Specifically, what claims do both of them have, theologically and historically, to being the true heirs to apostolic succession? I know they are in imperfect communion with each other these days, but which one is "righter"?
Roman Catholic here, btw.
The split between the two occurred when the Byzantium Ruler placed himself at the head of the church in the East while the Pope remained head of the church in the Western Roman Empire.
The Byzantine church is what we now know as Orthodox: they separated the Son from the Trinity stating that the Holy Spirit only comes from the Father, this is what we know as the Filioque Clause. They also believed that the use of idols led one into temptation (obviously they now have idols similar to the Roman Catholic church now, but for a couple of centuries they had none)
The churches were completely separate by 1054.
the only one that has "claims" to the apostolic succession is the Roman Catholic, the orthodox had the ruler of the Byzantium empire. Honestly I have no idea how it works today as I'm not religious but there's some of the historical background for ya.
basically today the Orthodox church functions as effectively independent bishoprics united by a common creed, and Patriarchs acting as sort of "mini-popes" but really without any of the same authority
I've never heard the Orthodox side; however, given that tradition holds, with some evidence, that Peter and Paul were the leaders of the Church in Rome, that seems like the defining element of apostolic succession. I know Protestants like to hand wave the evidence that these two were in Rome, but that's done because Protestants don't care about history. My understanding is that Orthodoxy is not dismissive of evidence like this, but given this, I don't know how they get around this issue.
All I know is Orthodox priest look like wizards
Both Church share the same first thousand years of apostolic succession. There were 5 Patriarchs and Rome was one of them and split after the other 4 denied his supremacy. Those other 4 Patriarchates still exist in the Orthodox faith(with more added) so by way of majority I would say Orthodoxy is THE Church and the Roman Catholic Church started in 1054, but I also understand why Rome would say otherwise. Rome was given an elevated status in the first place, and the Pope is considered to have a certain primacy(not supremacy) because Peter was the leader of the Apostles(but he wasn't considered infallible and the Pauline texts more than prove that). I think both sides have a case but I think part of it has to do with Rome being upset about Constantinople being elevated to such a high place by degree of Constantinople when Rome had "more of a rightful claim" historically to be the center of Christendom.
But it's more complex than a simple vote because of the fact that Rome had primacy. Also, keep in mind that infallibility does not mean everything Peter or other popes says are always true. It's in the context of the magisterium, and essentially the Pauline texts and Acts function as an illustration of this point. That is basically how the Catholic Church still works today.
But given that even Anglicans acknowledge the primacy of Rome, I don't see how a Church can claim to be the one Church without the Roman patriarch.
>the Byzantium Ruler placed himself at the head of the church in the East
>They also believed that the use of idols led one into temptation (obviously they now have idols similar to the Roman Catholic church now, but for a couple of centuries they had none)
This is not true. The extremes of the iconomachy lasted only for a few years.
> they separated the Son from the Trinity stating that the Holy Spirit only comes from the Father
The Orthodox didn't separate anything. All the Christians believed it the way the Orthodox believe it. There was some inconsistency in the translation from Greek to Latin, but the Latins knew that and treated it as such. Even the Pope was denouncing the filioqve up until the "schism".
I put schism in "" because it never actually happened. It was a story made up later.
>The churches were completely separate by 1054.
This is not true.
Your whole post is wrong.
Neither honestly. A lot of what was discussed in the various councils had little to do with the Christianity of Saint Paul. Which in and of itself was different from the Judaism of Christ.
Just because they hold titles that have been passed down from the Apostles doesn't mean much.
Also you are forgetting about the Armenian Apostolic Church which claims its legitimacy from the apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus
That being said, it was agreed that Rome takes primacy in the Pentarchy, but the Byzantines argued that with the transfer of the Imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople, Constantinople also took primacy.
There is no such thing as "apostolic succession" mentioned in the Bible. Peter was the founder of the church, that much is true, but there's absolutely nothing about his "successors" and the institute of papacy.
That's because for the first 100 years Christianity was a apocalyptic religion the first and second generations were sure the end of the world was coming soon and Christ was going to return.
>But given that even Anglicans acknowledge the primacy of Rome, I don't see how a Church can claim to be the one Church without the Roman patriarch
I think Orthodox understand the primacy of Rome very well. It's not as though the Pope is just "some guy" to us. He's a Bishop and that means more to us than it does to Protestants, and it always will. If the West and East ever joined again I don't think the Pope would be any less of a prestigious office. He can have his primacy and his Vatican, he would just have no authority over the other Patriarchs, which is how it should have always been in the first place.
>implying the Bible is germane to this discussion
The Bible didn't exist for 300 years. Tradition of the Church is what matters. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible either. That doesn't mean it's not true.
Why do people always try to force this distinction between Paul and Jesus? The idea that Paul had different ideas and Christianized non-Christian concepts does not make it an either-or proposition.
The Gospels do not indicate this. Paul hints at it, but speaks on his own authority, not Christ's. Even if he did believe that, it doesn't change what we know of what Jesus said.
I have no doubt some Christians believed this, but that doesn't mean they were misinterpreting or guessing.
The greek orthodox church IS the catholic church
Catholic comes from greek katolikos. The schism was political in nature because the pope in the west crowned charlemagne the new roman emperor when that title already existed in the east
But what would that even mean to unite, when most of the Orthodox are basically autonomous autocephalous.
Just they would have the same calendar?
Could the deeper theological disputes be resolved?
>The Bible didn't exist for 300 years.
This is not true. Both the epistles and later the gospels were written within 100 years of the crucifixion, the ecumenical councils didn't "invent" the Bible, they merely put a canon stamp on already established scriptures.
The problem with oral tradition is that since there are no written accounts of it, the church can literally make shit up and pass it as tradition dating to apostolic times. Which is exactly what happened with priest celibate, indulgences, purgatory etc.
I like the Lutheran approach the best, tradition is fine UNLESS it contradicts the scripture. Catholics and Orthodox Christians tend to favor tradition over scriptures if there's a contradiction.
Well you should understand the consequences of not believing in apostolic succesion is you're basically saying that when Jesus said "upon this rock I will build My Church" he meant that it would last as long as Peter and the Apostles lived and then nothing after that. I think anyone should be able to see that he couldn't have possibly meant that.
Apostolic succession might not be said explicitly in the Bible but the sacrament of ordination and the hierarchy of the Church most certainly is. You had to(and still have to) be ordained by a Bishop. If you were baptized you still needed a Bishop to be Chrismated. If you had to be a Bishop to ordain someone, and the one who made you a Bishop was an Apostle, then that is by definition Apostolic Succession.
the Catholic church is better with the matter today, but still I prefer the idea of an ever-evolving scripture rather than a single book locked in time like the Muslims see the Quran.
the Church has its tradition of Saints and other theologians expanding on the ideas set in the scripture to cover areas of life never addressed within the bible, as well as offering us alternate views on how to live a "Christly" life.
Well as a laymen, personally, first I would like to see each Church's Saints be canonized by the other's. That will go a long way. I would like to see Rome start using the original Nicene Creed again. The other differences, such as Immaculate Conception, and other things that we don't quite agree on aren't really that important to the laity IMO. To me reunification means we have all the same Saints and we can go to Mass or Divine Liturgy and receive the Eucharist from either one.
If any of you want to read on the differences of the Orthodox church from the Catholic one you should read John Romanides who outlines the differences from an Orthodox perspective.
Long story short the basic argument is that the Catholic Church went astray by playing too much emphasis on speculative philosophy and abstract philosophy by obsessing over Augustine, thus they lost the mystical and transcendent elements of Christianity.
Even as an atheist this shit is fascinating to me, because the obviously the Catholic Church placed emphasis far more on Aristotle and Plato to create a unified system of theology, while the Orthodox maintained the stoic ascetic spirit is greater than speculation.
Both of those are required tho. Some people are drawn to mysticism, others never feel it in their whole lives.
The pre-Vatican II Church was very legalistic, true, but the focus has shifted since then.
The "East" has always placed greater emphasis on wisdom rather than knowledge The Occident however always obsessed with knowledge, this is especially true with regards to the ancient Greek philosophers and the Schollastics. However early Christianity (that of the Church fathers) was an entirely mystical way of life and asceticism which was influenced from the Stoic's and eastern syncretic religions such as Manicheanism and Buddhism (Gymnosophists).
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none.
-1 Corinthians 7:29
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
-1 Corinthians 7:8
What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;
-1 Corinthians 7:29
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
-1 Thessalonians 4:17
Jesus thought the Messiah and the Kingdom of Heaven was coming within his lifetime. Paul thought Jesus was returning in his.
Jesus was a Jew, Paul while not inventing Christianity, wrote about it authoritatively and had his own idea which Christian church now accept. It went from the teaching of Jesus, to the teaching about Jesus.
Yeah, typically. If a canonized Orthodox Church canonizes someone as a saint then the rest usually follow. The Bulgarians probably aren't going to disagree with the Russians just because they didn't know the person. What you do see, and I think it's only natural, that different countries hold certain saints more dear than others. Take Saint Patrick, for example. He was a saint pre-schism and is still venerated by Orthodox but I don't think anyone would say he's venerated in the East as much as he is in say, Ireland.
On the bishopric level, Catholics recognize Orthodox bishops and priests because their predecessors were validly ordained and they continue to use ordination rites.
I'm hoping for a reunion with our Orthodox brethren although I think the Russian Orthodox will cause difficulties.
You should at least grasp some basic doctrine and structural traits.
>Saint Tzar Nicholas II
I just can't get behind this. Especially the claim that he was "a martyr for the faith".
Not the guy you're replying to, but most of the points the protestant is spouting are valid.
Also pic very much related.
How it OK with everyone that the Secular Turkish government gets to put laws on the Greek church of Constantinople?
Shouldn't the chair be open to anyone, and have the Turkish Greek church and the Greek-Greek church form one. Or open to all Orthodox Christians.
Bowing to statues of mortal men and kissing icons is indeed idolatry. John of Damascus tried to half assedly find a loophole in saying there were statues of cherubim on the Ark of the covenant, which is a ridiculous defense of idolatry considering God SPECIFICALLY instructed the Israelites to build the Ark and only the Ark this way. He never said people should decorate their places of worship with statues of Mary and bow to them, that practice is explicitly banned in the scriptures.
The copout imaginary distinction between latria and dulia is even worse.
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
That's bullshit indeed, you're right about that.
>How it OK with everyone that the Secular Turkish government gets to put laws on the Greek church of Constantinople
It's not okay, it's just been that way since 1453. But it won't be long now.
sola scriptura is the most ridiculous concepts of theology history
how can you base solely on Bible when the largest majority of Christians who lived on this earth never saw a Bible in the life (and in any case wasn't able to read at all)?
The Bible entered in our houses en masse only with 1900
Not to mention the books were chosen by men hundreds of years later to fit their theological beliefs. Some should not be read literally and most people can read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, and don't understand the historic context.
Its not like one book came from God and was available in every language.
cool and before 19th century?
>the largest majority of Christians who lived on this earth never saw a Bible in the life (and in any case wasn't able to read at all)
refuting this is shitposting
>tfw the schism will be mended in your lifetime
Orthodox reporting in
>what claims do both of them have, theologically and historically, to being the true heirs to apostolic succession?
Catholics are preoccupied with trivial political shit, ways of how to make new converts and ways to make more money off the back of the believers.
Meanwhile Orthodoxy is still sticking to what christianity originally was suppose to do. Conserving the tradition of reaching the path to salvation with Christ.
Also in my humble opinion anything beyond orthodox churches, isn't christian and shouldn't call itself christian at all.
>not realizing that this was the intent of Catholicism, in order to maintain a monopoly on the power an organized religion offered
Can't imagine why they would burn at the stake anyone who spurned the Latin Vulgate.
then why aren't the Bibles of the Protestants, Catholics and Orthodoxy the same?
Shouldn't they all include the same books?
This isn't /x/ don't role play
Citation about what, retard?
Can you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
No? Ok, well then at least one person can't so no citation needed.
Or do you not know the Bible wasn't issued as a single book?
>le catholic conspiracy
organized christian religion always existed, it has been a Council (after a Synod) which decided, with the Holy Spirit assistence what is Bible (inspired) and what is not Bible
without le hurr durr evil Church you would not have a biblical canon, since in the Bible itself there isn't a list of inspired books (muh sola scriptura lmao)
>Shouldn't they all include the same books?
because there is only one true Church assisted by the Holy Spirit
(and anyway Orthodox and Catholic canon is very similar)
>This isn't /x/ don't role play
these are catholic/orthodox beliefs, no one forces you to be catholic/orthodox or to participate in this thread
back to tumblr
>then why aren't the Bibles of the Protestants, Catholics and Orthodoxy the same?
>Shouldn't they all include the same books?
>implying Protestants were are part of the Councils
The councils happened way before the reformation. Luther scrapped certain books from the Bible because he didn't like being refuted by scripture. I've even heard some Lutherans say they don't think the book of James should be in the bible because it hurts their sola fide theory oh so badly.
The Catholic and Orthodox bibles are basically the same as far as I know
Did I saw organized religion was bad? No, I said it offers a considerable amount of power compared to some random schmucks meeting to talk about spiritual matters. For any religion to become more organized is natural.
That being said, the abuse of the power it offers is clearly against the scriptures, and clearly something medieval Catholicism was guilty of.
I bet you're one of those faggots who believes the Alexandrian texts were on the up and up. Do the scriptures absolutely need to be read in the language they were originally written in? Can you find scripture to support your claim?
That sad feel when Turkey will never grant Constantinople the same city-state status Vatican has and be the united bastion of Orthodoxy worldwide
If you're non-orthodox you're non-christian. Simple as that.
>Jesus wanted his word to be spread
And that's why today the new pope is the anti-christ. A wolf in sheep's clothing. This is what your "universalist" interpretation of christ led your religion to. Degeneracy. Collapse will soon follow.
>entire constantinople? kek its has a population of 20 million not going to happen
and ceaseropapism was strong in byzantine empire that tradition was continued under ottoman and turkish rule. they will never let it be independent/seperate.
again this is the byzantine tradition they continue, the state controls the religion.
Why did you quote the epistles at me dumbass? Further, neither of the Gospel quotes suggest Jesus is predicting the end of times in his time or in his followers. The Matthew quote addresses SIGNS of the end of times, the Luke quote addresses Christ's resurrection.
Nice "le shitpost".
Yo yo yo f.am I'm Orthodox, you're being like the jews in Palestine after Jesus' death, they din't want to spread Jesus' message to those who din't know about the old testment ie: Pagans because they were cunts and muh traditions, where do you think Christianity would've gotten without the spreading of the word?
Some anon on /christian/ mentioned that the greek had the chance to get it back from the British after WW1 but they picked another city and lost both.
Fug, can't find the thread /christian/ is down. RIP
On the topic of Anglicans: Wouldn't they be considered a schismatic church rather than a heretical one? I'm not sure why they are lumped in with protestants despite having doctrines more similar to those of Catholicism.
They are considered schizmatic I believe. But also, Anglican heresy has gotten out of control, which also killed it. Super liberal Christianity kills churches, and Anglicans found that out the hard way.
That said, the Roman Church allows Anglican communities to return to the fold as long as they agree to stop being heretics. It's called the Anglican Rite Ordinance or something.
> but that doesn't mean reject people who are of the incorrect ethnicity. That's unchristian.
Mfw an american protestant tells me what's unchristian and what's not.
This new age view of christianity you have in the states needs to stop.
Christ wasn't some fucking hippie that didnt wash and preached peace all day. He was a revolutionary. He was sent on earth not to tell people "Hey guys, if you want, pls follow these rules". He clearly gave out the message that if you don't follow the right path, you go to hell for eternity.
>Mfw an american protestant tells me what's unchristian and what's not.
>This new age view of christianity you have in the states needs to stop.
>Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
It's not that difficult, desu.
>Christ wasn't some fucking hippie that didnt wash and preached peace all day. He was a revolutionary. He was sent on earth not to tell people "Hey guys, if you want, pls follow these rules". He clearly gave out the message that if you don't follow the right path, you go to hell for eternity.
I know. It's unlikely you're more socially conservative than me. I despise new age tolerance/love conflation.
> reject people who are of the incorrect ethnicity
Outside of some far-right Russian orthodox extremists I can't see this happening desu senpai, I know the oriental orthodox and the eastern orthodox disagree over the council of chalcedon but I think a russian and an ethiopian would get along well
Orthodoxy also have and had a lot of missionary activities if you wanter later examples, bulgars and russians for one.
this meme of orthodoxy just cloistering itself and not giving a shit about conversion etc needs to stop
Anglican Church has gotten very gay too. But, yes, the episcopal "church" is by far the worst. I'm enjoying watching them crumble.
OK, but I should let you know I was considering Orthodoxy for some time, but read a number of horror stories that lead me to Catholicism.
I don't doubt it. And, to be clear, I'm definitely not saying the Church shouldn't respect ethno-national cultural differences (as long as they don't conflict with the faith). My problem is turning away people of the nation in which you reside because they're not of the proper ethnicity.
I mean If one was discussing deism, or whether god exists or not independent of Christianity yes Aquinas' argument is valid (whether you agree or disagree with him is a different matter but at least you can use his argument)
but there is no connection to Christian god, I blame the image creator more than Aquinas though I'm sure he somehow linked his argument to Christian god, but if you look at image
>there is one god
thats about it, you need to connect it to Christian god if you want to use it in a christian and not a deism thread
because I can fake the same argument by using a picture of Plotinus or Iamblichus to show how a neo platonist pagan god exists
>I don't doubt it. And, to be clear, I'm definitely not saying the Church shouldn't respect ethno-national cultural differences (as long as they don't conflict with the faith). My problem is turning away people of the nation in which you reside because they're not of the proper ethnicity.
It's not that it's doing that on purpose, but you won't have much to do if you attend a sermon in a greek church if you don't know greek language, or alteast of greek heritage so you can feel at least a bit related to what's going on there.
And frankly i like this loose formula of spreading the wisdom of christ to all nations and leave everyone be to it. This one common church everyone should blend into is some shit that happens in anglo countries because they have no national identity.
now /pol/ is becoming an atheist board?
/his/ will never be a christian board, it will be less christian than /pol/ as humanities always attract atheistic liberals. at best this place is /lit/ lite.
but at least majority, not all but majority has the common courtesy to not shitpost as an atheist in this thread, wouldn't happen in /pol/
>his a christian board
cool story, this place is full of gaytheists and lutherfags
I don't like that people are leaving Christianity, but I think protestantism must be crushed before we can recover.
>but there is no connection to Christian god
I don't disagree, I'm saying that his argument is necessary but not sufficient. So, if I were trying to convert you, I might first start with Aquinas. Then move to the reliability of the gospels. Then move to miracles, etc.
Ok, I guess that makes sense. And, in defense of the Orthodox Church, I've read that they feel they're foreigners in the US, and must provide a church for their flock who are in this nation.
>biggest gripe with Orthodoxy
>reject people who are of the incorrect ethnicity
This is a meme that has SOME truth to it(not in theory, but in practice). In other words, some people have gone to an Orthodox parish and been turned away because they're not Greek or Romanian or whatever. If you're ever turned away by an Orthodox priest, he's not a very good priest and he's betraying his ministry. It is not the norm by any means. My parish has Syrians, Greeks, Jordanians, Romanians, Mexicans, American Indians, white Americans of all parts of Europe, one black woman. Our priest is Anglo, our subdeacon is German, our Deacon is Syrian. My church is arguably the most diverse place you could possibly be in my large city on a Sunday morning, it's frustrating to hear this "You can't be Orthodox unless you're Russian or Greek" crap.
no faggot it doesn't include orthodox church
feel free to prove that
... but first I suggest you to read S. Pius X catechism (169-171-172), Pius IX syllabus, Catechism of Trento Council (114) and lmao even Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium"
>I'm ignorant about second vatican decrees
CHAPTER IIICHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES SEPARATED FROM THE ROMAN APOSTOLIC SEE
I. The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches
wilsonian plans was a liberal delusion, you don't leave vital strategic and energy rich places to the locals.
nevermind the fact greeks were a minority in constantinople during 1910s and 1920s
>now /pol/ is becoming an atheist board?
Are you asking seriously? There is still obviously a large faction of Christians there. But, imo, that board has gotten unbearably retarded, and the fedoras exceptionally obnoxious, e.g., last night we had a Catholic General. Literally, invaded by retards shitposting. It's one thing to ask questions, but if you hate Christianity that much, just ignore the damn thread.
Jokes aside, it's substantially better than /pol/, if you're looking for Christian conversation.
>Champion of Orthodoxy Defense Force
Call Emperor Marcian I don't give a fuck
go post in octochans christian, general threads are discouraged here, and unless its about ecclesiastical church history such threads shouldn't exist
not that you can't create them, but expect shitposting and dissent if you do so, If you want to be left in peace, there is always /christian/.
saying this as a believer.
Yes, but in practice is very important. Also, I find this particularly egregious, assuming you claim there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox faith.
>the most diverse place you could possibly be
I got to an FSSP Parish. It's weirdly ethnic. Everyone is extremely Irish. I feel like a weirdo, as I'm Italian.
>I'm a pussyassfaggot modernist
what don't you understand reading this?
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
I go there. It's decent. Also, maybe you're underestimating the degree of shitposting. http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/54864110/#q54864110. What's more, fedoras are always welcome, but not to derail the thread and post obnoxious shit to the point we can't have a discussion.
Also, yea, I get where you're coming from. I'm not looking for this place to be /vatican/.
I think you're misunderstanding this. We have always and will always believe salvation is through the Church. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be saved and be a Protard (albeit, it's very unlikely).
>unless its about ecclesiastical church history such threads shouldn't exist
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.
As much as I do enjoy /christian/ myself, it's not right to lie about board rules.
>that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be saved and be a Protard (albeit, it's very unlikely).
pssst.. that is right if you live in the middle of the jungle and you don't know Jesus message, but if you are heretic and you rejected the message, you go to hell
How could anyone join the modern Catholic Church? It's completely at odds with everything that came before it, Vatican 2 is an obvious contradiction, and for a Church that claims to never contradict itself and to be consistent in its teaching that is a sure sign that it is not true.
It was essentially going to be a free city, with a decent amount of Anatolia going to the Greeks (all of the majority Greek areas), but they got greedy, and lost their war against the Turks, who ended up taking Constantinople.
A total shame, really.
>I'm hoping for a reunion with our Orthodox brethren although I think the Russian Orthodox will cause difficulties.
More like Serbian Orthodox Church, considering it was at odds with Catholic Church the longest.
>assuming you claim there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox faith
I don't claim that. And like I said, the few parishes that actually turn people away based on ethnicity are total outliers. What I think more people experience is some sort of alienation in their parish instead of actual exclusion. Even at my parish, I'm closer to the people who have been here in the US for a few generations or more than I am with the people who don't speak English that well. It can get a little cliquey but it's certainly not out of any animosity for one another. It's just natural. I mean, if you're an Anglo-Saxon American and you go to a Romanian Orthodox Church where it's almost ALL Romanians and they all speak in Romanian, I could see how that would be off putting, but that's really not the case in the Antiochian, Greek, or Russian Orthodox in the US. My archdiocese actually requires about 90% of the Divine Liturgy to be in English so if anything you're more likely to see a Syrian man who doesn't speak English come to my parish and feel a little alienated even though it's an Antiochian Orthodox Church.
'Pastoral'...I still hear people say this today when they are trying to explain things like why they should be okay with abortion, or same sex marriage, or communion for the divorced, or any number of things that are against the Church's teaching. It seems to mean 'the law is too hard, go soft, play dead, maybe they will come around'.
In any case, people do not really treat V2 like a 'pastoral council' (whatever that is, it had never existed before, and stands only as another ambiguity of V.) even if it was proclaimed to be so. It is treated like any other council (until it is convenient).
The worst thing about V2 is its ambiguity. I have seen people use convoluted sophistry to make V2 work with previous teachings, but you shouldn't have to. The problematic aspects of the council are often prima facie heretical, and only after the fact can be explained with a 'yes, but, what it means is...'. Consider the famous proclamation that the Christians worship the same god as the muslims. Really? Did a Vatican document just deny the trinity? Yes, it really did. 'Ah, but, of course, what it really meant was....' The council was a war between modernists and traditionalists, it is known, Kasper himself confirmed it. This is why the council is so ambiguous, they had to tread the line between heresy and tradition constantly, so the heresy was softened into an ambiguous mess that has led to over 50 years of confusion, heresy and chaos.
I'm a pretty non-denominational christian with some spiritual elements.
I go to a methodist church, but I like some catholic aesthetics- overall I think that christianity has become a way too divided religion, all these sects and shit. As long as you respect your fellow christian brothers- I think you are fine with whatever sect you think is best.
>they separated the Son from the Trinity stating that the Holy Spirit only comes from the Father
Where do you get your information from? Ridiculous. The issue with the filioque came when the Latin's added it in and many in the East and West took it to mean that it implied a double procession of the Holy Spirit, once from the Father and again from the Son, thereby breaking the Trinity. The Trinity is One. There can only be a single procession. The Latin addition of the filioque breaks this understanding, and so it was rejected.
>Byzantine ruler placed himself as head of the church
No, this was never done. Perhaps you're thinking of the Patriarch of Constantinople? But he never placed himself as the head of the Church, either. There was a case made (and to be made) that the Pope in Rome overstepped his bounds as first among equals. But rejecting Papal primacy is not the same as declaring that you then have that primacy.
Both East and West have legitimate Apostolic succession, and valid sacraments, recognized by both sides.
>how it works today
Essentially, the Orthodox church is as it was a thousand years ago where as the Latins have drifted. Vatican II, and every single Ecumenical Council after the first seven.
>modernists will defend this
> last night we had a Catholic General. Literally, invaded by retards shitposting.
Same goes for islam thread invaded by christians, or atheists thread. If you want a discussion maybe you should go to /pol/
>What I think more people experience is some sort of alienation in their parish instead of actual exclusion.
I could see this, as people seem to have similar gripes about Catholicism. As America is still majority protestant, this wouldn't really be surprising. I think a lot of protestants, especially those of the evangelical variety, think Church should be a rock concert, or a night out with friends. What they miss is Catholicism is not a euphoria pill, it's a difficult spiritual journey.
Seriously look at this post. This is a board for religion discussion and these fucking atheists are persistently shitting everything up. They're even going so far as to contradict information in the sticky to justify their belligerent shitposting.
The sooner atheist trolling is banned the better.
Both of them have Apostolic Succession, in that sense they are both "true heirs" of it. However, the Orthodox Church is the legitimate continuation of the Church Christ founded, whereas the Catholic Church is more like a non-heretical Coptic Church.
I must go to sleep now but I'll post this
it's from the current catechism (so modernists can't accuse me to be hurr durr le backward)
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation
848 Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
I think you can understand why I made the example of the savage (who doesn't know the message) and he heretic (protestant who refuses the message)
goodnight to everyone
My salvation is not contingent on any earthly power.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
By grace, anon. I don't know why you willingly kuck yourself to some old fart in Italy, but don't claim that one's Church has any sort of say in the my afterlife.
Nope, there were at least more than one discussed treaty that would considerably reduce the ottoman lands (I think in many of them constantinople was supposed to be an international zone). However, the turks ended up just beating the people who occupied their lands (Brits, French in syria, Greeks and Armenians) and got their current borders. I think it was at that time that they finally made a request to other countries stop calling Istanbul whatever they did (tsargrad)
>Byzantium Ruler placed himself at the head of the church in the East
No he didn't
>while the Pope remained head of the church in the Western Roman Empire
More like APPOINTED himself
Catholics added that, by ignoring how the Father serves as the wellspring of the Trinity you heretic
>The churches were completely separate by 1054.
We still considered Catholics part of us, if only in error. When they introduced infallible papacy, then we saw them as completely separate.
>We have synods. We were always like a Republic in some fashion. You're giving the Emperor to much credit.
>the ecumenical councils didn't "invent" the Bible, they merely put a canon stamp on already established scriptures.
You kind of contracted yourself. The Holy Tradition allowed the councils to determine what Gospel and Epistle wasn't a Gnostic heresy. The Bible Cannon was not dictated at all during the first century.
>The problem with oral tradition is that since there are no written accounts of it, the church can literally make shit up and pass it as tradition dating to apostolic times. Which is exactly what happened with priest celibate, indulgences, purgatory etc.
It would help when Protestants didn't CUT OUT BOOKS IN THEIR BIBLE.
Don't listen to this guy.
Please give me Biblical citations and evidence to prove your extra-biblical doctrine
Do you even know the difference between Idols and Icons?
go to /pol/ and if you're too lazy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Please refer to Second Council of Nicaea
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
a reminder that second vatican council absolutely didn't change anything :^)
Peter didn't have anywhere near the power the Pope does. He had the power to bind and lose, but that was given all the Apostles by Christ. Giving the Pope the powers that the Church of Rome does violates the Second Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was ratified by the Pope.
Being the leader of the Church doesn't give him power to do things reserved for ecumenical councils.