www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How to remove heresy from our society?

Hello!

Last sunday I went to a famous restaurant here where I live and there were some blonde foreign girls singing, they weren't particularly interesting (the music either) but when they finished singing they offered us some CD's recorded with their music: "if you buy this you'll help children under our care". It seemed cute at first to see some foreign ladies helping our children but then I read they belonged to an Evangelical group.

How evil! Taking advantage of our children to spread their sect in our country! And the worst thing, they're everywhere, they visit your houses in the middle of the morning, they sell heretical cassettes outside schools and now you can't even go to your fave restaurant to eat because you'll also find the heretics proselitizing.

To make it worse, if the authorities act against them you'll find the "Religious Freedom Report" by the Department of State saying there is intolerance, abuse against religious freedom and violation of human rights! Brave people who have had enough courage to expell Mexican and foreign preachers and agitators from their communities are labeled as persecutors. They forget that our people also have the right to practice their religion without being molested and stalked by the others.

They divide and destroy families; they hate our flag and national symbols; they deny the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they blaspheme against the Blessed Virgin; they refuse to collaborate with the community in religious celebrations such as the Day of the Dead, Christmas and Easter; they sponsor politicaly-motivated tv-programmes supporting the war on Iraq, the supression of the Palestine people and other which have no relation to our country; and some even say God was once a man who dwelt on an earth!

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and other established religions seem unwilling to collaborate in the erradication of these groups for Ecumenical reasons. I believe that concerned citizens must start a campaign against them with our own sources such as the Internet, broshures and even preaching if necesary. To launch this campaign is to promote Patriotism and a militant form of Christian message that has been lost in the modern society.

The danger of the destruction of our lifestyle and culture by these groups is real.

What do you think???

Your post suggests to me that you harbor a great deal of animosity- if not hatred-towards Protestant Christians-especially Evangelicals. I suggest that you think through this matter again. While Protestants may indeed be in error about many things, most Evangelicals I know (including most of my friends and most members of my family) do not deny the divinity of Christ. Do you really think there is anything at all Christ-like about "the eradication of these groups"? How would you feel if you lived in and overwhelmingly Protestant nation that did not allow Catholic and Orthodox Christians to teach their faith? How would you feel if you lived in a nation that engaged in the "eradication" of Catholic and Orthodox Christians? I believe that you are gravely mistaken about this matter and suggest that your prayerfully reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Ryan

It sounds to me as if the person (i.e., Mexican) must be describing one of the newer Christian-like groups (e.g., the Watchtower, Church of the Ladder Day Saints, etc.) rather than Evangelical Christianity. So, for example, the Watchtower (Jehovah Witnesses) do not celebrate Christmas or Easter, etc.

I do agree with Athanasius the L about the tone of the post, however.

I also do not like the tone of Mexican's post. There is nothing 'evil' about fellow Christians, and especially Evangelicals.

I know there is also a difference between Evangelicals and Pentecostals, and that their approach, mentality and ethos can be quite different and that many people get them confused. I would hope that the intellectual and well read posters of this forum are not getting these or *other groups* (such as those posted by PrJ) confused.

The only thing I would have understood, is if Mexican was upset because the people he encountered were discounting, dismissing, and/or undermining the practices and faith, as well as the traditions, of Catholic Christianity which is the traditional soul of Mexico. This does sometimes happen in the clash between Christian faiths and is blatantly wrong! It is especially distasteful when done in traditional Christian countries, Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Other's religious cultures should not be eradicated by the American Protestant culture.

Neither side should ever view the other side as 'evil' or try to compete and/or poach for congregants.

Therefore, though I do understand Mexican's concerns, and I understand his emotions, I would caution him to chose his words more thoughtfully, or he is only contributing to the same mentality he proposes to loathe.

In Christ, our Saviour,
Alice, Moderator

Alice,

An ounce of poison is still poison and can kill you. All Protestant Churches have some level of poison in them. Some more than others...

Perhaps one of the greatest poisons of our time in not physical in nature at all but Spiritual. And in a way I can see the point of the post. However we are to show love to even our enemies are we not?
The best was to erradicate heresy is to to live by the truth and the Christian virtue of love, that these things are overcome.
Stephanos I

You can love them but Hate their false religion at the same time.

I do agree that error should be called error - and a spade called a spade, etc. However, I think we are supposed to combat the Protestants by proclaiming the truth. That's our best weapon. That said, I do think some of our leaders of recent times, will have some serious accounting to do for being involved with every fashionable cause, but having no interest in preaching the eternal truth of the Gospel message. Granted, that might get a few of them run out of town if they did preach truth, but they would be in good company - St. John Chrysostom comes to mind.

I agree with PrJ that Mexican is talking about cults like Mormons (who believe that God was once a man!) and Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists who do not celebrate or recognize Christian feasts like Christmas and Easter. There is a difference between these cults and Protestant Christians. They are quite simply cults and not sects. Their theology is widely divergent from Protestantism and many are a strange mix of Masonry, Theosophy and other dangerous beliefs. In Russia and much of the East, these types of groups are considered so dangerous that they are banned.

Hello

I should have clarified that my post did not refer to Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other established groups within Protestantism which do not proselitize or act agresively trying to convert people to their religion.

Regarding the Evangelicals and acknowledging that many hold respectable moral values and strongly oppose all kind of vices, I dislike the fact that they have taken the name "Christian" as their private property, making other Christians think that they should call themselves differently (in my country they would sometimes ask "Are you Catholic or Christian?"). Unlike other Protestants who have adopted more orthodox views on issues like sola-scriptura, universal salvation or sola-fide, Evangelicalism embraces the extremist Protestant view with pride. The fact that it has the possitive aspects I described above, as well as their Christ-centered message makes them the most dangerous, as people would believe they become "true Christians" by joining the sect, or that "Christ has become their personal saviour" through the sect. It has been my personal experience that members of these sects refuse to collaborate with the Day of the Dead celebrations, Posadas (Pre-Christmas parties) and Holy-Week traditions.

It is also very interesting to see Evangelical preachers who are certainly not foreign (their skins being probably darker than mine) appearin on TV channels for hours dedicating their time to politics (specialy international politics according to an ideology that makes me remember British Israelism and the Manifest Destiny) favouring Globalization, War on Iraq, the refusal by Israel of the Palestinian rights, and other. I certainly respect people who supports all these causes but why not leaving them for political debate programmes and conferences? Who's behind these groups, so that they can pay such amounts of money to have these opinions exposed publicly, mixed with religious messages? And why here or in Eastern Europe where the common people have no connection with Israel or the reasons that motivated the War on Iraq? Why is it so convenient for them to expose these views?

Pentecostals and Evangelicals tend to reduce Christianity to a mere "personal relationship", a "personal experience" that would lead to worthy goals (economic power, success) and reject the spiritual, eternal and divine possibility of a higher union with God that Apostolic Christians have through the sacramental life.

I strongly reject any form of violence, but I do believe the communities have the right to deny entrance to preachers and proselitizers. If they blaspheme openly and say that our countries (Orthodox or Catholic) are not Christian until the people convert to the sect, why can't we expose the heretical nature of their religion as well as their potentialy divisive activities?

Some of you folks simply do not realize how nasty some variants of Protestantism can be. This is not your fault. You have been in the Truth since you left the cradle, and unless you have actually been IN one of these groups, you don't know the damage they can cause. They put on a good show outwardly, but when you get in deeper with them, you see the "real" side of what they are doing to people.

Fundamentalism in particular is nothing more than a large, dysfunctional family. People I have met from Fundamentalism -- having been one myself for 13 years and having walked in those circles -- tend to NOT exhibit the love and grace of Christ, but rather an extremely intolerant and bigoted view against everyone and everything else, including other Fundamentalists with whom they don't see eye to eye!! How many times did I hear another Fundamentalist being scalded from the pulpit of our assembly because he didn't believe exactly as we did on certain items of the faith. Talk about a lack of unity.

Evangelicalism tends to be a bit more irenic and tolerant of certain things (you are allowed a bit of wine to drink, ciggies if you want, and you can go to movies and wear your hair longer as a guy!) but they are still a distinctly nasty anti Catholic and anti Orthodox varient of Protestantism.

One of the worst things about them, and what I saw in Mexican's post that you guys seemed to miss, is that they regard all Catholic and Orthodox countries as a "mission field" and it is their job to come into other countries and make converts. In doing so, they fracture families, cause strife and unrest, and destroy the culture. They teach falsehoods regarding the Church, justification, sanctification, the Sacraments, and our Blessed Lady.

A Presbyterian missionary I knew when I was in the PCA confided to me one day that the greatest challenge to mission work was to find missionaries who respected the native culture. To the Eastern Indians with whom he worked, there was an intrenched idea that to become a Christian meant to get a western three piece suit and cut your hair in a western style. That is not Christianity, but more often than not, that is the kind of conversion you see taking place in countries outside of America.

And finally, does untruth have a right to the marketplace and to the dissemination of its false ideas? Why is there so much respect given to people who handle the Christian Faith in such a sloppy, lackadaisical, and patently dishonest manner? Words mean things, and words have a great effect upon how we live. The teaching of "faith alone" by Luther in Germany resulted in Germany becoming a moral cesspool within 40 years of his inventing that idea. I have to wonder how many souls are in hell tonight cursing Luther because they trusted him and thought that their deeds didn't matter because they were justified by "faith alone".

Why don't we put a higher premium on Truth and have a greater respect for it so that we are not so friendly with those who come to our communities and try to disrupt them with their falsehoods and distortions? I think that Mexican was stating his concern for the chaos that enters a community when these people come in with their man made ideas.

Bluntly put, I have a great deal of respect for the Russian government's banning of foreign missionaries. Perhaps they understand something that we need to understand regarding these missionary types and what they are up to.

It is one thing to be charitable in ordinary life to those who are outside the Truth. Thank God that folks were with me when I was an arrogant, know-it-all Protestant with a bad attitude towards the Faith. It is quite another to be chummy with folks whose sole motive is to come in and teach untruth, disrupt your families, mess up your theology, put you under bondage of false ideas, and generally make a train wreck of your community.

Anyway, that's my .02 for what it is worth. (Which probably ain't much, but I've never been shy to say what I think!)

Brother Ed

Dear Mexican,

You said:


I say:

Prselitizing to others is wrong, regardless what denomination it is. Edifying and preaching the Bible though is another thing. As regards the Presbyterians, and other groups such as Anglicans, Methodists, etc., many of them have fallen into complete heresy and cannot even be considered Christian religions anymore.

You said:


I say:

I agree with you there. Some of them believe that if one becomes born again in the 'spirit', they have become a Christian and that's all there is to it. It's unfortunate that so many in so many denominations are 'elitists'. They can't be differently. It's spiritual immaturity.

You said:


I say:

Actually the other Protestants that you refer to have now fallen into heresy. The Evangelicals in one sense are true Christians, because they sincerely believe in what they practice. That they see only the faults within 'all' in other denominations, and do not try to understand why others have different practices merely shows their ignorance. But again, it's spiritual immaturity. Now mind you, I am not speaking of those who are incapable of edifying others, and can only bash other faiths. They surely are sects.

You said:


I say:

I don't know what the Day of the Dead celebrations are, or Posadas, but they might consider them carryovers from pagan holidays. I know Christmas was once banned in America because the customs that were practiced in England were pagan and definitely un-Christian.

You said:


I say:

I think that they favor globalization because it will bring prosperity to your nation and keep it from falling into a communist and socialist state. Right or wrong, that is their opinion.

You said:

I say:

No one is behind these groups. They sincerely believe in what they state. As for Israel, they follow the Bible and believe that Israel belongs to the Jews. Again, their motive is 'America and democracy' centered, and 'Israel' centered. They are what they are.

I also think that they fear Mexico might become a Communist state and are trying to combat it. Chavez's close contact with the Iranian leader is frightening.

Zenovia

Preaching to others the Ture Faith is never wrong! In fact it is the duty of the Christian to lead others out of darkness into the light. Wether they be unbaptized pagans or christians of other denominations. Always in a loving and respectful way.What parent that truly loved their children would never correct their faults? It is the command of our Saviour to go out and Baptize the whole world in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all things I have commaned you.
We live in an age of relativism, especially spiritual relativism, where people have lost the sense that their is such a thing as objective truth. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life.
Stephanos I
PS Lest someone should read into this post something that it is NOT saying, I want to clarify that it is only an oportunity to discuss these matters in a deepening and ongoing way of Christian love and charity. It is only by seeking the truth that Christ came to bring us that we can truly experience the freedom he offers us as the sons and daughters of God. Real charity as was in the reading today does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth.

I for one am very thankful that my Protestant grandparents (my father's parents were Pentecostal and my mother's parents were Southern Baptist and they were neither hateful nor arrogant) loved me enough to pass their faith along to me. And by the way, I am quite aware of how nasty many Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians can be-just as I am aware of how nasty and hateful many Catholic and Orthodox Christians can be as well. I would also add that while the efforts of many Evangelical Christians to convert Catholic and Orthodox may indeed be misguided, they are the fruit of the belief of certain Evangelicals that the teachings of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are insufficient. While I disagree with that, it's not so different from the teachings of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that they are the one true Church and that all other "ecclesial communities" are less than the Church and are not in possession of the fullness of the Christian faith. Another thing I would point out is that for most of the history of the USA, this was an overwhelmingly Protestant nation. Would that make it right for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be banned from seeking converts? The Protestant majority could have continued to claim that they were not going to allow Catholicism and Orthodoxy to exist because their families woul be torn apart when some chose to become either Catholic or Orthodox. I am glad that this is not the case, for if it were, it is most likely that I never would have been brought to the Catholic faith.
Sincerely,
Ryan (who still honors and treasures the memory of his Pentecostal and Evangelical grandparents)

The title of this thread was so...pointed, shall we say, that my first reaction (tongue firmly in cheek was): burn 'em at the stake?

Logos - Alexis

That was my reaction as well Alexis. And, in fact, until the 20th century, imprisonment and execution would have likely been the route that Church authorities would have taken (or rather the State would have taken that route with the Church's blessings).

The wars of religion, especially in the renaissance and reformation, were just ugly. We don't need to revive them. We don't need the Churches returning to the murderous ways of the world. Why don't we focus on today's Gospel reading instead? Think of the two who went up to pray, the pharisee and the publican. Which one was justified? God bless.

Joe

Lest one think I was kidding, I point out that there was a time in Church history when secular authorities received indulgences for burning people at the stake.

From Lateran Council IV:

3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy.

I think Brother Ed brought out some good points, especially in these paragraphs. They get to the crux of the problem.

If I lived in a predominantly Catholic/Orthodox country, where the local church is reeling from indifference and the assaults of secularism/communism/whatever, I really don't know what I'd think on this matter. I wouldn't support burning them at the stake, and I have no problem with Billy Graham or most of the people I read about in Christianity Today.

But there are some groups which are really pernicious the way Brother Ed described. I can't say I'd necessarily object to laws against such groups.

Markos


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

I realize that I have complained about the missionary tactics of some evangelicals and pentecostals. But what really concerns me is this notion of "eradication" and government involvement in repressing freedom of religion and speech. I just have a difficult time reconciling that with the Gospel. I understand the arguments from Aquinas and others that heresy is a cancer that must be cut out of the body. But, I can't help but wonder whether the Church has really lost her way when she is so anxious about her status in society that she will condone and bless torture and execution to preserve her power. Such was the case in the middle ages and during the reformation/counter-reformation. Protestants and Catholics were guilty. And in the name of "saving souls" all kinds of horrible things were promoted by the churches. Perhaps, this is also part of what caused the secularization of society. When the Church was running things, the world wasn't so great either. God bless.

Joe

Joe --

Banning Protestant heretics from coming into your country and spreading lies, falsehoods, and general trouble is hardly the same as torture. I am for the first. I do not espouse the second.

I think there is a direct correlation between the religion of a people and their society, wouldn't you agree? Where do you think all these social ills we are suffering from in America come from? Yes, sin, but a lot of them come from the idea of "private interpretation of the Scriptures" and the consequent behavior that results from the thought that because I have the "right" to such private interpretation, NO ONE can tell me what is right or wrong. It is not all that large a leap from doctrine to morality, hence, no one can tell me that abortion is wrong. No one can tell me that "playing house" with my girlfriend is sin. No one can tell me that God condemns "gay marriage".

Again, I don't wish to discount the role of sin and our broken natures in this, but this idea of our "right" to listen to the "god" between our ears rather than the Church encourages this sort of behavior.

And it is all traceable back to the Protestant Rebellion.

Just my .02.

Brother Ed

Brother Ed,

How do we distinguish between proselytization and religious minorities living out their faith publicly with a free conscience? I am sympathetic with the situation in Russia, Mexico, etc. Certainly, individual nation states have a right to control their borders and to limit foreign activity (including missionary activity). But, do people have a natural right to freedom of conscience? freedom of assembly? and, freedom of speech? or do they not? I know that the Roman Catholic Church, prior to Vatican II, taught that people do not have any such rights. What does the Church teach now?

The sins that you speak of (abortion, advocating for gay marriage, etc.) are just as prevalent in European countries that once used the sword to enforce Catholic belief. My understanding is that throughout much of Church history, society has been immoral and corrupt, even with the Church in power. In fact, having the Church in power, seemed to have a corrupting effect on the leaders of the Church. The Church has not always spoken the truth. Certainly, on doctrinal matters it has (in the Ecumenical Councils and creeds of the Church). But, on many social issues and practices, the Church has promoted the very things she condemns today. We must be careful about using language like "eradicate." The Church has too often used such terms to exstinguish human life. In fact, I believe that the loss of power and prestige in the world is what finally caused the Church to rethink her views on natural rights. Once one is deprived of an army, then one must learn to get along with those of different faiths. And yes, I believe that people have the right to listen to all opinions and to choose that, which in conscience, convicts them. Of course, they also have a moral duty to pursue truth with sincerity. But, if Christianity is the truth, then what do Christians have to be afraid of? God bless.

Joe

FYI, From the documents of Vatican II:

"The Synod (of Vatican II) further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. �� Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed."

There are basically two types of heretics! #1 A Formal heretic.( That is some one who positively denies some aspect of Apostolic Catholic Faith. ( So this in itself excludes Orthodox Christians)
#2 Informal heretics, those who deny the faith by simply being born in an Non Catholic Faith the are not guilty of formal heresy. ( This is the bulk of most Non Catholic Christians.) (This again excludes Orthodox Christians)
Then there is the whole idea of Schism or seperation from the Church for non theological reasons. For example the Donatist of the 3rd Century. While not denying Apostolic Faith, they did seperate themselves from the Church, believing it was too lenient on sinners.
Care to add any other points of view or comments are welcome.
Stephanos I

Such was the case in the middle ages and during the reformation/counter-reformation. Protestants and Catholics were guilty. And in the name of "saving souls" all kinds of horrible things were promoted by the churches.

Joe,

I think this maybe a case of Byzantine amnesia, since the imperial Eastern & Roman Orthodox-Catholic pre-Schism Church persecuted the Orientals to no end. Why are those Byzantine Orthodox guilts forgotten when mentioning Rome's abuses?

An entry from the Oriental perspective called After Chalcedon [orthodoxwiki.org] shows how abuses were committed by nearly all sides at one time or another.

Michael,

I'm sure there were many abuses in the early Church of the Byzantine empire. If I don't mention them, it is only because I am not as schooled in Byzantine history. I'm not meaning to pick out the medieval west as if it were worse. It is just more familiar and so easier to find examples. God bless.

Joe

Dear Brother Ed,

Everything was not so rosy in the RCC at the time of the reformation. There were quite a few abuses, and if we take morality and immorality, the Germans were known to be more moral that the Romans going way back. It was part of their culture and was mentioned quite a few times in ancient Rome. As for the Protestants and morality, I want you to know that in my youth the Methodists weren't even allowed to dance.

Luther did not want to split with Rome, but merely to reform some of the practices. He looked at the Church in the East and said that if one must be under the Pope in order to be saved, then what about the Orthodox who were never under Rome, yet accepted as a Church. It was all about selling indulgences and having the money going to Rome.

That today, the highly moral Protestants, which helped form our nation have fallen, is a sign of the times. Each Church, and that includes the Orthodox and Catholic, seems to have split into two sectors. One has an everything is relative mentality, and the other is conservative. Those conservative Protestants today call themselves Evangelicals.

Zenovia

Many years ago someone told me that the future would hold two categories of the baptized: those who kept the Faith and those who did not.

But, it seems to me, that although this certainly seems to have come to pass, it is also true that this has been the constant struggle of the Church in all ages. There are those who keep the Faith and there are those who do not--whether they give it lip service, try to make it easy, try to soften the hard demands of the Gospel, or whatever. There are also those who have kept the Faith and they have suffered for it and struggled to keep it, and often given their lives to pass it along as they have received it in all its purity, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.

In Christ,

BOB

Zenovia wrote:

"The Evangelicals believe in Christ our Saviour...and that is something that is rare in our world. We have a former Christian Europe that has now discounted Christianity for secular humanism. In other words, they are now officially pagan. They do not believe in Jesus Christ as our redeemer but rather in 'themselves'."

Yes, that might be true, but even in those countries there are Apostolic Churches who in spite of their decadent state, still have priesthood and sacraments. It's true that most people has become secularized but among the Protestant sects, no matter how militant they might be, there is nothing but worship of man devoid of grace.

"As regards the Presbyterians, and other groups such as Anglicans, Methodists, etc., many of them have fallen into complete heresy and cannot even be considered Christian religions anymore."

I do know that there's nothing good in terms of religion inside these groups but at least in my country they're formed mostly by American and British inmigrants (and also some Mexicans) who do not proselitize. They don't make trouble. In fact they give a lot of money to charity organizations, unlike the Evangelical sects that create their own organizations with the real purpose of proselitizing.

"Actually the other Protestants that you refer to have now fallen into heresy. The Evangelicals in one sense are true Christians, because they sincerely believe in what they practice."

I see it in the opposite way. The other Protestants are normal people, they're not fanatics, they might be into error but speaking in "Latin terms" they can be regarded as "material heretics" who probably do not know what they believe and are more open to the truth than the Evangelicals, who are recalcitrant in their errors and teach them to others.

"I think that they favor globalization because it will bring prosperity to your nation and keep it from falling into a communist and socialist state. Right or wrong, that is their opinion."

In fact the Protestants sided with the red terror at the time of the anti-religious persecutions in Mexico. As a Mexican I believe they're now protecting the current establishment because they receive support from outside, foreign corporations and other.

There is no cold-war anymore, there are "globalizer" powers and "globalized" nations who will no longer exist as such in the future if we don't ressist. At least Chavez and Ahmadenjad and all these people are ressisting this globalist policies.

Athanasius wrote:

"Would that make it right for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be banned from seeking converts? The Protestant majority could have continued to claim that they were not going to allow Catholicism and Orthodoxy to exist because their families woul be torn apart when some chose to become either Catholic or Orthodox."

The difference is that the Orthodox in the USA for example, don't proselitize agresively and do not tell their converts they must stop celebrating thanksgiving and reject participation at Eastern celebrations unless they match with the Julian Calendar, grow long beards, cut contact with "heretical" relatives, give 10% of your income to the priests, vote for a particular candidate, and other things of this style that the sects unfortunately do (at least here).

I don't say that Protestants should be banned from gaining converts, but that the activities of potentialy disturbing groups (the Bahai, the Hare Krishnas and some Neo-Protestant sects) must be restricted.

I certainly understand that in multi-cultural societies like the USA it's probably not possible to restrict this, but in countries where Apostolic Christians make up a vast majority the State must protects this identity. One thing is to allow minorities to publish material and preach to their followers, and a different one is to give them unrestricted use of mass-communication medias and permit door-to-door proselitism.

While I am sorry that my generalization regarding Protestants was found by some to be offensive, I stand by my initial statement. The idea that any person is entitled to his "private interpretation" of the Holy Scriptures must inevitably lead to people, who are broken by sin, to be led by their broken nature to respond to sin not with resistance, repentance, and restoration in the Sacraments, but instead by making excuses for sin because they find novel ways to defend their broken desires and disordered passions.

This is why we have in America and the Western countries in which Protestantism resides, people who can unashamedly call themselves "Christain" while they engage in the most vile perversions. And they actually, through their self deception, believe that they are, even in their state of sin, pleasing to God and expectant of Heaven.

I do not deny that there are Protestant folks who are moral, who try to please God to the best of their ability despite having limited knowledge of the True Faith, and who are "good" in some sense. I qualify that statement because one must ask if it is "good" that they denigrate the Sacraments for which Christ died. One must wonder how culpable they are in a time of ever increasing quality apologetics.

Brother Ed

[i][i]Dear Mexican you said:


I say:[/i][/i]

How can we generalize and say others are devoid of Grace? That those with a rebellious heart that first started those denominations might have been devoid of Grace is understandable. But to say that those who have been raised in a Christian denomination and practice their faith to the best of their knowledge is devoid of Grace is limiting God's love, which he gives freely to whoever asks.

[i] You said:

I say:

Actually they are supported by their TV listeners and churches in the U.S. They have nothing to do with corporations. To believe so is purely paranoia. You have no idea the amount of money that is given for the purpose of preaching the gospel and helping other nations economically.

[i]You said:

I say:

Chavez and Ahmadenjad are insane. We had insane dictators in the last century, and we saw the destruction it caused. Do we want that again? Better if Mexico were to join with the globalist powers and raise it's standard of living than to follow the path to destruction by two crack pots.

Actually, Pres. Roosevelt once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Stop being frightened of Christian groups that come and proslytize. With that proslytizing they are also edifying. Their churches might be growing for the time being, and some preachers may be cult like, but you'll find that your churches will also grow and continue to grow. Thank them for it!

As for the others, the Hari Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Scientologists, bear with them. Except for the Jehovah's Witnesses which is a Hebraic religion, the are all cults.

Zenovia [/i]

Ed:
You wrote, "This is why we have in America and the Western countries in which Protestantism resides, people who can unashamedly call themselves 'Christian' while they engage in the most vile perversions. And they actually, through their self deception, believe that they are, even in their state of sin, pleasing to God and expectant of Heaven." The same thing can be said of people anywhere in the world you go-even of those who are Catholic and Orthodox and even in places where Protestantism does not exist. I would also add that Catholicism bears some responsibility for the very existence of Protestantism and all the problems it brings. If it were not for the abuse of power, immorality, and the distortion of teachings of the Church (the word perversions might come to mind here) by certain individuals who held episcopal and priestly offices within the Catholic Church, I doubt the Reformers would have ever gained much of a following and I think it not unreasonable to question whether there ever would have been any Reformation at all. I think anyone who is intellectually honest and takes history can't seriously deny that there are Catholic leaders in the history who must bear a great deal of responsibility for the fracturing of the Church and all of its ugly consequences.
Ryan

Ryan,

Very well said. I, myself, find that the more I do find out about the facts of history, the more I realize that there is no simplistic picture of how things were during the byzantine era, the middle ages, the reformation, etc. It seems to me that there are no "good old days." It also seems to me that insofar as we are more tolerant of other people's views (even erroneous views) we have progressed as a species and we have become more Christian, in spirit at least. I would much rather live in a liberal society where I was reasonably confident that I wouldn't be drug out of my house in the middle of the night because the authorities dislike my religious views, than live in a Catholic or Orthodox monarchy (such as those in the middle ages) where Jews were stigmatized and ghettoized and where those who couldn't accept, in conscience, the Church's teachings were murdered.

It is true that secular regimes have been just as totalitarian and evil, if not worse. But two wrongs don't make a right and so the notion that all human beings have intrinsic rights no matter they beliefs, race, social status, etc. is an important protection against all kinds of tyranny, both religious and secular. Certainly, Hitler and Stalin were secularist monsters. But they couldn't have done what they did to the Jews and Slavs and others if the churches hadn't been building up the terror climate for centuries. I get in big trouble here (in the deep south) because I point out that the totalitarian and brutal measures that some muslims take against non-muslims or public "sinners" were also the kinds of measures that were used by the ancient Hebrews and then later, by Christians. It is the historical fact that all religions have been implicated in violence and injustice that paved the way for the enlightenment and the existence of liberal, secular society. Liberal, secular society has its problems, but one thing it does recognize is the dignity of human freedom. As much as I admire Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant prelates who talk about rechristianizing society, I feel that a return to Christendom is not the answer. Sometimes, I think that we traditional Christians forget that things were very bad under Christian rulers, if not worse actually. And if we really look hard at the details of history, we will find that prostitution, abortion, drug use, murder, theft, infidelity, hypocrisy, and so forth were just as much a reality in the ancient world and in the middle ages as they are today. Though the Church opposed abortion vigorously in the byzantine empire, it was still legal for much of the empire's history. Also, prostitution was tolerated, even in the middle ages. Not condoned, but tolerated. We can tolerate evils if what is required to stamp out the evils potentially brings greater evils. Such reasoning can even be found in St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe. God bless.

Joe

So you are saying that enabling men's disordered passions by telling them that they have a "right" to their own theological ideas has the same effect as merely being a human being broken by sin?

Perhaps you could show me some statistics from Orthodox countries where such rebellion never took hold, compare that to the statistics in Westernized countries, and prove that there is no difference in the outcome of giving men such license?

I fail to see such an upheaval of immorality in the East, even in Russia during her revolution, but what do I know? I'm just an ignorant, bumpkin, X Prottie with a serious attitude problem

Brother Ed

Ryan,
Please dont be naive! There are many of the laity that are the cause of great scandal also, not just the clergy, believe me I know all to well. Also remember the Church is at onetime the Immaculate bride of Chirst while consisting of sinful individuals. Ultimately whether scandal or no scandal it is the individual who is responsible before God for their lack of or rejection of the faith.
Stephanos I
One who was once blind but now sees.
Thank God I found the true faith, received the Heavenly Spirit,worshiping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the undivided Trinity who has saved us.

I don't believe there is the least bit of na�vet� in anything I've said. My intent was not to absolve the laity of their part. However, if you believe that greater fault does not lie with the clergy, then perhaps you are being naive. Holy Scripture states, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness," (James 3:1). Since the Church entrusts the teaching office to bishops, an in turn, to priests, then it is perfectly in keeping with Holy Scripture to place greater blame on the clergy, particularly in the case of the defection that occurred at the time of the Protestant Reformation when there was such corruption in the Church and I really don't see how anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the history of the medieval Church can deny that. To acknowledge this does not amount to denying that the Church herself is the Immaculate Bride of Christ; however, I believe that denying it amounts either to ignorance of the history, or intellectual dishonesty. My reason for raising this is that I'm quite sick of the Protestant-bashing that is occurring here. I personally think it's quite ridiculous to single out Protestantism for responsibility for the present state of sinfulness for a variety of reasons (all generations of humanity are quite blameworthy of sin, there are a great many Protestants who are among the most morally upright persons one could ever hope to know, together with those Protestants who are very morally deficient there are a great number of Catholics and Orthodox who are equally morally deficient, etc., etc.)