right. TRUTH, now that equals right.
Torah613
19th January 2006, 05:35 AM
We are Catholic. Within the Church we call ourselves Catholic. When I entered the catechumenate I was asked if I want to join the "Holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic Church" (aka, The Orthdox Church). When dealing with non-Orthodox, we use Orthodox to avoid confusion. I'd rather be known as 'right-believing' by other Christians anyway.
Peace.
Actually doesn't Orthodox mean "correct Glory" instead of "Right Belief?" I know Pravoslavnia (poor phonetic spelling Iknow) means this...
Joe Zollars
Torah613
19th January 2006, 05:36 AM
The REAL reason is that the Patriarch of Rome was miffed that the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't give him the recipe for Baklava after he had shared his recipe for cannolis.
ROFL!
Of course Rome didn't realize that it was a fasting season, and Constantinople was miffed that the Pope was trying to tempt him...
Joe Zollars
Torah613
19th January 2006, 05:41 AM
It doesn't HAVE to say anything. Superiority and arrogance that bleed through in posts is starting rile my nerves.
In the council of Florence, all Orthodox bishops but St. Mark of Ephesus signed the false statement of unity with the RCC. He led the Orthodox Church (through the laity, which is the Church more than any council of bishops can even be!) to reject the council and to proclaim the Orthodox truths concerning the progression of the Holy Spirit from the Father. He is commemorated today.
Majority does not always equal right. TRUTH, now that equals right.
Here here! We could debate for hours, and it would come to nought. Debate does not solve anything or convert souls. That is what prayer is for. We must pray for the Roman Church to come back to the fold, for communion in Truth to be restored. Just as we must pray that we do not fall into heresy.
Joe Zollars
Michael the Iconographer
19th January 2006, 09:22 AM
Actually doesn't Orthodox mean "correct Glory" instead of "Right Belief?" I know Pravoslavnia (poor phonetic spelling Iknow) means this...
Joe Zollars
No, Orthodox means correct in believe just as heterodox means mixed in belief. At the same time orthopractical means correct in action while heteropractical means mixed in action.
theoforos
19th January 2006, 09:41 AM
Actually doesn't Orthodox mean "correct Glory" instead of "Right Belief?" I know Pravoslavnia (poor phonetic spelling Iknow) means this...
Yes, literally it means 'right glory' (cf. DOXA Patri kai Yio kai Agio Pneumati), but I think the concept of 'glory' can be extended also to encompass belief. However, in any case it's question about something more than just the doctrine issues.
NPH
19th January 2006, 10:18 AM
IMO, I see the "Orthodox" Church as both Orthodox and Catholic. Likewise, I see the "Catholic" Church as both Orthodox and Catholic. They each just got one half of the terms so we can tell which is which :P Two halves of the same whole is how I see it.
To deny that the "Catholic" Church has not changed/refined a few things here and there would be foolish. Likewise, to deny that the "Orthodox" Church has not changed/refined a few things here and there would be equally foolish. Again, both of these are IMO.
I just see both as the "One True Church" split in two over a (relatively minor) number of theological differences and perhaps a certain degree of pride. The sooner both Churches get around to realizing that maybe they've both made a couple of not that important mistakes over the years and that each may have some useful bits that the other lacks and reunite, the sooner will exist the Church that I truly wish to attend :)
This is all IMO, I would like to stress :) I love the Catholic Church and am beginning to love the Orthodox Church as I learn more about it also.
choirfiend
19th January 2006, 11:02 AM
Right glory-meaning both belief and worship, which are intertwined, as our worship reflects our belief and our belief reflects our worship.
VNV, welcome! And keep learning, those "minor theological differences" such as the revealed nature of God Himself might eventually not seem so minor! And keep trying to find where the Orthodox changed their theology, especially on matters with which we differ on from the RCC...it will be an arduous task!
Ioan cel Nou
19th January 2006, 11:20 AM
I would rephrase your question as 'Why don't the heterodox call the Orthodox Catholic?' because we do call ourselves such. The answer, of course, is that because it's common parlance to refer to Roman Catholics simply as Catholic, to do the same with the Orthodox would be confusing.
James
theoforos
19th January 2006, 11:32 AM
I would rephrase your question as 'Why don't the heterodox call the Orthodox Catholic?' because we do call ourselves such. The answer, of course, is that because it's common parlance to refer to Roman Catholics simply as Catholic, to do the same with the Orthodox would be confusing.
That's the point, man! :)
Actually I prefer to call the Roman Catholic church the 'Roman church' rather than the 'Catholic church'.
By the way, the Orthodox church was generally called the 'Greek Catholic' church in Finland earlier, but during the last decades it has become more commong to use the word 'Orthodox' in order to avoid confusion. I think the law that defined the status of the Orthodox church in Finland used to be called the 'Act on the Greek Catholic church in Finland' until recently. And I think one of the parishes that belong to the patriarchate of Moscow is still officially called 'Private Greek Catholic Parish'. I know they had that name still in the 1980s.
The Prokeimenon!
19th January 2006, 12:25 PM
Since I don't think anybody's mentioned it-
ORTHODOX first came to be used to describe those Christians that held to the Ecumenical Councils-East and West. IE- the Orthodox vs the Arians, the Orthodox vs the Iconoclasts, the Orthodox vs those who recited a corrupted creed, etc.
I think the history of the word Catholic has been stated pretty well.
It's just easier in our day to say we're Orthodox, even though we absolutely consider ourselves The Catholic Church. When people say "are you Catholic?" I just say "I'm Orthodox." When they say "that's the same, right?" I say "no" because they're thinking of the Latin Church. It's jsut semantics, I guess.
Rdr Moses
NPH
19th January 2006, 05:38 PM
VNV, welcome! And keep learning, those "minor theological differences" such as the revealed nature of God Himself might eventually not seem so minor! And keep trying to find where the Orthodox changed their theology, especially on matters with which we differ on from the RCC...it will be an arduous task!
Thanks choirfiend! And to clarify by minor I meant minor in number, not necessarily minor in importance :) The similarities and agreements between the two seem to far outweigh the differences and disagreements. Particularly if you compare either one to any protestant church.
But to give you an example, just of how I see things, I feel that 'primacy' is the better policy and fairly historically accurate but 'infallibility' is unnecessary and definitely not historically accurate. Kinda Catholic and kinda Orthodox you see :)
Of course, that's just how I see things now. God knows where God will lead me over time lol.
p.s. - RE: your last sentence. I do know of one item where I believe the Orthodox church has deviated from the historical position of the church (and IMO, it is contrary to scripture) but i'd not even consider discussing it here in your forum. I only mention this at all since you brought it up in that last sentence :)
icxn
19th January 2006, 05:46 PM
IMO, I see the "Orthodox" Church as both Orthodox and Catholic. Likewise, I see the "Catholic" Church as both Orthodox and Catholic.
So if we were to post here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2539997-becoming-a-catholic.html
... and perchance steal the fish out of your plate you wouldn't mind?
;)
Torah613
19th January 2006, 05:49 PM
No, Orthodox means correct in believe just as heterodox means mixed in belief. At the same time orthopractical means correct in action while heteropractical means mixed in action.
So the Doxology is a Beliefology?
Joe Zollars
Torah613
19th January 2006, 05:54 PM
Orthodox believe in Primacy, but not Infallability and Supremacy.
Joe Zollars
NPH
19th January 2006, 06:33 PM
So if we were to post here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2539997-becoming-a-catholic.html
... and perchance steal the fish out of your plate you wouldn't mind?
;)
If what you're meaning is: would it bother me if some Orthodox posters jumped in that thread and 'persuaded' the OP that maybe he should take a look at the Orthodox church before commiting to the Catholic church, then my answer would be "not at all!" :) Catholic or Orthodox, I love them both in my limited knowledge of both.
By the way though, it wouldn't be 'my' plate :P While in the view of the Catholic church I am a Catholic (since I have not formally renounced the church) by my own thinking I am in flux.
NPH
19th January 2006, 06:34 PM
Orthodox believe in Primacy, but not Infallability and Supremacy.
Joe Zollars
PM me an explanation of the difference (so as not to take the thread too off-topic) you see in Primacy and Supremacy and how it would affect the office of Pope. I can see a difference between the two but would appreciate knowing more fully the Orthodox view of the difference.
Thanks in advance Joe and God bless you!
Michael the Iconographer
19th January 2006, 10:39 PM
So the Doxology is a Beliefology?
Joe Zollars
A doxology is a proclamation of the truth.
Torah613
20th January 2006, 06:41 AM
then the Russian translation of the word Orthodox as Pravoslavnia (correct glory) is wrong?
personally I think it means correct glory. Or as one would say as a traditional RC "Lex Orandi, lex Credendi." But maybe that is just my view as an ex tradlat.
Joe Zollars
theoforos
20th January 2006, 06:58 AM
then the Russian translation of the word Orthodox as Pravoslavnia (correct glory) is wrong?
personally I think it means correct glory. Or as one would say as a traditional RC "Lex Orandi, lex Credendi." But maybe that is just my view as an ex tradlat.
Joe Zollars
Ehhh, if the Greek word 'doxa' can be thought to include also the doctrinal aspects, why wouldn't the same apply also to the Russian/Slavonic word 'slava'?
But I think you are right about the emphasis being on the other aspects. The primary meaning of the word is not the correct doctrine, but rather the "lex orandi, lex credendi" thing.
Michael the Iconographer
20th January 2006, 07:29 AM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/orthodox
Websters definition of orthodox:
Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox
Pronunciation: 'or-th&-"däks
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English orthodoxe, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French orthodoxe, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion -- more at DOXOLOGY
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b : CONVENTIONAL
2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a : EASTERN ORTHODOX b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
- or·tho·dox·ly adverb
When typed into Webster's Thessaurus:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=orthodox
Entry Word: orthodox
Function: adjective
Text: 1 following or agreeing with established form, custom, or rules <teachers tended to favor poets who followed a very orthodox style of poetry> -- see FORMAL 1
2 tending to favor established ideas, conditions, or institutions <orthodox in their view of the world, the Founding Fathers subscribed to the 18th-century notion that only men with property should be allowed to vote> -- see CONSERVATIVE 1
Michael the Iconographer
20th January 2006, 07:39 AM
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=orthodox
Main Entry: orthodox
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: traditional
Synonyms: accepted, acknowledged, admitted, approved, authoritative, button-down, canonical, conformist, conservative, conventional, correct, customary, devout, die-hard, doctrinal, established, in line, legitimate, official, old-line, pious, proper, punctilious, reactionary, received, recognized, religious, right, rightful, sanctioned, sound, square, standard, straight, straight arrow, traditional, traditionalistic, true, well-established
Antonyms: unconventional, unorthodox
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
theoforos
20th January 2006, 07:47 AM
The explanation of the Greek word 'doxa' in an online dictionary:
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391
Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Doxa dox'-ah http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=1391g.rm&l=en) Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Feminine 2:233,178 Definition
opinion, judgment, view
opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone
in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory
splendour, brightness
of the moon, sun, stars
magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace
majesty
a thing belonging to God
the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity
a thing belonging to Christ
the kingly majesty of the Messiah
the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty
of the angels
as apparent in their exterior brightness
a most glorious condition, most exalted state
of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth
the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven
Translated Words KJV (168) - dignity, 2; glorious, 10; glory, 145; honour, 6; praise, 4; worship, 1; NAS (167) - approval, 2; brightness, 1; glories, 1; glorious, 5; glory, 155; honor, 1; majesties, 2;
Michael the Iconographer
20th January 2006, 07:56 AM
So the Doxology is a Beliefology?
Joe Zollars
Oops, I already stated that.
Michael the Iconographer
20th January 2006, 10:10 AM
Since I don't think anybody's mentioned it-
ORTHODOX first came to be used to describe those Christians that held to the Ecumenical Councils-East and West. IE- the Orthodox vs the Arians, the Orthodox vs the Iconoclasts, the Orthodox vs those who recited a corrupted creed, etc.
I think the history of the word Catholic has been stated pretty well.
It's just easier in our day to say we're Orthodox, even though we absolutely consider ourselves The Catholic Church. When people say "are you Catholic?" I just say "I'm Orthodox." When they say "that's the same, right?" I say "no" because they're thinking of the Latin Church. It's jsut semantics, I guess.
Rdr Moses
You are right, it is a big semantic mess. BTW I love your user title!
Copyright ©2000-2008, ChristianForums.com