@frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

First you were a catholic then deeper life now a unitarian.presently you don't even belief Jesus pre-existed before incarnation.That is one hell of a spin around for a young man like you.

You are so full of yourself and believe you are never wrong.with your current campaigns against the trinity one would find it hard to believe that just a few months ago you also held this belief.

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

chukwudi44: @frosbel


At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

They are already good pals

Seriously the way frosbel reverses his religious inclination is alarming.I don't know if he is like experimenting on religious beleifs.

I just hope he does not experiment with suicide bombing especially with the allure of big breasted houris

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

First you were a catholic then deeper life now a unitarian.presently you don't even belief Jesus pre-existed before incarnation.That is one hell of a spin around for a young man like you.

You are so full of yourself and believe you are never wrong.with your current campaigns against the trinity one would find it hard to believe that just a few months ago you also held this belief.

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

On the contrary , knowing I can be wrong has led me to carry out more study and come to the alarming conclusion that the Trinity and Tithe / indulgences dogmas were and are still false.

BTW LagosShia is an 'ol pal, we are having dinner later this week

[/quote]TW LagosShia is an 'ol pal, we are having dinner later this week [quote]

I just hope you won't come back moderating the islamic section

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

Lol! frosbel takes things to the extreme sometimes. being an islamic fanatic would mean frosbel migrating to Afghanistan. that would mean the end of frosbel on NL. I don't even see him making any post cos he's going be busy fighting the American marines

The guy sure likes attacking his former beleifs.We have all seen his extreme obsession with anticatholicism here on Nl.if the guys converts to islams we xtians are in trouble

chukwudi44:

Nope pal orthodox split from catholicism only during the east-west schism of 1054 CE.

Really? East-West schism was a split? Nope. It was a difference in doctrine and in relations that led to both churches being suspicious of each other. The key here is that the Catholics tried to put the Orthodox church under its authority. There would have been no schism if they were already one church. It would have been like the Protestant reformation... a separation of both churches rather than what it was. You see both churches were already separate.

Also, and key to this argument. What made you think that it wasn't the Catholic church that was under the Orthodox church in Constantinople? Are you aware of the Council of Nicea? Why in Nicea in the first place? Nicea is a stones throw from Constantinople, which was also the capital of the Roman Empire at the time (newly unified by Emperor Constantine). So Emperor Constantine made Constantinople his capital, Christianity his religion of choice, gave them free reign, made them the offical religion of the empire and made the Capital of Christendom the orthodox church in Constantinople. However Christianity was never fully united and remained so since.

Zikkyy:

Lol! frosbel takes things to the extreme sometimes. being an islamic fanatic would mean frosbel migrating to Afghanistan. that would mean the end of frosbel on NL. I don't even see him making any post cos he's going be busy fighting the American marines

I will rather choose the lake of fire over ISLAM

ISLAM is against my Ibo culture

Atheist:-D:


Really? East-West schism was a split? Nope. It was a difference in doctrine and in relations that led to both churches being suspicious of each other. The key here is that the Catholics tried to put the Orthodox church under its authority. There would have been no schism if they were already one church. It would have been like the Protestant reformation... a separation of both churches rather than what it was. You see both churches were already separate.

Also, and key to this argument. What made you think that it wasn't the Catholic church that was under the Orthodox church in Constantinople? Are you aware of the Council of Nicea? Why in Nicea in the first place? Nicea is a stones throw from Constantinople, which was also the capital of the Roman Empire at the time (newly unified by Emperor Constantine). So Emperor Constantine made Constantinople his capital, Christianity his religion of choice, gave them free reign, made them the offical religion of the empire and made the Capital of Christendom the orthodox church in Constantinople. However Christianity was never fully united and remained so since.

Oga please it is too late to change history.The catholic church was one homogenous institution before the chalcedonian and east-west schisms.While each church was presided over by their respective bishops it did not mean they were not one.Even today the same practise is obtainable in the RCC where each diocese is governed by their respective bishops.

Constanstine did not make constantinopole the head of orthodox christianity as orthodox xtianity did not exist then.

To your other assertions.Constanstine only legalised christianity and never declared it the state religion of the empire.It was emperor theodosius who declared catholic xtianity the state religion in 380CE

chukwudi44:

Nope pal orthodox split from catholicism only during the east-west schism of 1054 CE.

This is not accurate really or at least is not fair.

The Orthodox are even till today still called Orthodox Catholic Church.

Secondly, follwing chkwudi's statement it can also be said that what became the Roman Catholic Church "split from catholicism only during the East-West schism of 1054".

Enigma:

This is not accurate really or at least is not fair.

The Orthodox are even till today still called Orthodox Catholic Church.

Secondly, follwing chkwudi's statement it can also be said that what became the Roman Catholic Church "split from catholicism only during the East-West schism of 1054".

Hypocrite I am still waiting for you to discuss the church fathers views on key catholic doctrines.Afterall you claimed to be a catholic you should not shy from it.

chukwudi44: Hypocrite I am still waiting for you to discuss the church fathers views on key catholic doctrines.Afterall you claimed to be a catholic you should not shy from it.

Ok, thanks for calling me a hypocrite. I too will return your kind gesture by calling you --- LIAR.

Apart from all your lies on the Canon thread, you forget your very blatant lie on a preceding thread:

- first you said that the apostles practised baptism for the dead;
- when I showed you that it was false, you threw in the lie that you did not say it
- worse you threw in another lie that Paul practised baptism for the dead
- when I contradicted that by pointing to the teaching of the RCC, what did you do?

But worse of all, when I gently asked you to correct the lie that you did not say the apostles practised baptism for the dead what did you do?

Here, reminder https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/2#11799941

frosbel:
ISLAM is against my Ibo culture

Lol!

chukwudi44:
Constanstine did not make constantinopole the head of orthodox christianity as orthodox xtianity did not exist then.

True talk. i wonder what this orthodox Christianity thing is all about.

Enigma:
The Orthodox are even till today still called Orthodox Catholic Church.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Edit

Atheist:-D:

The key here is that the Catholics tried to put the Orthodox church under its authority. There would have been no schism if they were already one church.

Don't tell me there was an orthodox church prior to the 'schism'

one more thing sir, can there be a schism if they were not one church? e.g. can we have the Christian/Hindu schism and i thought my knowledge of church history was close to zero

chukwudi44:

Oga please it is too late to change history.The catholic church was one homogenous institution before the chalcedonian and east-west schisms.While each church was presided over by their respective bishops it did not mean they were not one.Even today the same practise is obtainable in the RCC where each diocese is governed by their respective bishops.

Constanstine did not make constantinopole the head of orthodox christianity as orthodox xtianity did not exist then.

Really. And so the Pope or the head of the Catholic church in Rome held sway over all the other churches in Christendom?

Now you know that is wrong... or there would never have been a aSchism to begin with. What about the council of Nicea? Why get it resolved by the Emperor of Rome if it could have been resolved by the Pope or the Head of the Roman Catholic church? The answer to that is that there is little control of doctrine etc. outside of each churches domain. I think the Catholics refer to this as a SEE. So, the SEE of the Catholic church as defined by history at the time of the Council of Nicea (during Constantine's reign) was most of Western Europe in the Roman Empire. There were other churches which were independent and not part of the Catholic church or their SEE. These would have been Alexandria, Carthage, Damascus, Jerusalem, Antioch and of course Corinth. These churches were independent. Of course doctrine was similar as they all followed similar canonic beliefs and scriptures. There were already differences between churches in some doctrine (hence the need for the Council of Nicea).

the church in Rome grew close to the fall of the Western Roman Empire and it became dominant in the West. The Churchs in the East fell under the Church in Constantinople and were Orthodox The church in Carthage fell to the Vandals we were Arians and practised Arian Christianity until Bellisarius recaptured Carthage and brought it under Orthodox hegemony.

So to simplify:

If all churches were under Rome, why the need for a Council of Nicea (and so many other councils afterwards) to draw discussion and conclusions on doctrine that had to be settled by the Emperor? Surely the head of the church in Rome would have been able to resolve any spiritual disagreements within the church. This highlights the unity between churches but the difference between churches. The council of Nicea was technically an Ecumenical council (similar to what we have today between different denominations).

In regards to Theodosius, yes he was the first Emperor to ban all other religions in Rome. Emperor Constantine however was the first to recognise it as an acceptable religion, protect it from persecution, allow them to have religious buildings both in Rome and in Constantinople built by him. Give Christian leaders more rights than the traditional religions and gave them some buildings from the other religions. It was technically now the religion of the empire (although other religions were allowed to worship). They never gave these honours to the Jews so we can see Christianity was favoured enough to be the key religion.

Ol man it is obvious you do not know anything about the history of the church.There was nothing like the see of the catholic church.What we had was differant sees of the catholic church among which were Rome,alexandria,carthage,antioch e.t.c

All these churches were part and parcel of one catholic church before the schisms.

No bishop did oppose the supremacy of the roman see prior to these schisms.The supremacy of st peter was a generally accepted across the entire churches prior to the schism

We are going to review the writings of other bishops to see if they were truly independent of each other as you claimed.

Cyprian bishop of carthage writes in 251 CE

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

chukwudi44: Ol man it is obvious you do not know anything about the history of the church.There was nothing like the see of the catholic church.What we had was differant sees of the catholic church among which were Rome,alexandria,carthage,antioch e.t.c

All these churches were part and parcel of one catholic church before the schisms.

No bishop did oppose the supremacy of the roman see prior to these schisms.The supremacy of st peter was a generally accepted across the entire churches prior to the schism

I rest my case.

Do you know there was mention of a specific incident in the bible where a council came together to resolve some issues. Check the Council of Jerusalem. It was resolved by James the head of the church in Jerusalem.

Here are the main early councils: the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50 AD), the Council of Rome (155 AD), the Second Council of Rome (193 AD), the Council of Ephesus (193 AD), the Council of Carthage (251 AD), the Council of Iconium (258 AD),[2] the Council of Antioch (264 AD), the Councils of Arabia (246-247 AD), the Council of Elvira (306 AD), the Council of Carthage (311 AD), the Synod of Neo-Caesarea (c.314 AD), the Synod of Ancyra (314 AD) and the Synod of Arles (314 AD)

Check this link for the Council of Nicea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Read specifically where it states: The role of the Bishop of Rome

Roman Catholics assert that idea of Christ's deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Ireneaus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2)..

However, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. In support of this they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.

According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing

So to state. The Emperor had to resolve it because there was no spiritual authority over the other churches hence there was no way to enforce any agreements. This is indicative that the head of the Roman church had no power or authority over the other churches.There were churches spreading as far as India and China, were these under the Catholics too?

What was the Council of Nicea all about? How was it resolved? What is the most important impact from it today? What can we learn from it? That was way before the schism. Try and read history books etc written by non Catholic scholars.

@ Atheist:-D

A lot of what you are saying is correct but at the same time there are some significant inaccuracies.

I will point to just three.

1. "Catholic": originally the Christian Church worldwide was catholic. The schisms broke the visible catholicity of the Church --- and different "churches" started claiming to be the authentic "catholic" (which they cannot really be once broken by schism) e.g the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

2. At Nicea, Constantine actually did not decide anything for the Church! He convened the meeting but left the bishops to thrash out the issues among themselves. The bishops voted and the "Trinitarians" were in overwhelming majority with only a very very small number (possibly less than six, I will check this later) voting against the "Trinitarian" position.

Interestingly, the most active bishops advocating the Trinitarian view were NOT from what later became the Roman Catholic Church but from other parts e.g. Athanasius from Alexandria etc.

3. "See" ---- basically each individual church where there is a bishop is a "see". However, over time gradually there emerged different categories of "see": (a) the normal 'see' of each bishop; (b) the Metropolitan see where the bishop in the major city of a region had "oversight" (used quite loosely) over the other 'sees' in the region; and (c) the primary or "supra-Metropolitan" sees that originally were Alexandria, Antioch and Rome (with special honour for Jerusalem) and much later Constantinople.

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

First you were a catholic then deeper life now a unitarian.presently you don't even belief Jesus pre-existed before incarnation.That is one hell of a spin around for a young man like you.

You are so full of yourself and believe you are never wrong.with your current campaigns against the trinity one would find it hard to believe that just a few months ago you also held this belief.

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

Its just the same old endless search for meaning.
Yeah, just hope He doesn't find it in the arms of Islamicist.
He he he.

frosbel:

On the contrary , knowing I can be wrong has led me to carry out more study and come to the alarming conclusion that the Trinity and Tithe / indulgences dogmas were and are still false.

BTW LagosShia is an 'ol pal, we are having dinner later this week

Seriously?

plaetton:

Its just the same old endless search for meaning.
Yeah, just hope He doesn't find it in the arms of Islamicist.
He he he.

In the arms of the Islamists , is this some kind of joke

I just checked to confirm my head is screwed on tight and it sure is.

I will rather bow before a stone than become a Muslim

God forbid !

Atheist:-D:


I rest my case.

Do you know there was mention of a specific incident in the bible where a council came together to resolve some issues. Check the Council of Jerusalem. It was resolved by James the head of the church in Jerusalem.

Here are the main early councils: the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50 AD), the Council of Rome (155 AD), the Second Council of Rome (193 AD), the Council of Ephesus (193 AD), the Council of Carthage (251 AD), the Council of Iconium (258 AD),[2] the Council of Antioch (264 AD), the Councils of Arabia (246-247 AD), the Council of Elvira (306 AD), the Council of Carthage (311 AD), the Synod of Neo-Caesarea (c.314 AD), the Synod of Ancyra (314 AD) and the Synod of Arles (314 AD)

Check this link for the Council of Nicea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Read specifically where it states: The role of the Bishop of Rome

Roman Catholics assert that idea of Christ's deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Ireneaus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2)..

However, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. In support of this they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.

According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing

So to state. The Emperor had to resolve it because there was no spiritual authority over the other churches hence there was no way to enforce any agreements. This is indicative that the head of the Roman church had no power or authority over the other churches.There were churches spreading as far as India and China, were these under the Catholics too?

What was the Council of Nicea all about? How was it resolved? What is the most important impact from it today? What can we learn from it? That was way before the schism. Try and read history books etc written by non Catholic scholars.

The council of Jerusalem was the first ecumenical council,it is erroneous to say James presided over it simply because he spoke last in that council.All the other ones you mentioned were not ecumenical councils but was rather localised to each individual see or its evirons.The first council of nicea was the second ecumenical council which invovled every see of the catholic church.Not every church council was ecumenical

The protestants were not represented @ the council of nicea since they never existed by that time.

There is no record of any see challenging the supremacy of the roman see prior to these schisms.

Orthodoxy came later in the eleventh century when disaggreements in language and doctrinal disagreement in the filoque clause led the patriach of constantinopole to reject the papal supremacy culmination in the mutual excommunication saga which marked the begining of the east-west schism.

But prior to these schisms the church had exixted as one catholic church presided over by the bishop of rome with other bishops running their differant sees.

Enigma: @ Atheist:-D

A lot of what you are saying is correct but at the same time there are some significant inaccuracies.

I will point to just three.

1. "Catholic": originally the Christian Church worldwide was catholic. The schisms broke the visible catholicity of the Church --- and different "churches" started claiming to be the authentic "catholic" (which they cannot really be once broken by schism) e.g the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

2. At Nicea, Constantine actually did not decide anything for the Church! He convened the meeting but left the bishops to thrash out the issues among themselves. The bishops voted and the "Trinitarians" were in overwhelming majority with only a very very small number (possibly less than six, I will check this later) voting against the "Trinitarian" position.

Interestingly, the most active bishops advocating the Trinitarian view were NOT from what later became the Roman Catholic Church but from other parts e.g. Athanasius from Alexandria etc.

3. "See" ---- basically each individual church where there is a bishop is a "see". However, over time gradually there emerged different categories of "see": (a) the normal 'see' of each bishop; (b) the Metropolitan see where the bishop in the major city of a region had "oversight" (used quite loosely) over the other 'sees' in the region; and (c) the primary or "supra-Metropolitan" sees that originally were Alexandria, Antioch and Rome (with special honour for Jerusalem) and much later Constantinople.

Thank you for your corrections. You stated with more detail what I have been trying to say. The church at the time was united but mostly as a group of churches with no single leadership but by discussion, agreement, councils etc. No church exerted ultimate authority over the others as the Roman Catholic church has always suggested. The schism was not the beginning of the divisions as we had Arian Christians as well as some other small denominations.

At Nicea, Constantine was responsible for enforcing what was decided by the Council. He virtually outlawed Arianism. If it was prior to his time it would have been impossible to enforce this and Arian could have most likely continued in Alexandria etc. This time around it was easier to resolve by use of force if necessary (and there was use of force against Arians supporters in the upcoming persecutions).

My understanding of SEE is somewhat different and probably wrong .
I thought it was dominion or territory under which the Roman Catholic church existed. This was broken down into smaller SEEs and the whole region or Roman Catholic church was classified as the SEE of the Roman Catholic Church. I am probably wrong about that because I was almost a toddler when I was a member of the Catholic church.

frosbel:

I will rather bow before a stone than become a Muslim

God forbid !

em..frosbel, are you sure you are not referring to the black stone? the one in Mecca, Saudi Arabia appears the islamization of frosbel is already in progress

[/quote]No church exerted ultimate authority over the others as the Roman Catholic church has always suggested.
[quote]

If you know of any church father which challenged the roman and petrine supremacy prior to these schisms kindly spill it out here and let's analyse it

I never said the chalcedonian and east-west schisms were the only schism to plague the church.I have also mentioned the various gnostic sects of the late first and second centuriers.We also had the montanist and donatist schisms before that of arianism and nestorianism but all these schisms were not regarded as major as that of the chalcedonian and east-west schisms which affected the entire group of churches in differant sees.

Atheist:-D:


No they are not. Orthodox and Catholicism were the two main branches of Xtianity. They were never under the Catholics (except for shortly after the 4th crusade). They have distinct differences when compared with the Catholics.

this isnt true, the today orthodox and catholic church was united before the 11th century and the roman see presided over the whole church, in the right manner of speaking the today orthodox church (eastern sees) were under the today catholic church (the roman see).

Zikkyy:

Take it easy na. which one you dey?

nothing easy there, go and check that thread, all the protestant ran away without even saying goodbye.

Zikkyy:

... are you saying orthodox churches are not catholic?



I can't say they were ever under catholic, but they were part of one catholic church before the name change. It's either they are still catholic or they are protesting. I think their not wanting to be identified with the word 'catholic' makes them protestant.

nah, they arent protestants and they arent catholics (some of those sees are now catholics, the term used is 'eastern catholic'), they prefer to called themself orthodox.

frosbel:

On the contrary , knowing I can be wrong has led me to carry out more study and come to the alarming conclusion that the Trinity and Tithe / indulgences dogmas were and are still false.

BTW LagosShia is an 'ol pal, we are having dinner later this week

a little correction, catholic dont consider tithing as a dogma. The trinity issue i still ask u to reconsider and to stop the auto delete u use to block out the evidence presented to u.