The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
matthewleebrown14
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

the orthodox church is not the true church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,596 times Debate No: 4786
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the orthodox church is not the true church
there is more to the catholic church that you realize
i want your insights on this matter
matthewleebrown14

Con

This will be an interesting and difficult debate due to the fact that both the eastern orthodox and roman catholic church share the same apostolic traditions and teachings and are both generally considered the same church...

I guess the point that i will attempt to make in this debate is the roman catholic church's progressive abandoning of their ancient roots. Through pointing this out, i hope to prove that the eastern orthodox church is the true church.

dairygirl4u2c, i'm very open minded and your opinions are important to me. Thank you for the challenge, and i am excited to accept it!

I may be slow to reply at times because i am in the U.S. Navy. I have been busy as of lately...

I will leave it to my oppenent to take her first shot at trying to prove that the eastern orthodox church is not the true church...

Remember that we are all God's children! Good luck and God bless!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
matthewleebrown14

Con

although my opponent forfeited that last round, i guess i will proceed to debate.

The reason why i think the Roman Catholic church is abandoning their anceint roots is because the Roman Catholic church has and is continuing to accept developmental and newly added beleifs, some dating back to the tenth century, thus the schism between the east and the west. The list goes on and on but i will cover the highlights.

One of these developmental beliefs includes the idea of a supreme pontiff. I covered this issue in my previous debate in which i am currently winning so i will not go very deeply into this issue. If you want to view this debate and see the other side of the argument, click on my profile and view away. This is just is a single part of a complex debate.

The othodox church can prove by reference to the canons and early fathers that the pope is not and never was the universal, infallible "head" of the church, but only the first among equals and the recipient of honor for being bishop of the capital city of the empire. The Orthodox church maintains the the belief that every bishop is the head of his particualar church as. Canon VI, First Ecumenical Council, asserts that the Bishop of Rome (now days called the pope) is no exception to this rule.

Canon XXVIII of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), states: "We too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome. For to the throne of Old Rome, as the imperial city, the Fathers gave suitable privileges. Motivated by the same aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome; rightfully judging that the city (Constantinople), being honored by a monarchy and a senate, and equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges, should be magnified also, as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her."[xxxiv]

Papla theologians clame that peter was given a special role as head of the church, but the general concensus was that Peter's person is not the rock of the Church, but the faith that he confessed and bore witness to when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" [Mt. 16:16]. When the Apostle Peter received the "keys," or spiritual authority, it was for the same reason, by virtue of his confession. When Jesus said these words in Matthew 16:18-19 "I will build my church", the word build is a verb in the future tense which refers to the establishment of the church."I will build" means that new members would be added to the present church, with Peter and his confession being only the first "rock" in the building of the Church.

according to the apostle paul, the members of the church, who are the church "are built apon the foundation of the apostles and prophets(Col.1:24)and "Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20)

well, enough about papal supremecy, lets move on.

The filioque (and of the son) was added to the eighth article of the creed. This is in direct contradiction to the words of our Saviour, "When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me" [Jn. 15:26].The holy Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) issued Canon VII which decreed that it is not permissible for anyone to compose and write, or to offer to those converted from any other faith to Orthodoxy another Creed than the Symbol of Faith.

The Orthodox church holds strong by the original creed established at the first council of Nicaea. This was one of the dissapointed steps that rome took into progressiveness.

Pope Leo III, in 809, denounced the addition of the Filioque and forbade its use. He also had the Creed of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, without the Filioque, engraved upon two silver plates, in Greek and in Latin. He then wrote: "These words I, Leo, have set down for the love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith"(Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxae).

Why is there a lack of consistency?

Another prgressive view is purgatory. The official teaching of this theory wasn't established until the council of lyons (1274) and the council of florance (1439). Why so late?
The Roman Catholic Church officially encourages the offering of Masses, indulgences, and public as well as private prayers and works of devotion on behalf of the souls in Purgatory. The Orthodox condemn the system of the Pope, or anyone else, granting indulgences. According to the Latin Code of Canon Law, an indulgence is defined as "the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven, when ecclesiastical authority grants from the treasury of the church, in behalf of the living after the manner of an absolution, and in behalf of the dead after the manner of an intercession."[xvi] This whole theory was centered around the pope and his importance to salvation. It was a man made theory, not a belief that was held by the original church.

I will post the rest of my information in the next round due to the lack of time.

God bless, I hope my opponent replies
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
matthewleebrown14

Con

I would really love to save my information for somebody who would actually participate on this topic. I'm not aware of the reasons why dairygirl forfeited thse rounds. I'm taking into consideration that she might of been busy or such....

Dairygirl, i would love to debate this topic with you when you have more time.

God bless everyone who views this and Jesus loves you....
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shaddamcorrinoIV 2 years ago
shaddamcorrinoIV
This debates premise is negated when according to Phillip Jenkins, author of Jesus Wars states that the Pro-Trinity group led by Athanasius only became the "true church" because they were able to convince the emperor to back them. It is only by an accident of history that the Catholic-Orthodox church became the "true church"
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
I havn't been on here for a while and the last time i was on, i was winning this debate. Im losing now, how is that? this girl didn't even post an argument, you guys are retarded
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
I knew there had to more then just going to church every sunday, singing and hearing a sermon. Then, it became so obvious to me after reading the book of John. The Eucharist! God knew we needed more then a moral message, something to long for and look forward to, so he gave us something else, his very own body and blood. It isn't nearly a sybol, thats impossible to believe after you read the book of John. Infact, thats why judas turned away, because he didn't believe the words that were coming out of jesus's mouth. After jesus made the statement about recieveing his body and blood, the people were confused, they replied by saying, "this is a hard saying, how can anyone believe it?" Jesus made no attempt to clarify what he said, for what he said was already made clear. When the people questioned, he made no attempt to explain but rather came back with an even stronger saying about recieving his literal body and blood. The people still questioned, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat? After judas turned way for hearing this, Jesus turned to his other disciples and asked them, are you going to leave to? If the body and blood was mearly figurative, why would judas leave? Please look into the websites that i provided above. I'm in no way trying to convert you, that is not my place to do that. Just a friend trying to help out a curious friend and answer any question that may arise.

I suggest fasting and praying kneeling three times a day and go somewhere quiet to pray every once in a while, God speaks to us in the silence of our hearts...

God bless
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
My life as an orthodox christian is amazing. When i listen to the liturgy in church, God reveals something different to me everytime. He always shows me new ways to appreciate and serve him. I feel so at home in the orthodox church. I'll let you in on a little something about me. I was baptized eastern orthodox, but my father wasn't really into the whole orthodox thing, he became orthodox just marry my mother. Eventualy my mom caved in and we decided to go to a protestant church. After church searching for a while we finally settled at a baptist church. I was pretty content being a protestant since i really had no choice. I was about 2 years old when we left the orthodox church. My senior year in highschool, i felt empty, like there was something more. I started getting into roman catholicism and it worked for a while but i still didn't have peace. I was searching and it turns out that what i was looking for wasn't very far away, infact, it was the very church i was baptized in, the eastern orthodox church. for the first time in my life i can honestly say i'm at peace. I would suggest the webiste www.trueorthodoxy.org and www.orthodoxinfo.com....trueorthodoxy is a really good website for inquirers....explains alot of things in depth.

I have alot more to tell you but i'm running out of characters...

Hope this helps.....
Posted by joshuadaniel555 8 years ago
joshuadaniel555
what would you reccomend to me to learn more about eastern orthodoxy,i have always been curious.how does your life as an eastern orthodox differ from the typical american christian
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
well, being an eastern orthodoxy christian, i find fault in rome for being extremely progressive. Unlike the orthodox church, the roman catholic church changes doctrine as time passes. I have no doubts that protestantism hatched from the egg rome laid. I do again with the utmost respect find doctrinal faults within the Protestant church, but they vary extremely because there are over 28, 000 different protestant denominations. The protestants had valid reasons to revolt against the catholics, however the fact that the Eastern orthodox church never fell into corruption, fled from holy tradition, and never progressively changed their doctrine should of been considered by Martin Luther and the other protestant reformers. I will however say that i do not fully dissagree with certain protestant doctrines. We agree on a lot more then we dissagree. However it's not what protestants have that is the problem, it's what they lack....hope this helps...please if you have another question i would be delighted to help
Posted by joshuadaniel555 8 years ago
joshuadaniel555
well i do understand and thank you for your respectful opinion but is there in fact any wrong theology or doctrine in the protestant church seeing that they disagreed from the corruption.i feel allot of the good reformed bible teachers and preachers of today still very much disagree with allot of catholic doctrine.it seems at times they are polar opposite.i take it into consideration that it was a isolated corruption,but there still seems to be the same divide now that there was back then.what or your thoughts on Rome today. the corrupted part back then,have they changed much
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
with being as "nonrude" as possible and with the utmost respect, protestantism was a merely a result of roman corruption, corruption that didn't reach the east may i add. Protestantism was a mistake, it should of never existed. In the protestants defense, it was a roman problem, rome was in the wrong and therefore the protestant reformation happened.
Posted by joshuadaniel555 8 years ago
joshuadaniel555
well what church would that be? orthodox?catholic?why do you believe this so and what significance does it have on church today?what can we learn from this church that we do not get from the others? just wondering.thnx.
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
joshuadaniel, i don't believe this in the sense that protestants or others are not offered salvation, but there was a true church that Jesus Christ and the disciples established. Do i think protestants are christians? Ofcourse i do, but i will argue that they are not in the church established by the disciples....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03