/lit/ - Literature

>>19571583
It's really difficult to understand how choosing between one or the other is a matter of salvation. How can the average person be expected to discern which is right when it comes to the essence energy distinction? Or whether Peter has primacy or is a 'first among equals' ? I've literally spent a year researching this and still cant definitely commit myself to either position

>>19571606
I've heard from both Catholic and Orthodox positions and right now the best argument I've heard against the Orthodox church is:
Christ ordained Peter as the Bishop of Rome and no one else is said to be more important then The Rock upon which the Church is built.
Orthodoxy takes to position that the Bishop of Rome cannot excommunicate other Bishops
But if this is true why was it ok for Michael Cerularius to do it in retaliation?
Orthodox say that its ok when the one being excommunicated is a heretic.

The next point is the Council of Florence which the patriarch of Constantinople and Moscow attended and had all the markings of an ecumenical council second only to Nicea(IIRC that was said by some Orthodox authority at the time)
However both patriarchs agreed on Rome's position of the filioque and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but then changed their mind once returning from the council.

I haven't found an Orthodox response to these points.

Also fuck protestants

>>19571583
Important question and I'll follow this thread eagerly. I'll start by saying I agree with >>19571606 and go further. I dont believe it makes a difference to our salvation. I think the differences are more historical and cultural. For books I'm reading pic rel. Its not super helpful in regards this question but there is a lot of emphasis on being obedient to one's bishop, which I suppose I can translate to loyalty to the apostolic tradition of one's culture. My thought is that it is sufficient to enter the stream that seems natural. For instance, I'm a westerner with Irish roots so to me it seems natural to go with the Catholic Church even though there are things about orthodoxy that have a greater appeal, like liturgy, eucharistic communion, ecclesiology etc but, to an extent I think that if it was good enough for my ancestors it's good enough for me and I should be loyal to the faith of my fathers.
I think what is perhaps most important, and what I think the Gospels and Epistles teach, is that from whatever tradition we enter we should work towards reconciliation and unity. Christ Himself prayed for it and so should we. >>19571663
Whats this pic? Very nice. I think the hierarchical structure is implied in what we say both about our God and our Church. Christ is the head of the Church. The top, the summit. This to me seems to suggest a hierarchy. We know that there are hierarchies in nature, why should it be different in our Church? Also Christ is our King and He has given His flock (and the keys to His kingdom) to St Peter. We all hold, I believe, that St Peter founded churches in Rome, Antioch and Corinth. Given that St Peter's bishopric has its seat in Rome (in the sense that his bones are said to reside there) I can understand and myself believe this as sufficient cause to follow the Catholic claims. That said I understand if people from territories with churches founded by other apostles want to follow those bishops. I believe we should all long for the day when we can have universal councils once again. I think it should be the upmost concern of Rome at this time to work towards unity and hold council with eastern Patriarchs to establish an agreeable definition of what the Primacy of St Peter's seat implies.
Before I start to ramble (too late anyway but) I just want to comment on the filoque. We all acknowledge that it was added to combat arian misunderstandings. We all understand now that Arius was wrong and so we can't let this divide us. We westerns should accommodate our eastern brothers in this, that said, we should all acknowledge what the Father's say about the Spirit shinning through the Son and the like whilst maintaining that the Father is primary without falling into arianistic folly.
Be merciful on this fool who longs for the Bread of Life brothers. I'm in no way learned on these things but offer my thoughts for love of God and His faithful.

>>19571606
Have you tried visiting an Orthodox Church to see the Liturgy and feel what it's like?

>>19572513
No but I will concede that I think I’m more spiritually attuned to Orthodoxy than Catholicism, if that makes sense. Nevertheless I’m still sceptical about making a decision based upon feeling as there are many elements of other religions which appeal to me and ‘feel’ right.

>>19571583
Read the Bible and you'll discern to Protestantism because both of those are crypto Ishtar worshipers and idolaters.

>>19571606
not to call you unintelligent but its quite clearly an obvious answer, why would Christ institute multiple conflicting denominations? he obviously would institute one from the start that is appointed and promise to filter out all problems (heresy) through the holy ghost, this of course does not preclude human fallibility to freely make a mess of their position and influence, but assurance regardless that the fundamental teachings will stay divinely directed and inspired .

>Eastern Rite Catholicism

Just want to share this:
A more substantive disagreement between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox concerns the role of the pope and the ecumenical councils in the Church. Both sides agree that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines, but a question arises concerning which councils are ecumenical.

The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and “the seven ecumenical councils”—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.

While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.

One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is “accepted by the church” as such. But that test is unworkable: any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/eastern-orthodoxy more good stuff in that article after the quoted section.

>>19571583
the actual answer is Methodism
cut out the penal shit and it has all the positives of EO without all the crazy paganised worshipping skeletons shit
the catholics are retarded because they need to keep making shit up to justify their nonsense
They take a single sentence in the bible (that NOBODY thought meant anything of the sort until a thousand years after it was written) and blew it way out of proportion (btw, nobody cited this as proof of papal supremacy until after the second reformation. The usual argument back then was the so called donation of constantine which by the vaticans own admission, is bullcrap)
the early church in Rome operated on something resembling the presbyterian model basically being run by the council of elders
the words presbyter and episkopos (bishop) in ealry christian writigns are used to mean the same thing. It was after the institutionalisation of the church in Rome after Constantine that these terms really started diverging.
It is also worth noting that Augustine told the pope to fuck off in regards to African church matters and the pope bent the knee
the papacy became monarchical when the pope essentially became king (and a rather bad one all due respect) of Rome after the Justinianic plague flattened Italy
He didn't become le supreme emperor until Urban IV and Innocent III
mind you the catholic church acts all high and mighty nowadays but the nanosecond a superior kingdom told them to suck their dick, the pope immediately gave them cardinal appointing rights (see France and Spain)
rejecting his own supposed supremacy because muh frog too stronk
then there is one I see often, is not a very good argument but is nevertheless very funny
Peter became bishop of Antioch long before he became bishop of Rome and spent more time there
why isn't Antioch the supreme church instead of Rome?
Especially considering Peter seems to have had no actual impact on Roman christianity (which predated him)

>>19572944
Another thing to keep in mind is that roman doctrine is heretical nonsense invented by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas in the second millenium
with them though and the bizarre theology of the roman church you end up with the following nonsense
god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself
atheists use this as a strawman but it's the actual catholic position Anselm lays out because his god was the judge-landlord elite that funded his monastery
same with how Calvin's god sounds an awful lot like Francis I
the orthodox have many of their own problems but at least are not as cringely retarded as the cathcucks or fundamentally dishonest
become a chad wesleyan instead

>>19571583
1. This 50-page article makes a strong case for the Latin filioque:
https://catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

2. Fr. Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy. Review: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/studies-on-the-early-papacy-a-must-read-for-church-history-geeks/

3. Michael Lofton is a smart young Catholic convert (he went from Reformed to Eastern Orthodox to Rome) has a good youtube channel that often discusses Catholic vs. Orthodox issues:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ReasonandTheology/videos

Somewhere he mentions that the deciding is for him was the papacy; there was no getting around it; and it keeps him Catholic although he is not a huge fan (to say the least) of Pope Francis.

Here are some relevant Lofton videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npolBav4mTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMRnD3aod0E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XUHA3cwd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvoY5GkO8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509O0LIslfk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPfNKsOpzv0

4. Erick Ybarra is a young Catholic apologist and scholar of Eastern Orthodox issues. He often appears on Lofton's channel. He has very interesting and sophisticated analyses; he has read a lot of material that others have not, and crafts fresh new arguments - particularly on Eastern Orthodox vs. Catholic issues - that I've never seen before (the first article listed below is an example).

Here are some relevant articles from his website (www.erickybarra.org), but it may be worthwhile to simply browse through it as there is a lot of material there.

St. Peter and the Keys of the Kingdom
>https://erickybarra.org/2019/06/01/st-peter-and-the-keys-of-the-kingdom/

Inquiry into Eastern Orthodoxy: A Catholic Guideline
>https://erickybarra.org/2019/03/10/inquirer-into-eastern-orthodoxy-a-catholic-guideline/#more-6391

The Roots of the Papacy: The Patristic Logic
>https://erickybarra.org/2017/05/27/roots-of-papacy-the-patristic-logic/

Saint Peter, the Rock, and the Keys: Symbolic Representations of the Catholic Church
>https://erickybarra.org/2021/04/18/saint-peter-the-rock-and-the-keys-symbolic-representations-of-the-catholic-church/

Gates Of Hell Will Not Prevail? St. Basil the Great on 4th Century Arianism
>https://erickybarra.org/2018/11/05/st-basil-the-great-on-the-golden-age-of-christianity/

Jerome and the Office of Bishop
>https://erickybarra.org/2019/06/15/jerome-and-the-office-of-bishop-an-excursus-to-the-discussion/

Answering Eastern Orthodox Objections (Part 1)
>https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/28/catholic-primacy-answering-some-objections-from-an-eastern-orthodox-researcher/

>>19573000
before I write anything else: You do know that these arguments are anathema, correct?
JP2 granted that eo had a perfectly preserved tradition and full salvation, you are comitting heresy by arguing otherwise and this is exactly what you're doing
-
see
perfect example of what I'm talking about
the romecuck is fundamentally dishonest
first he pillpulls by firing 20 sources
then he sources a book written during the vat1 era for the early papacy, a book thoroughly refuted and rejected even by the roman church which has since been in a case of perpetual cope to protect the papacy
Erick Ybarra is not a fucking scholar in EO, considering how he argues, I doubt he can even read Greek
he is a worthless retard who refuses to interact with people who have dedicated their lives to the study of how the early church actually worked by cherry picking worthless quotations and pulling them out of context
his quality of argumentation is very much Bart Ehrman tier

>>19571606
>It's really difficult to understand how choosing between one or the other is a matter of salvation.

Speaking cautiously, as I am not a theologian:

From a Catholic perspective, I believe that the specific choice you're discussing would only become "a matter of salvation" if you *knew* that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, but for some reason refused to join the Church. So long as you are uncertain (as you indicate you are), I do not think the Catholic Church would hold it a matter of salvation for you to choose to enter the Catholic Church rather than an Eastern Orthodox church.

Guys I think I am turning religious, wtf is happening to me I can feel Gods love?

>>19573041
the way v2 soteriology is layed out
the nanosecond you learn of the existence of the vatican, you're bound to it for salvation
UNLESS
you were born in any christian church that does not include sola fide
you read that right btw
mormons are saved but lutherans are not as per v2 doctrine
considering the state of the lutheran churches though that's probably for the better

>>19573034
>you are comitting heresy by arguing otherwise and this is exactly what you're doing

Where is the heretical argument?

>a book thoroughly refuted and rejected even by the roman church which has since been in a case of perpetual cope to protect the papacy

Where? Has magisterial authority condemned this book? I doubt it. *You* may not like it - obviously you do not - but Chapman was a serious scholar, and the book is factual, accurate, and very well-researched.

Ybarra's arguments speak for themselves, if the OP is interested to check them out. He writes well on these matters -- he is clear, thoughtful and incisive.

>>19571583
just wait 3 more years

>>19573076
>the nanosecond you learn of the existence of the vatican
Not true. There is the issue of invincible ignorance.

>mormons are saved but lutherans are not as per v2 doctrine
Incorrect. Per Vatican II, Lutherans are "separated brethren". So far I'm aware, Vatican II did not specifically address Mormons; there is this, however:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

OP, if you want a serious church history of the early church based on actual research by serious academics then try Chadwick's Church in Ancient Society
despite being very long, it's split into short snappy sections and makes for entertaining reading
also consider Pelikan's the Church Tradition
it's a little outdated, especially the last book, but it's still an absolutely stellar account of how the doctrines of the churches evolved
>>19573081
yes and Ranke was a serious scholar when he wrote but none of his views hold any credit today
Chapman was wrong, his arguments are contradicted by evidence
OP, if you want an actual church history, read Chadwick's Church in Ancient Society
Chadwick sucked some papal dick though he obviously rejects your blatant nonsesne for what it is
>Ybarra's arguments speak for themselves
okay, that's great let's see
>keeps sighting the word bishop without actually explaining how it was understood back then, rather imposing the contemporary definition of bishop in the catholic church only 2000 years into the past
yeah, to tell you the truth, I didn't expect much better

>>19572944
>the actual answer is Methodism
This, checked, based. The circuit riders sowed many seeds that bore glorious fruits that are still strong today and only beginning to wane in the face of Babylon.

>>19573041
I agree with this. Anyone who seeks God and to do His will will not be condemned. Thats what I've understood from my study of the catechism.

>>19573047
Blessed

>>19573132
Methodist bros...

>>19573139
The earthly institution has become corrupted from the inside just like every other, but the foundational principles remain solid and there is a group preparing to branch into a new institution that adheres to non-affirming.

>>19573139
Saint Mark, pray for us sinners, that we might be forgiven and become united. Through Christ our Lord.

>>19573093
what happens then

>>19573161
Nicaea III in 2025

>>19573172
Lord have mercy..

>>19573148
Not really. They're just following the money. Churches know that they will get nowhere fast if they espouse the hatred and bigotry of old. They're trying to keep their coffers full and they can't do it preaching out against gays and the like anymore.

>>19571606
For me I look to history though I know it may 'prove' that Catholicism is the 'true church' but Catholicism spread the Gospel throughout the entire world while Orthodoxy has been confined to Eastern Europe for most of it's entirety, if Orthodoxy was the true church then that means the true church failed hard and was almost erased by the Turks and communist while Catholicism, though weakened, remains the stronger of the two and saved the most people.

>>19571583
>>19572513
And another can ask if OP attended the latin mass or Eastern Catholic mass, the Orthodox always hinge on their le 'unchanged' liturgy with it's 'based' neckbeard chants when all else fails.

>>19573211
may not*

>>19572944
>They take a single sentence in the bible (that NOBODY thought meant anything of the sort until a thousand years after it was written) and blew it way out of proportion
This is what the NT does to the OT btw, forms the basis of your entire religious tradition, christers. It is not limited to one church or denomination. It is Greeks larping as rabbis from Alexandria to Antioch.

>>19573148
>anti-racism is a corruption of christ's teaching
holy larp, batman, these tradzooms are illiterate

>>19573125
>Chapman was wrong, his arguments are contradicted by evidence

Chapman's every point is backed by copious documentary evidence. It is a straightforward, non-polemical academic work. The most you can say is that Chapman wrote as a believing Catholic, and he does reckon that the evidence favors the Catholic view; well, that may be simply because in fact it does! I can't imagine that you've read the book, a copy of which is sitting next to me at the moment.

Your other points are what they are; let the reader decide.

>>19572724
It is very rare in life when one can have one's cake and eat it, but this may be one such example. Thumbs-up, indeed.

Why not just ask God directly instead of getting bogged down in books written by humans?

Do you think God wouldn’t want you to know ASAP which is the true church ?

>>19572644
Meds. Now.

>>19573172
Christ please make it so!

>>19573226
"Anti-racism" is a motte and bailey/Kafkatrap hybrid, the kind of thing that dominates modern socjus.
The bailey:
>Ackshually, only white people can be racist. Also everything in the universe is binary and is either pro-racism or anti-racism. The only way racism can be fought is by allowing anti-racist vanguards to run everything, and the only way they can fight racism is by discriminating in the opposite direction until "equity" is achieved. Everything in the west has to be deconstructed and torn down because of its whiteness, which oppresses BIPOC bodies and spaces just by existing
This is the worldview of Robin Diangelo and Ibram X. Kendi, who are the leading "intellectuals" driving the modern "anti-racist" movement.
The motte:
>Anti-racism is fighting racism, and we can all agree that racism is bad and worth fighting, right?
The Kafkatrap:
>If you criticize anti-raicsm, you must be pro-racism, proving the necessity of anti-racism

All these arguments AND more have been answered by the most based Jay Dyre

https://www.youtube.com/c/JayDyer/videos

He started as a protestant, became a Catholic for 10 years and then found the true church in Orthodoxy.

His channel gets into debates, religion, NWO and he has a PhD so not a retard without critical thinking skills training.

Guys I highly recommend (I was born Orthodox and this guy makes me feel shame I did not read up on my religion more)

https://www.patristicfaith.com/

Orthodoxy website with articles like what it means to be Masculine

>>19571583
Fascinating

>>19574019
Fr. Chad (literally) Ripperger playlist on masculinity

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE54cnshZ83qF2Qg8ZP6lzCqsyhR9tHmd

>But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
Psalms 22:6
>But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.
2 Corinthians 12:9

just read this, bro. its about the same, but at least more colorful and entertaining

>>19571583
Dr Edward Siecienski -
>The Filioque
>The Papacy and the Orthodox
are necessary reading. They don't necessarily create the beginning of an answer, but they clarify how complex this situation is, something that pop apologetics on both sides like to sweep under the rug. The author is an academic, not a theologian, and I find his obvious favored solution (that everybody abides by St Maximus the Confessor) to be overly simplistic and an impossibility. But at least he gives a good overview of how both Pneumatology and Petrine primacy developed in both Eastern and Western churches, from the scriptures to now, and this shines some light on how in the world could Orthodoxy and Catholicism anathematize each other today when they share a whole millennium worth of Church Fathers and common experience.

>>19574005
>became a Catholic for 10 years
good for him, he made it!

>and then found the true church in Orthodoxy
welp, guess he's gonna burn in hell after all

>>19571583
Russia and the Universal Church by Vladimir Solvyov

>>19571606
Doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's important because of the practical implications. The apostles, when they condemn heretics (in 2 Corinthians, 1-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude...) attack them mainly for their behavior, or rather how their false doctrine results in anti-Christian behavior.
Therefore, what a church teaches and the fruits it produces (best exemplified in the saints that come from it) are impossible to separate. In fact, what a church teaches is impossible to separate from the daily spiritual life, as it frames and justifies what one does. This is why the first Ecumenical Councils were so deeply concerned with defying who exactly Jesus is toward God and toward men - since Christianity is about union with Christ, this has major soteriological implications, and heretics are anathematized not because they just stubbornly teach wrong things but because, according to their own teachings, there is no real salvation at all.

This being said, the essence-energy distinction is overblown. It answered to a particular controversy in Constantinople in the 14th century. It's orthodox and patristic but no one is going to be required to confess it at baptism, and the point is something that any literate Christian should know from reading the Bible - God cannot be understood in His plenitude, He is infinitely above and beyond any concept we might think of, yet He also truly reveals Himself to us through His operations; the God that the prophets and the apostles and the saints encountered isn't some kind of lesser "cardboard" God that God Most High put there to remind us that He exists (like some kind of Platonism or Gnosticism) but is rather God Most High Who, in His humility, reveals His very self to us in means we can comprehend but that do not exhaust Him.

>>19574415
Well said about the essence energies distinction. It shouldn't divide us.

>>19573226
I specified "non-affirming", thus referring to the rainbow flag rather than the billboard.

>>19574005
>Catholic for 10 years now Orthodox
>not retarded
Enjoy simping for a very prideful image conscious boy who constantly worries with his hair and makes one tiny point per hour of speaking.
>look at all muh books

>>19571606
>choosing between one or the other is a matter of salvation
It's not? Orthodox and catholic are in union despite differences. You can do either and go to heaven.

>>19574492
>speaking with authority and not as the scribes

>>19574492
Not really, no.
A Catholic would say that an Orthodox who is saved is saved not because of Orthodoxy but in spite of it, and thanks to the elements of Catholicism that Orthodoxy retained.
Likewise, an Orthodox would say that a Catholic who is saved is so in spite of their Catholicism, not because of it, but rather thanks to the Orthodoxy that remains within Catholicism.
And both would apply this same logic to Protestants, and to Mormons and Gnostics and Jehovah's Witnesses, and, going further, to those who do not have Christ at all such as the Jews and Muslims and Buddhists...
Suffice to say it is dangerous, from a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, to be visibly outside the one true Church. One could be saved by recognizing and loving the truth that does exist within one's faith tradition, and therefore acting as a true Christian to the degree one can. Or one could be condemned by not recognizing the fullness of truth when it does show up as Catholicism or Orthodoxy. A conscious rejection of the fullness of truth, unless it's out of ignorance, is basically a death sentence. Even if the person in question is Orthodox and refuses to be Catholic, or Catholic and refuses to be Orthodox. There is no union there.

One cannot even argue that there is unity through identical practice which demonstrates unity of belief as well. Very generously, one might make this argument to speak of a certain union that merely needs to be uncovered between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Church of the East. But the Roman Catholics have remarkably different practices in comparison.

>>19574544
>remarkably different practices?
Like what? We have the same sacraments don't we? Sure they might be done slightly differently at different times in peoples lives but they are the same essential rituals.

>>19574562
Catholics often justify delaying confirmation and communion by applying the same logic Protestants use to justify delaying baptism.
There being the possibility at all of having confirmation after communion rather than before betrays a different understanding of the sacrament.
Divorce is not just a sin but an ontological impossibility in Catholic theology.
That one bishop in the world inherently has powers unique to his office, and that this power belongs to the other bishops only in a mediate manner, is the obvious issue of how we differ on the topic of universal primacy but also betrays a different understanding, to some degree, of the episcopacy.

But I wasn't referring to the mysteries anyway. I was referring to fasting, veneration of images (or just the cross, for the Assyrian Church), daily prayer, contemplative prayer, liturgical practice... which are very similar between the various Eastern communions but remarkably different when comparing those to Roman Catholicism, the latter being far more akin to what the Protestants do.

I do not say these things to be insulting - on the contrary, I recognize a certain spiritual bond between Catholicism and Orthodoxy if only because of the Eastern Catholics. But this is following the generous logic that having very similar practices indicates a certain bond that only needs to be revealed. Not everyone would agree with this logic, and it remains that doctrinal errors, persons who are saints for some but anathema for others, willful refusal to join the one true Church... are all dangerous toxins that are mingled with the truth and therefore keep Orthodoxy and Catholicism (and Oriental Orthodoxyw etc) separated, not united, whether one thinks this one or that one is the true Church.
The idea that they are equal paths to salvation, with no strings attached, is the Anglican heresy of the "branch theory".

>>19574657
It feels sometimes like the orthodox want our Lord's body to be torn asunder out of intellectual pride more than they want the union for which He prayed. Just as there are slightly different views in the Bible, why cant we have slightly different views and practices. Why is it so hard just to say agree on something like the Apostles creed. It seems like nothing but pride can be holding us back and I accuse catholicism as much as orthodoxy on this front.

>>19573047
Peace be upon him

>>19574807
It's the Catholics who declared as dogma - infallible and always universal doctrine, necessary for salvation, an integral part of the Gospel - things like the filioque (at Lyons II and especially Florence), papal supremacy and infallibility (at Florence and Vatican I), and the Immaculate Conception (by papal infallibility).
It's not fair to say it's the Orthodox who pridefully refuse variety in expression of the faith. Saints like Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian... all had very distinct expressions of the faith. Some people who aggressively opposed each other during their lifetime, like Saints Nilus of Sora and Joseph of Volololamsk, were canonized anyway. This openness to variety in expressing the faith is part of why dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians progressed at lightning speed in the 20th century.
The formula of Mgr Zoghby was well received by the Antiochian Orthodox as well. The issue is when the Catholic councils #8-21 are called ecumenical and cannot be debated against.
The manner in which Catholic practices and, honestly, esthetics have been departing further and further from the shared traditions of the other "apostolic" communions really does not help. I feel that, when all is said and done, in practice this is the main stumbling block. When the Orthodox see that Catholics barely fast, don't seem to care too much about the order in which the mysteries are given, don't really have the same kind of bond with the priest, treat statues and icons like collectibles, and so on, it creates a major discomfort. Those who see firsthand things like the Charismatic Catholics, the Hebrew Catholics... are understandably disturbed. I don't think this is a matter of bigotry or pride, but of seeing something that claims to be apostolic yet looks more like Protestantism.

>>19574807
>It feels sometimes like the orthodox want our Lord's body to be torn asunder out of intellectual pride more than they want the union for which He prayed.
You mean like this? From the encyclical Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII:
>"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

>>19573139
Come to the Lutheran side bros. The Missouri Synod doesn’t even ordain women, much less promote homosexuality and dabble in politics.

>>19571583
I think the whole apostolic succession edifice falls apart once you consider ecumenical councils. They are only possible if Christianity is under the power of a Roman Emperor who can call the council and enforce it. This is what the ecumene was after all, the Roman Empire. Since there is no more Roman Empire, Orthodoxy can no longer have ecumenical councils. And Rome substituted the Pope for the Roman Emperor and thus continue to have """ecumenical""" councils (the very concept of a council is nonsense post-Vatican I since the Pope can rule on anything infallibly with no conciliar input). Is Christianity actually just an organ of the Roman Empire that continues to persist in some kind of LARP state? This entire institutional concept is false and always was false.

>>19573958
Yes it's an "original sin" doctrine isn't it?
>>19574437
Keep coping. Your religious costume, your problem.

>>19575032
Isn't that like the bare minimum standard for a Christian church?

>>19575467
>doesn't even ... dabble in politics
Orthodoxy is an organ of the state and Catholicism has existed as a literal state with its own army.

>>19575032
>dabble in politics

which is why it is dead in the water, any ideology that loses its political violence loses its very existence. this is why commies and anarchists aren't cool anymore, they don't even blow up buildings and make everyone freak like the early 20th century.

>>19572944
>>19572990
based


> with them though and the bizarre theology of the roman church you end up with the following nonsense
> god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself

Have you read Aulen's Christus Victor?

I would become Orthodox if they would accept that I:

- don't like Palamas and prefer Aquinas
- don't believe that prayer needs to be with a blank mind

Is this allowed?

>>19575619
Aquinas and Palamas are difficult to compare, I'm not sure why such a comparison is often made. Aquinas never wrote something like the Triads, Palamas never wrote something like the Summa. But Aquinas is not an Orthodox saint and doesn't teach Orthodox doctrine, so...

And I thought the Catholics also rejected the use of imagination in prayer? Didn't John of the Cross strongly condemn this?

>>19575687
I don't see why I couldn't be a Thomist metaphysically and Orthodox.

> And I thought the Catholics also rejected the use of imagination in prayer? Didn't John of the Cross strongly condemn this?

That was just his particular approach to mysticism. Aquinas himself says imagination in prayer can't be completely ruled out, but the more important thing is to be free of heretical interpretations of whatever you see.

I guess it comes from Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite, who are big proponents of mysticism being done in a sort of blank state of mind, completely removed from sense perception and reason.

>>19575700
As I know nothing about Aquinas, I think it's a discussion worth having with a priest. I don't know whether that's really true.

Imageless prayer is, in my opinion, a holdover from the early strain of anti-image tradition as found in St Epiphanius and the Desert Fathers for instance. The issue with images being that they can distract from pure worship. This devolved into the heresy of Iconoclasm, and survived even until St Nilus of Sora, but in parallel it was interiorized as imageless prayer, and that's the only form of this tradition that survived after the Triumph of Orthodoxy made icons an integral part of the faith.

I definitely think using imagination and fantasy in prayer is unacceptable in Orthodoxy, and for very good reasons as spiritual delusion and pride are very easy to fall into that way. I'm disturbed if Catholics think that's a fine thing to do.

>>19571663
>Also fuck protestants
based

>>19576270
It's a holdover from neo-platonism imo. Plotinus and Proclus into Dionysius the Areopagite and some of Gregory of Nyssa.

> I definitely think using imagination and fantasy in prayer is unacceptable in Orthodoxy, and for very good reasons as spiritual delusion and pride are very easy to fall into that way. I'm disturbed if Catholics think that's a fine thing to do.

I agree about the spiritual delusion, but the question is more whether it's really possible to pray or contemplate without forms and whether this is necessary for salvation and to avoid pride. I am not advocating that everyone get visions like St. Francis, only that we don't need to be in a Zen state of mind for effective prayer.

use the eyes God gave you.

>>19574931
This just reads like your judgement and not God's. If you believe Christ gave St Peter the keys of Heaven and that St Peter was crucified in Rome, the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ. No one else can claim this. We need to follow what Christ said and he told St Peter to strengthen the faith of his brothers.
>>19574954
In so far as Christ is King and the bishopric of St Peter is the seat of the vicarship of Christ this is not controversial. Not to say there shouldn't be regional autonomy of a kind, but we are a Divine monarchy, we need a leader.
>>19575092
Backwards logic imo. We need an authority that will call Church wide councils if we want the unity Christ prayed for and this could only come from the one sat in St Peter's place.
>>19575530
>Our Kingdom is not of this world
>>19575687
No. Imagination is a distinct part of rosary meditation. This is another non issue imo. God became flesh, He is Immanuel, God who dwells in our midst. What is relevant is that we teach to worship God alone and not the consolations He gives. As long as the images are not worshipped but act only to help us worship God most high, I see no problem. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with Silence it "is praise to Thee Zion dwelling God" after all. Surely is a non issue and we can have plurality as long as it doesn't compromise unity.

>>19577112
We get the leadership we deserve. Not all popes are created equal. This is why we need to pray for the clergy.

>>19577112
And? Both churches have gone through worse.
See the Orthodox Iconoclasm heresy and read about Pope Alexander

>>19577151
It makes sense as well that Satan would attack the head of the Church and that that is were spiritual warfare would be most intense.

>>19572724
>Western Rite Orthodoxy

>>19577232
>Celtic Orthodox Church

>>19571663
>However both patriarchs agreed on Rome's position of the filioque and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but then changed their mind once returning from the council.
This is a pretty big one for me. Really wish I could hear a good faith explanation from an ortho, sadly online orthos are pretty disinterested and discount it entirely.

>>19577311
Also, if anyone could recommend a book concerning above, I would happily hear your suggestions.

>>19577112
This isn't even the worst Catholics have dealt with. Albigensianism popped up on their doorstep and Arianism almost won.
Not that Orthodoxy is free of such things. Constantinople submitting to Mehmed, skoptsy, the whole Old Believers mess, Sergianism...

>>19577129
Peter was appointed first among the apostles and given the keys because of his right confession of faith. The Pope is the successor of Peter because of this same confession of faith. What happens if he ceases to confess the true faith? And nothing in the scriptures implies he cannot cease to confess the true faith

Images as tools for worship are fine. But are they fine when they are self-made?

>>19577346
>nothing in the scriptures implies he cannot cease to confess the true faith
>and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
St Matthew 16:18
I dont know if this is correct but I think we draw a distinction between the magisterium and the individual's belief.

>>19577318

I have not read it myself, but Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence is a major work on the subject.
>Originally published in 1959, this book provides a detailed study of the Council of Florence (originally known as the Council of Basel). The existence of the Council, which operated in various forms from 1431 until the mid-fifteenth century, constituted a key event in the history of the Church, the repercussions of which can be seen in the development of the Reformation. Whilst previous accounts had analysed the Council in a generalised manner or concentrated on specific aspects, this was the first extended study of its operations. Consummately researched, this book will be of value to anyone with an interest in ecclesiastical history.

I do know there's not much love for this book in Orthodox circles. (Gill was a Jesuit.)

A Byzantine Catholic (https://bcs.edu/faculty-ckappes/)), Christiaan Kappes, published The Epiclesis Debate at the Council of Florence in 2019. Its scope, as the title suggests, is narrow. The author details the scope in the Introduction, which is available online via Amazon. Kappes, btw, is rather critical of Gill in an article he wrote, 'A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39)', available for free online at: https://www.academia.edu/4912818/_A_Latin_Defense_of_Mark_of_Ephesus_at_the_Council_of_Ferrara_Florence_1438_1439_?

Also, I gather that Siecienski's book on the Filioque has "a significant portion dedicated to Florence." (Siecienski is Orthodox.)

>>19577243
>Russian Baptists

>>19577780
>Kaifeng Jews

>>19578633
>Crimean Karaites

>>19578790
>Latter-Day Zoroastrians

>>19579128
>Chinese Manichaean Holdouts
(DO NOT RESEARCH)

Something that occurs to me is that we should be thankful that we live in a time where there is as much apostolic Christianity as there is. I think OP that you should go where the Spirit is directing. Don't delay.
>I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart.
My Catholic catechist taught me this analogy: becoming Christian is like learning a dance. Inevitably you'll make mistakes but God is the best partner. You shouldn't let yourself get caught up in trying to discern how the dance goes. Rather just get up and try and let God guide you.

>>19572383
Well said brother

/thread

>>19579758
That doesn’t help

http://onthelineministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bible-contradictionsBig.gif

>>19579785
Its almost like we need an authoritative counselor and tradition to help us understand it...

>>19579832
Understand that it’s riddled with contradictions because of the multiple authors. Happens to all mythologies. Nothing to worry over, but nothing to worship either.

>>19579837
>16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
2nd St Timothy.
No brother. It is your soul that is dead and you have killed it. There is hope though, if you repent.

>>19577427
I was tired yesterday and maybe didn't express myself very well.
Jesus says this to Peter in response to Peter's confession of faith. It is conditional - Peter is first to have the keys, and is alone called the rock, but in relation to his confession of faith in the true identity of Christ. This is why the Fathers alternate often between saying that the rock in question is Peter, Peter's faith, and Jesus.
The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church because Christ established it on the unfailing rock - Himself Who is repeatedly called the rock, the confession of faith which secures one upon that rock, and the apostles (Peter being first) as those who have safely secured themselves on this rock.
But what happens if Peter's particular successor in Rome falls away from this, by ceasing to confess the right faith (which the Ecumenical Councils defined as the right doctrine concerning the Trinity and Incarnation)?
One might say that because it is to Peter in particular that this is said, only Peter's successors are to remain safely within this confession of faith. But Peter had two other successors - the Bishop of Antioch, and, through St Mark, the Bishop of Alexandria. Furthermore, outside of Rome itself, succession from Peter was often thought of more in terms of a model of primacy than a material succession; a Metropolitan is indeed Peter toward the other bishops in that given region, and a Patriarch/Catholicos/Pope is indeed Peter toward the other bishops in that given part of the world, and finally everything aligns comfortably as the Pope of Rome is Peter toward the other bishops worldwide. So succession from Peter is not a single-minded, clear cut concept, and the only way to remain consistent in saying that the Pope of Rome in particular will always confess the right faith is to say only the particular Roman tradition of material succession inherited through Peter's martyrdom in Rome is true and apostolic (and not only that, but an essential part of the Gospel, which is problematic all on its own).

I don't mean to be disrespectful though. Indeed, Rome was a greatly respected church in the first millennium, and even had Christ not said anything to Peter or had Peter not died in Rome, that church would still have well earned its primacy. Due to all the high-brow theological debates happening in Greek in the East, and the capital city becoming Constantinople, the Church of Rome was a very primitive church (which is a very good thing in Christianity obviously) and more than fit to have the final say in theological controversies that were tearing the churches apart. It was the humble servant of servants, a reminder for the other churches that Christianity is not about golden decked icons and buildings nor about grand theological and philosophical words but about faith in Christ and obedience to Him. The Romans were seen as so extreme in their practices (like fasting) that the eastern churches even condemned some of them.

>>19579837
i could rape you an dthere would be itera
liteally literally nothing you could do to top me
stop me

>>19580419
*snaps you like a twig*

>>19580396
The Church is built on the rock. The building is all of us. Everyone who says the apostolic creed professes Peter's (and the apostle's) faith. We (the good ones amongst at least, and I hope Pope Francis-) Catholics profess the apostle's creed as part of every rosary we pray. This does include the Incarnation and the Trinity. ("Was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virign Mary").
Could you distill your other points for me, I'm struggling to discern them clearly sorry.

>>19580654
*Everyone who profess and believes the apostolic creed - I should have said.

>>19580396
Also it is not because of St Peter's merit that he professed the Truth but "it was revealed to you by my Father in Heaven." "Shall not prevail against it" is not a conditional statement either. When God says something shall or shall not be wouldn't we be foolish to question it?

>>19580654
The issue is the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed though, which is the real problem as it's the only creed that was defined by an Ecumenical Council and therefore specifically concerned with defining the Trinity and the Incarnation.
I'm not sure what is unclear about my other points, excuse me. But I'll try to say it in another way:

- The authority given to Peter by Christ is in response to his response, the true confession of faith, on behalf of the apostles. It is conditional on Peter's confession of faith - first he says it, and then he receives the universal primacy and the authority that comes with it, because of his confession. From an Orthodox point of view, the Bishop of Rome ceased to confess the faith of Peter, potentially when the Creed with a modified Trinitarian statement was approved for use in Rome, but definitely when the Council of Florence dogmatized a heterodox understanding of the Trinity.

- This Petrine authority obviously applies still in the Church, or else it wouldn't be recorded in scripture. But, the Catholics say that Peter's successor is his material successor, the Bishop of Rome, due to Peter's martyrdom in Rome, and furthermore that the successor of Peter will always confess the faith of Peter and inherit his authority. But this does not pay attention to alternate, equally ancient understandings of who is the "successor of Peter", like material succession in Antioch and Alexandria, or "symbolic" succession in the form of primacy in general (on different levels, Metropolitans and Patriarchs and the Pope).

>>19580684
Whether Peter found this truth by his own understanding or because of divine revelation is beside the point, which is that it is in response to this in particular that he was gifted the primacy.
Unless you mean that the Pope in every generation also receives divine revelation, therefore making him a new Peter necessarily, instead of his "Peter-ness" being conditional on his adherence to Peter's doctrine.
I didn't say that Christ's statement that the gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the Church was conditional. However, the Church is wherever there is the Christian community, surrounding the bishop, receiving communion. It's not as if only the Church of Rome alone were the Church that Christ and the apostles speak of; I'm fairly sure not even trad Catholics believe this.

>>19571663
>The next point is the Council of Florence which the patriarch of Constantinople and Moscow attended and had all the markings of an ecumenical council second only to Nicea(IIRC that was said by some Orthodox authority at the time)
>However both patriarchs agreed on Rome's position of the filioque and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but then changed their mind once returning from the council.
They never agreed on the filioque, also it was mostly just the Emperor appeasing the catholics because he was really pressed by the turks at that time but he never had the backing of all the patriarchs.

>>19579837
There's no need to go all Bart Ehrman. We've got it sorted: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html

I just don't know what to think about christianity anymore. I feel conflicted about the catholic church, theology and hierarchy wise, yet I know better to not become protestant. And then there is Orthodoxy, which seems interesting, but alas, it's insignificant in my country. Their closest church is 3 hours from where I live. How do I cope with this moment of grief and doubt, brothers?

>>19580396
>But Peter had two other successors - the Bishop of Antioch, and, through St Mark, the Bishop of Alexandria.
But from the beginning, as early as Ireneaus, Rome was seen as the See of Peter, from which Peter's successor's arose. Neither Antioch nor Alexandria were ever reckoned such.

As for your other concerns, Michael Lofton addresses these things in various places, in an incisive fashion, that rests of a proper understanding of the magisterium.

At a certain point, history speaks for itself. Look at the history of the West, look indeed at the history of the world. There is no other institution like the Catholic Church, and the Church rests on the papacy. Yes, there have been some rough spots -- but the Church is made of men, and sinners, at that, not angels. Withal, Catholics have much less to worry about, looking back over the course of history, than any given, faithful Israelite would have had to worry about, given their various disasters and captivities and complete or near complete apostasy of the ruling class. The storms have come, and they have buffeted the Church, and the waves have threatened to sink it - "Lord, save us, we are perishing!" - but the ship sails on, with over a billion souls, fed and cared for.

That is Divine Providence. That is the hand of God, and no human work.

>This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic... It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.
Chesterton, 'Orthodoxy'

>>19580726
>The issue is the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed though, which is the real problem as it's the only creed that was defined by an Ecumenical Council and therefore specifically concerned with defining the Trinity and the Incarnation.

But the filioque truly does come down to a matter of semantics, as between the views of East and West -- with much of it turning on the confusion arising from West's translation of the Greek word “proceeds” (ekporeusis) into Latin (procedit), and then the Greeks' translation of procedit back into Greek, with the problem being that there is an important nuance of meaning that is different between the two words. However, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that the Father, and the Father alone, is the sole Cause (Aitia) of the Holy Spirit.

The Bonocore article explains all this in great detail, including a discussion of Chalcedon, and extensive quotations from the Fathers:
https://catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

In particular, he discusses the problem that arises when a denial of the filioque is combined with a Photian Trinitarian theology: the Spirit's status as 'the Spirit of Sonship' is threatened if not abrogated. See discussion on pp. 40ff. of the above linked article.

And here is a short explanation of the filioque:
>>/lit/thread/S19145820#p19147173

>>19571583
You should not over-intellectualise it. Go to church, join a community.

>>19573172
I don't see how reunification is possible. Orthodox tradition holds that every Catholic mystic saint is in hell for their prelest.

>>19580993
Go to whatever church has the hottest girls and think about starting a family

>>19582429
It was called by Francis and Bartholomew when they met in 2014.

>>19582455
Yes but I'm not sure how it will amount to anything when the east holds the west's saints in contempt in such a way. The following doctors of the church in Catholicism are considered to be victims of prelest in the east:
>Catherine of Siena
>Hildegard von Bignen
>Teresa of Avila
>John of Avila

>>19580993
Go to the Church your ancestors went to.

>>19580726
The filoque is a non issue really. I don't think Catholics care too much and would be willing (probably most of us at least) to drop it for the sake of unity. I honestly think it will probably be redacted in the near future. Also: where do you think the apostolic creed comes from? I was under the impression (and belief) that it came from the Apostles.
The primacy does not come from St Peter's confession as I see it. It comes from God's will. Because "it is not flesh and blood that have revealed this..." The thing is St Peter had a true faith revealed by God without the council of the other apostles. This does give a special character to the seat of his bisophric imo. I can understand why people would disagree though.
>This Petrine authority
I don't see how other forms of authority discount Catholic claims.
I don't think its besides the point at all that it is revelation and it is, Jesus says it is. It doesn't make the pope a new Peter but it does show where the royal authority is transferred imo.
>>19581045
Laus tibi Christe.
>>19582492
Hopefully we can be humble enough all to admit that we'll have to wait and see whose in Heaven and let our requests for intercession stem more from hope and faith than dogmatic definition. I think that would be good for the Church. It would encourage requests for intercession and strengthen the bond between the living and the dead.

>>19582747
This is correct
It's not buffet for you to consider and make a selection
unless you intend to reject it and for some eastern religion, in which case whatever perrenialist got into your head would probably tell you to just follow your inherited tradition anyways

on the issue of filioque, i found this paper to be really eye opening: https://catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf
i'm going to fact check it next week once i finish reading it this week, but so far it makes a lot of sense

*blocks your path*

Take the Anglican pill, lad.

>>19583267
if you are not ruled by british royalty there is literally no reason to consider anglicanism

>>19583267
Cranmer? That’s the reformed pill. But yes, take the reformed pill, not the crypto-Catholic Anglican pill

>>19583267
I seem to remember "blessed are they who walk not in the way of the wicked nor stand in the path of sinners nor sit it the seat if scoffers." I'd rather follow Christ's Church.