Suggestion for the educated 70-year-old, perhaps something by Bishop Barron? Many of his books are filled with beauty as a way of entering the hearts of anti-Catholics / anti-Christians.
I would second that friend reading Mere Christianity. Lewis went from being atheist to Christian to almost Catholic (I would argue). And he takes you along this journey in the book. He's very logical and takes baby steps with concepts.
Who split from who.. After the separation, the Eastern churches or Patriarchates did not simply separate from the West, but they also fragmented into several separate churches. Something that did not exist prior to the schism. If the Western church the Patriarchate of Rome had split from the other Patriarchates, they would still have remained a united, single Church and not separate churches...such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and so on. This fragmentation of the one united Church is also an indication of which separated from who. I mean to say that the Greek Orthodox Church did not exist prior to this nor did any of the other Orthodox churches.
If your asking Michael lofton you can get his attention usually on his channel at Reason and Theology. Copy and paste this question there... I'll admit I don't understand the question myself.
@@nicholasgeranios I'm not asking, I'm expressing a point. 1:15:22 the person states an Orthodox priest says _we did not leave the church in Rome, the church in Rome left us._ Before the schism there was only one Church with no name as there was no need of a name. It was composed of several Patriarchates. Rome was one and others were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch... I believe there were 12 or 13 at the time. Rome was the only Church of the 'west' All the others are called of the 'east.' If Rome left the East, there would be Rome and another *single* Church composed of all the other Patriarchates. This didn't happen. Since this didn't happen.... If the East left the West, they could have fragmented into separate churches, and this is what did happen. Before this time there were not individual churches but only individual Patriarchates. These individual Patriarchates composed one *single* Church. They were not self-governing or autocephalous. Each was charged with an area. This is no longer true. The Patriarchate of Rome did not change but all the other Patriarchates did change. So, they must have been the one/s to have left. There are now _up to_ 17 Eastern Orthodox churches.
Thank you Sy, Joe and Michael. I would love to go on the cruise.
Suggestion for the educated 70-year-old, perhaps something by Bishop Barron? Many of his books are filled with beauty as a way of entering the hearts of anti-Catholics / anti-Christians.
I would second that friend reading Mere Christianity. Lewis went from being atheist to Christian to almost Catholic (I would argue). And he takes you along this journey in the book. He's very logical and takes baby steps with concepts.
Who split from who..
After the separation, the Eastern churches or Patriarchates did not simply separate from the West, but they also fragmented into several separate churches. Something that did not exist prior to the schism.
If the Western church the Patriarchate of Rome had split from the other Patriarchates, they would still have remained a united, single Church and not separate churches...such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and so on.
This fragmentation of the one united Church is also an indication of which separated from who.
I mean to say that the Greek Orthodox Church did not exist prior to this nor did any of the other Orthodox churches.
If your asking Michael lofton you can get his attention usually on his channel at Reason and Theology. Copy and paste this question there... I'll admit I don't understand the question myself.
@@nicholasgeranios
I'm not asking, I'm expressing a point.
1:15:22 the person states an Orthodox priest says _we did not leave the church in Rome, the church in Rome left us._
Before the schism there was only one Church with no name as there was no need of a name. It was composed of several Patriarchates. Rome was one and others were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch... I believe there were 12 or 13 at the time.
Rome was the only Church of the 'west' All the others are called of the 'east.'
If Rome left the East, there would be Rome and another *single* Church composed of all the other Patriarchates. This didn't happen.
Since this didn't happen....
If the East left the West, they could have fragmented into separate churches, and this is what did happen.
Before this time there were not individual churches but only individual Patriarchates. These individual Patriarchates composed one *single* Church. They were not self-governing or autocephalous. Each was charged with an area. This is no longer true.
The Patriarchate of Rome did not change but all the other Patriarchates did change. So, they must have been the one/s to have left. There are now _up to_ 17 Eastern Orthodox churches.
@@dave_ecclectic great point
@@dave_ecclecticGreat point brother
You call many Orthodox canonized saints but what of Protestant canonized saints?