/lit/ - Literature

>orthocucks btfo by their own guy

>Emperor arrests the Pope and convicts him of heresy
>This is evidence of papal supremacy
Okay

>>19612618
>Orthocucks try to claim Maximus the Confessor as their own
>Defends Papal primacy, the Filioque and the two wills of Christ and gets martyred for it at the hands of the heretical Eastern Church

>>19612627
And? What is the issue?

>>19612629
Other than he's clearly a Catholic Saint and one of the best examples in history of the Roman Catholic Church being the One True Church that was founded by Jesus Christ? Nothing at all.

>>19612632
I'm asking you to point out where any of what you said contradicts Orthodoxy. Can you do that or can you only post infantile talking points?

>>19612634
Since when do the Orthodox accept Papal Primacy and the Filioque? Maximus affirms both.

>>19612643
Opinions vary. Some view that the Pope is "first among equals" (primacy), but this does not mean that the Pope must be followed into error or that he can determine our doctrines and standards unilaterally. The filioque is an example of this; even should it be theologically acceptable the Pope does not have the authority to modify the creed.

>>19612634
St. Maximus defended the Papacy on the grounds of Christ's promise to St. Peter, saying that the Church of Rome will never defect from the true faith because of Christ's promise. The whole history of the Church in the first millennium proves the Papacy. That's why the schismatic "Orthodox" have tried to claim that Constantinople/Moscow are the "new Rome" to try to placate their cognitive dissonance.
Moreover, at the Council of Florence the Eastern bishops all agreed to reuinite with Rome under the authority of the Pope. It was an ecumenical council in every sense of the word. And yet the unification did not occur because the "Orthodox" schismatics refused to go along with their own bishops.
The "Orthodox" Church is not One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic.
It's just a bunch of national churches loosely strung together by history and agreement. Every Patriarch has his own little kingdom, as can be seen in the recent schism between the Greeks and Russians (over politics).

>>19612659
>It's just a bunch of national churches loosely strung together by history and agreement.
More or less. I highly respect Orthodox theology but their actual ecclesiastical structure is a complete mess. They try to obfuscate this as best they can by making mountains of theological molehills but ultimately there is little difference between Orthodoxy and standard Protestant Presbyterianism in how the churches operate in reality.

>>19612654
"Opinions vary" because the "Orthodox" aren't organised enough to come together and settle this massively important issue. You'd think that they would set up an ecumenical council to hash this out, but they have no ability to even set one up because of how loosely united their churches are. It's not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that is spoken of in the Creed.

>>19612659
>saying that the Church of Rome will never defect from the true faith because of Christ's promise.
If he said that then he was wrong. The Church Fathers are not infallible in the singular. We follow them when they are in consent.
>Moreover, at the Council of Florence the Eastern bishops all agreed to reuinite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
The faithful in their totality are the body of Christ. If the body of Christ rejects it then it doesn't matter what the bishops agree on.
>It's just a bunch of national churches loosely strung together by history and agreement blah blah
And here we go, instead of continuing the discussion we were having you launch into a wholesale polemic against Orthodoxy spewing out talking point after talking point hoping one sticks. I don't care to play this game with you today.
>>19612667
There's no reason to has it out now because Rome is no longer part of the Church. It's irrelevant.

>>19612671
If functions as it should. As far as I can tell there is zero practical benefit to the structure of papal supremacy that Rome has.

>>19612674
>There's no reason to has it out now because Rome is no longer part of the Church.
Who decided this?

>>19612682
Rome when they went into schism and dogmatized papal supremacy.

>>19612686
>tfw even when they go into schism it's still Rome calling the shots

>>19612690
Christ welcomes all who come to him. It is by our own will that we reject him.

>Pope replaces the traditional mass with hippie Protestant trash
>Pope continually shits on and suppresses traditionalists and traditionalist orders
>Pope constantly goes to the media to praise LGBT nonsense
>Pope kisses the Quran and prays to pagan idols
Why is anyone supposed to want this exactly?

>>19612674
>If he said that then he was wrong. The Church Fathers are not infallible in the singular. We follow them when they are in consent.
Not if. He did say that:
>"For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour, but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High“.
ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE OF THE SAVIOUR!
>The faithful in their totality are the body of Christ. If the body of Christ rejects it then it doesn't matter what the bishops agree on.
HAHAHAHAHA. I know it's embarrassing for you that your own bishops all agreed that it is the "Orthodox" who were in schism and wanted to reunite with Rome.
>And here we go, instead of continuing the discussion we were having you launch into a wholesale polemic against Orthodoxy spewing out talking point after talking point hoping one sticks. I don't care to play this game with you today.
Why are you so reticent to talk about this? I know it's embarrassing but you have to get over your cognitive dissonance and deal with the issue.
>>19612681
First of all, Christ set up the Papacy, according to me and St. Maximus and the Gospel of Matthew. The "practical benefit" is not disobeying Christ. The other "practical benefits" are as Christ laid out:
> He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(Matthew 16)
>And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
(Luke 22)

>>19612737
I already told you I am not engaging in this with you. I responded to your claims about Maximus and that is all I will be doing. I think anyone can tell at this point that your thread was never actually about venerating Maximus but about using him for your own prideful purposes.

>>19612743
What I just quoted from St. Maximus is the firmest and most solid defence of the Papacy you'll ever hear, stronger than what was proclaimed at Vatican I. He specifically grounds the papacy in THE PROMISE OF THE SAVIOUR. According to you, that means St. Maximus was a damnable heretic, a papist, a Roman devil. You deserve to be punched in the mouth for your slander of St. Maximus.

>>19612763
>According to you, that means St. Maximus was a damnable heretic, a papist, a Roman devil.
Nothing of which I said. I said he was wrong, which he was. Anything beyond that is your vain imagining.
>You deserve to be punched in the mouth for your slander of St. Maximus.
Lol

>>19612774
Either:
(1) The Papacy as conceived by St. Maximus and the Roman Catholic Church is heretical, which all "Orthodox" would say.
(2) It is not heretical, and you should join the Roman Catholic Church.

>>19612787
The modern dogma of papal supremacy, with all it entails from Vatican I, did not exist at the time. He is stating a belief that some held that Rome was a guarantor of the faith. In other words he is speaking from a place of simplicity as he did not know the dogmas that Rome now proclaims and he did not know the things that Rome has now done. To condemn him for it is just as anachronistic as to state he would support the current state of things.

>We have the Pope!
How's Francis working out for you?
>We have ecumenical councils!
How's Vatican II working out for you?

>>19612835
This is like when people argue that the Trinity is false because the word "Trinity" did not appear until Tertullian, about 200 years after the Apostles, and concepts like "consubstantial" and "three persons" etc. were not formulated until even later than that. No. The substance of the doctrine is right there from the beginning; it's just that it was given a more precise formulation later on.

Now what we see in that Maximus quote is plain as day. He says that (1) the Roman Church is "a sun of unfailing light" which illumines the sacred dogmas, (2) that the Roman Church is the "sole base and foundation" of the Church universal, (3) it "holds the keys of orthodox confession and faith and opens the only true and real religion", (4) it "shuts up every heretical mouth", and (5) the reason for all these things is that "it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the promise of the saviour" (reference to Matthew 16).

Clear as day this affirms the teaching authority, primacy, and perpetual orthodoxy of the Roman church. It means the Roman Church can never defect from the faith, since that would imply that the Saviour's promise has failed. This IS Vatican I; just a less precise formulation of it.

If you say the Papacy is heretical, you are calling St. Maximus a heretic. That's all there is to it.

>>19612904
is Augustine a heretic then?
He was the one who told the pope to fuck off and stay in his lane when the pope tried to act like you imagine the pope should behave
>muh word trinity appeared later
this is not even remotely comparable
the ancient roman church was episcopal collegiate
it had little to nothing in common with the papacy after the fall of rome or even during Constantinian times
it's the reason why rome is basically absent from early church history

>>19612904
I'm sure all of that seemed fairly reasonable to him at a time when Rome could indeed be relied on. Do you believe those things about Rome? Does Pope Francis "shut up every heretical mouth"? I've explained why his words do not make him a heretic. I know you will not accept it because you want to use him for your polemical purposes. But I would call him a heretic before I abandoned the true faith of the Church. Thankfully that is not necessary.

>>19612963
the much simpler explanation is to just look at how power structures worked when Maximus wrote what he wrote
since Rome was kind of busy with non-theology stuff, it basically took the role of referee for eastern theological debates
this is something Maximus really wanted to emphasize because he saw the roman pope as his fundamental backer

That quote from Maximus is likely fake. From "The Body in St. Maximus the Confessor" by Adam G. Cooper from Oxford University Press (no greentext to make it easier to read, everything after this is quoted):

The authenticity of the second text, Opuscula 11, while more commonly accepted, can
also not be regarded as entirely free from doubt. It is generally thought to have been
penned by Maximus in Rome soon after the Lateran synod in 649.

Opusculum 11 [presents] one peculiar and unaccountable phrase that
raises unavoidable questions of textual authenticity. We are referring to the expression,
'the sacred six synods' or councils. The words 'synod' and 'council' translate the same Greek word.
According to the seventeenth-century Dominican patrologist François Combéfis, the 'six
synods' mentioned in the text include the Lateran synod of 649 in Rome, which he
assumes Maximus must have regarded as on a par with the five councils by that time
generally ragarded as 'ecumenical': Nicaea (325), Constantinople end p.184 (381),
Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), and Chalcedon II (553).

But does Maximus anywhere else give any indication that he thought of the
Lateran synod as a universal synodical gathering on a par with the five synods generally
accepted as ecumenical?

The Acta of the Lateran synod of 649 are recorded simply as 'the proceedings of the holy
and apostolic synod conducted in this illustrious and venerable [city] Rome'.
>That is, they appear to regard the synod as 'one of the normal bi-annual provincial synods
as visualized by Nicaea 1 (canon 5)'.

Riedinger grants it a more modest status yet, going so far as to suggest that it was little
more than a meeting convoked to approve the Latin translation of already existing Greek
documents. His basis for such a view rests on the fact that no actual debate or discussion
took place.

When later the validity of this 'synod of Rome' is questioned by several of Maximus'
interrogators, he gives no indication that he thinks of it at that stage as bearing the
illustrious title 'ecumenical'.

And in a work written after his death by followers dearly dedicated to the primacy of the
Roman See, we find no signs of their exploiting Maximus' alleged recognition of the
Lateran synod as on a par with the first five ecumenical councils, but instead find
distinguished 'the five holy and ecumenical synods' and 'the holy and most pious
apostolic synod convoked in Rome'.

>>19612999
(quote cont.)

...it is not entirely impossible that a later writer with
certain sympathies towards the Roman See—perhaps even Anastasius Bibliothecarius
himself—composed and inserted the fragment we have come to know as Opusculum 11
in the Maximian corpus. Interestingly enough, after his own attempt to install himself to
the papal office by unlawful means and his subsequent deposition, Anastasius became
'unofficial secretary and private adviser' to Pope Nicholas I (858-67) who, in the polemical context generated by his debate with
Photius and questions of a more juridical nature, asserted the traditionally accepted
eminence of Rome with no uncertain rigour in language remarkably similar to our own
Opusculum 11. It is also interesting to note that at this stage—well after the Second
Council of Nicaea (787)—it would apparently have been entirely normal for those allied
with the Church of Rome to refer with Pope Nicholas to the authority of 'sex
universalium conciliorum'.

>>19613012
>it would apparently have been entirely normal for those allied
>with the Church of Rome to refer with Pope Nicholas to the authority of 'sex
>universalium conciliorum'.
That means "of the six univeral councils" by the way, the same number used in this writing by """Maximus"""

>>19613025
Lastly, when OP posted the quote he put the part about the councils in ellipses (...) and did not include it.
Here is his post >>19612737
Here is the full beginning of the quote

For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly
confess the Lord look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession
and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating
splendour of the Fathers and the sacred dogmas, just as the divinely-inspired and sacred
six synods have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly
the symbol of faith.

>>19612939
So you can't respond to the clear evidence that St. Maximus held the Roman Catholic view of the papacy and are now trying to divert the conversation into something else?
>is Augustine a heretic then?
No, St. Augustine affirmed the Papacy numerous times and based it on Christ's promise to St. Peter, just as St. Maximus. He is the originator of the phrase: "Roma locuta; causa finita est." The controversy you're referring to concerned a case in which the Pope, acting against canon-law, reinstated an excommunicated priest against the wishes of his bishop. Despite the fact that the Pope was in the wrong, the priest was reinstated on the Pope's orders, until the Pope gave in and allowed him to be excommunicated.
>>19612963
Again you're twisting the quote. By basing Rome's authority, primacy, and orthodoxy on the promise of the Saviour he is claiming that these will last forever; if not, the Saviour's promise has failed.
>>19612999
>>19613012
Now you're just coping. You say it is "likely fake", whereas in the book you quote the author states that it is "commonly accepted" but "cannot be regarded as entirely free from doubt". The entire argument is based on the fact that he said "six synods" instead of "five", which can easily be explained as a manuscript copyist error, a slip of the mind, or some misunderstanding. You can offer this level of skepticism to any ancient text; no ancient manuscript can be "regarded as entirely free from doubt". The fact is you want to think it is fake because it disproves your religion, even though there's no real indication that it is fake.

>>19613074
>Again you're twisting the quote. By basing Rome's authority, primacy, and orthodoxy on the promise of the Saviour he is claiming that these will last forever; if not, the Saviour's promise has failed.
Indeed, his interpretation of Christ's promise was wrong and he was wrong to put his trust in Rome in this way, though he died far too early to know it.
>>19613074
>You say it is "likely fake", whereas in the book you quote the author states that it is "commonly accepted" but "cannot be regarded as entirely free from doubt".
I think the argument they make puts it into the realm of "likely."
>The entire argument is based on the fact that he said "six synods" instead of "five", which can easily be explained as a manuscript copyist error, a slip of the mind, or some misunderstanding.
By the same token an editor could have fixed it, but they didn't. You're relying on this as some kind of ace-in-the-hole dogmatic proof so I expect it to not be of dubious origin.

Why is it that so many texts supporting Papal claims, like this quote from Maximus or the Donation of Constantine end up being forgeries or suspicious in some way?

>>19613074
>>19613048
>which can easily be explained as a manuscript copyist error, a slip of the mind, or some misunderstanding.
Another option is: that St. Maximus later changed his view, or that he lumped in the synods without trying to imply that the last was an ecumenical council. The Lateran Synod was important to St. Maximus because he was an opponent of monothelitism, which the Lateran Synod condemned. He could have been trying to inflate its value for rhetorical purposes. Who knows? There are many more plausible options than "it is fake".

>>19613099
Oh so he's trying to rhetorically inflate things in the text and didn't mean them literally? Woah.

>>19613088
The argument they make is bogus. One of St. Maximus' main purposes was to refute the monothelites. The Lateran Synod condemned them, so he would have been delighted to appeal to it. Maybe at the time of writing he:
(1) Inflated its value for rhetorical purposes
(2) Genuinely thought it was an ecumenical council and later changed his mind
(3) Meant to say that "the five ecumenical councils" and "the lateran synod" as a group without implying they are qualitatively the same.
(4) Had a slip of the mind.
(5) Manuscript error.
(6) Misunderstanding.
These are all much more likely than saying it was fake my friend.

>>19613104
>(1) Inflated its value for rhetorical purposes
So the document contains rhetorical flourishes and inflations and is not being entirely literal
>(2) Genuinely thought it was an ecumenical council and later changed his mind
So he says things in this document that are wrong
>(3) Meant to say that "the five ecumenical councils" and "the lateran synod" as a group without implying they are qualitatively the same.
As the text I quoted notes, council and synod are the same word in Greek, he didn't make any distinction in the text
>(4) Had a slip of the mind.
So he says things in this document that are wrong
>(5) Manuscript error.
How much else is an "error"?

>>19613099
maybe the fathers were fallible human beings that dipped into sin and made politically charged decisions like the rest of us
maybe we should combine a critical look at the fathers within their context and also the history of the early church as a whole rather than fling quotations at each other
Maximus was also a universalist of the "let's save the devil" lineage from Clement to Origen to Nyssa to Pseudo-D to Maximus
but at this point the catholic church doesn't have anything resembling a coherent doctrine of salvation so maybe they are in full agreement with Maximus

>>19612963
>Does Pope Francis "shut up every heretical mouth"?
Still waiting on an answer to this.

>Look up the Lateran Council
>Most members of the contemporary Roman clergy would have been too uneducated in theology to "grasp even the fundamental issues presented in the Monothelite controversy" due to centuries of decay in both religious and secular learning in the city.[2] However, Rome had been the beneficiary of a brain drain of the Eastern empire, as Greek monks like Maximus the Confessor fled from Africa and the Middle East to Rome. ... "for the first time in well over a century, the church of Rome would be in a position to debate theological issues with Byzantium from a position of equality in both intellectual substance and rhetorical form."
lol

>>19612511
All this seethe, all this screech and all in vain because truth (God) has destroyed your beloved theocratic dictator and his regime down permanently and made even worse mockery of Protestants, making sure that all asociation with the Pope, be it worhip of a man, or complete anti thesis in form of Protenstantism get comedically punished, while only rational approach of Orthodoxy is graced.

In 100 years, even todays Globohomo Cucktolickcism will be unrecognizable as to what it will become.

The more I read about church history the more obvious it becomes that Nietzsche was right, that it is a slave religion and dialectic is the weapon of men without fangs. Why else would people holding political jurisdictions resort to arguing about nonsense like a "filioque" to determine who gets to collect taxes and set the rules in a territory? And he who pilpuls best, he is a saint?

>>19612511
Orthodox bros…

Saint Maximus never said that you Papal goofball.

>>19613180
I think Rome is being punished for dogmatizing papal infallibility/supremacy at Vatican I. They were in schism and could have returned, but they finally officially changed their faith at a fundamental level. Prior to Vatican I they had dignity, but since then it has been a downhill path, first to Vatican II, then to Francis, and finally to God knows what. VII did not come out of nowhere either. It is a development of Vatican I.

>>19613186
Yes?

>>19613183
Maximus is a saint because he was martyred for espousing the true faith.

this shit is literally pointless

>>19613256
He was mutilated by co-religious speculators for disagreeing with them, then after he died they agreed with him and made him a saint! Has there ever been a more ridiculous belief system? Whatever is popular becomes doctrine, persecute whoever dissents, change your mind as the public opinion moves to remain the master of the herd.

>>19613284
Stinky dumb atheist scum

>>19613329
No tears, christie. That's a waste of seething

>>19613284
This. You look up the history of Christianity and it's just loads of debate, in-fighting, schism, persecution and violence over tiny details like "does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father or from the Father and the Son?" It's so ridiculous. And then whichever position becomes more popular is the one they dogmatise, putting to violent death anyone who opposes them.
At least with other religions you have some sort of philosophical depth behind them. At least they try to explain the human condition through great mythological tales like in the Greek religions. Christianity is just about feeling "unworthy" before a God who demands moral excellence even though he made you incapable of attaining it. A God who will torture you for eternity if you don't happen upon the right sect out of thousands which claim to be the "true Church".

>>19613203
God poured out His punishment for sin already. People still deal with the consequences of their actions, but God reconciled everyone to Himself already.

>>19613468
>if you don't happen upon the right sect out of thousands which claim to be the "true Church".
It's interesting that's how it turned out, because you'd think the elimination of polytheism would have made things easier for monotheism, but without "strange gods" to deny it became a question of strange doctrines about the one god. And so the Germans got their doctrine and the Latins theirs, the Greeks one and the Armenians another, one for Egyptians and one for Ethiopians, one for Syrians and one for Assyrians, and so forth

As much as the Catholics are being punished, I worry that a far, far greater punishment is in store for the Orthodox XDDDD and this meme is one premonition of it.

>>19613928
See here is the deal. That meme is not true of Russians, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Georgians etc... that meme is representation of West0id identities mutts that treat religion as dress up cultural exotic show or psychological know ho tricks. Of course, not to say that French returning to vatican 2 is anything better, idea is the fact that West0idz are collectivly punished and even something pure on others will be decrepit on them because that is His will.

>>19613928
This been going on for a few decades now. Plenty of people convert and have normal lives, though.

>>19614507
I feel like I understand without a translation but I would still like to have one.

>>19614516
i am learn russian from smetana container and suck at russian pls no bully

>I don't believe in these fairy tales. They were created by ruling powers to manipulate people!

>There is no god. Porn is normal/the norm. Homosexuality is normal, masturbation is normal, don't be ashamed (?) of your body, the cult of consumption is good!

russians please rate

>>19614516
forgot the last one

>I believe!! Sounds right and, more importantly, scientific!!!

>>19612904
When St. John of Damascus argued against Islam, he wasn't arguing about modern Islam, he was arguing about early Islam. Islam then changed and not everything he argues still applies.

That is completely different than your example. The trinity is exactly the same trinity we have today. It is just not mentioned by name. The substance did not change. For both Islam and the Church of Rome, the substance itself changed.

Very dishonest.

>>19612963
Interesting to see a supposed Orthodox acting like a Protestant and disregarding the Fathers when it's convenient to do so. "The Trinity? I'm sure that seemed reasonable at the time but now we know better!"

>>19615547
We follow the consent of the Fathers not singular statements that are possibly forgeries that contradict our traditions that non-Orthodox fish out to use as polemical ammo.

>>19612511
looks like Biden with beard and scroll.

You're all retarded niggers who shouldn't be talking about theology

>>19615929
You sound like a fucking Protestant, faggot.

>>19615929
>we follow the consent of the Fathers except when the Fathers' consent disagrees with our pre-conceived notions about the way we should LARP about our pseudo-religion
>NOOOO, IT'S A FORGERY!!!
Continue Larping, Ortho-Faggot.

>>19612511
nice bait

>>19612659
>Moreover, at the Council of Florence the Eastern bishops all agreed to reuinite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
No they didn't:
1. The Patriarch of Georgia never signed it.
2. Mark of Ephesus wasn't simply the one Bishop who said no - he was acting as a representative of the Patriarch of Antioch.
3. Some of the representatives who signed on behalf of their patriarch would later be rebuked by the ones they were representing.
4. The Greeks only signed it on the condition that their local synods would accept it. They did not.
5. The Patriarch of Constantinople "signed" the document under incredibly suspicious circumstances. His signature was found on a Latin document, supposedly written by him, which denied all of his previous positions and affirmed those of the Pope. This document was found on his dead body, and the Patriarch himself was not known to have written or understood Latin.

>>19613468
I think you're being too harsh on Christianity. It's not as if widespread slaughter was the norm following the decision of each council - far from it. Whereas, in pagan society, you very often could wind up being horribly tortured if you accidentally stepped into a sacred grove at the wrong time of the year, or gave the king the wrong sort of bow.

>>19614454
>if you're from the west you can't be orthodox!! >:(
>you MUST be from super speshul nationality x
You are no better than the Pharisees and are doing the Romans work for them.

>>19619113
i'm pretty sure Christians did not do away with blasphemy or royal despotism

>>19615929
>We follow the consent of the Fathers
See, I want to believe this, but this is what bothers me about the Orthodox faith in particular. When the Jews say they follow the consensus of the Rabbis, they have centuries of documents detailing exactly what that consensus is to look to. There are no such documents in Orthodoxy, as far as I can see. There is no great work which synthesises the varied and complex beliefs of the fathers. We are told, as members of the flock, to always look to the consensus. But what this consensus actually is, is perpetually left ambiguous.

>>19619128
Yes, but they didn't blood eagle people over these matters either.

>>19613468
>I know nothing about the history of Christianity, the post

>>19619148
My favorite episode of Christian on Christian violence is one of the Norman-Byzantine wars, I forget which but it took place in southern Italy or Sicily, and the Normans crucified a number of captured Byzantines. The Normans had been baptized only a couple of generations earlier, and to them it seemed a fair method of execution to let their fellow Christians die like Christ. They also wrote letters in the blood of to the Muslim emirs in Sicily demanding surrender. Later the Norman kings would be known for their religious tolerance after they had conquered enough Greeks and Arabs to make it fruitless to butcher them in battle over religous pretexts. An interesting approach to faith. It is very easy to look at Christianity today and imagine it bloodless by comparison to the execution methods of the classical "pagan" era, while forgetting that it was the descendants of those bloodier peoples who were forced to be Christian.

>>19619349
>forced to be Christian
Forced in what sense? Can you provide examples?

>>19619364
I'm not sure what revisionist angle you are planning to argue for about the theocratic character of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages, but I'll stay on the Normans, who themselves are a pretty good example of an insincere conversion. The French king promised them land if they converted and protected him from other pagan mauraders. Certainly they were not won over by theology. "Normandy" is right on top of Paris, good land, and a buffer against the seaborne Norse, from whom they originate. The whole conversion hinged upon the use of force.

>>19619425
It is said that God can turn any evil to good. Do not assume that all those who converted did so insincerely, or remained insincere, simply because the king was motivated by carnal concerns.

>>19619443
Cope. He hired a private army via feudal contract. Some of their kids got bored and invaded southern europe. Then the pope saw it was possible to defeat Muslims and called a crusade, and as I am sure you know, medieval war was extremely violent.

>>19619495
I am sorry you cannot look at the situation with even the beginnings of charity. And, yes, wars are bloody. The crusades did, however, come after the Muslim conquest of Spain and the attempted invasion of France. This is to say nothing of the fact that Muslims were continually raiding the Mediterranean coast and taking Europeans as slaves.

>>19619141
The consensus is the tradition of the church.

>>19619534
Where do I find this tradition written down and explained in detail though?

>>19619547
The tradition is organic thing that is lived through the liturgy, not a systematization in a textbook.

>>19619521
you're not making a good case for abrahamism being a reduction in violence, sorry you think lying is charity

>>19619556
Which just leads us back to the original problem. How do we have doctrinal certainty? Through patristic consensus. How do I find what this consensus is? Look to tradition. How do I learn what the tradition is? Er... it isn't systematised... you just have to figure it out yourself by attending liturgy. Ok? I guess? But this does leave things in a rather ambiguous state. What if two Orthodox disagree on what that tradition is? To add to this, how is listening to the liturgy of St John Chrysostom each week going to help me to understand the work of, say, Seraphim of Sarov on fasting, and whether or not this work is in line with the consensus? Saying, "just attend liturgy" seems to veer dangerously close towards obscurantism.

>>19619591
>you're not making a good case for abrahamism being a reduction in violence
Where did I say that? You are strawmanning. Your original point was that Christianity was somehow uniquely bloody in comparison to the more enlightened paganism of the past, which it wasn't.

>>19619604
Not in my posts no. It's not uniquely bloody but has unique features it fights over which pagans did not. No one was ever killed for preferring Hesiod to Homer. But Christianity is still a violent religion for most of its history, so there's little case to be made it reduced violence, and much of that violence indeed relates to its theological claims.

>>19619594
This is like how people say that Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't work because it's chaotic on paper, but it does actually work in the real world. You should also talk to your priest about these issues, you're not thrown into anything alone. If you want to read more formal books on the subject they do exist; in English there is "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition" by Michael Pomazansky and "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God" (6 volumes) by Dumitru Staniloe.

>>19619625
>No one was ever killed for preferring Hesiod to Homer.
They were, however, killed as child sacrifices and so on...

>>19619629
>"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God" (6 volumes) by Dumitru Staniloe
Thanks. I have a two of these volumes on my reading list already. I shall make sure to read them.

>>19619629
>it's chaotic on paper, but it does actually work in the real world
How many autocephalous churches are there now? And this is not protestantism, because?

>>19619637
Child sacrifice is extremely uncommon historically. More people likely died in the Thirty Years War alone than were ever child sacrifices. And might I remind you, Christ is a child sacrifice. Seems to please the Lord.

>>19619646
Isn't that a specious argument though? The Orthodox have never said they weren't autocephalous or that local autonomy of some kind is wrong.

>>19619646
Because we maintain the same faith and tradition.

>>19619653
>Child sacrifice is extremely uncommon historically.
It was an example. And... was it? I'd argue that pederasty was a form of child sacrifice, a type very popular among the Greeks and the Pagan elite from Persia to Germania.
>Christ is a child sacrifice.
Christ is the word made flesh. To compare the willing sacrifice of God the Word to the enforced sacrifice of an infant in a burning effigy is absurd.

>>19619654
>>19619658
What do you guys think of the Moscow/Ukraine split of the ROC? I was reading about it the other day and as on outsider it seems pretty silly that they are looking at the medieval equivalent of case law to decide who is a theological heretic over what are very obviously geopolitical concerns.

>>19612674
>>19613207
Truly incredible icons

>>19619677
>abrahamism stopped pederasty
I guess someone doesn't watch the news. And Christ is not the Son of God now either? Interesting

>>19619692
The church has been tied up in these political things since Constantine. It will pass.

>>19619692
I am not in a position to comment on this effectively. I feel like you would need to have a really solid understanding of orthodox canon law, together with a privileged understanding of the geopolitical mess in the Ukraine, to be able to give a proper answer.

>>19619700
>I guess someone doesn't watch the news.
It didn't stop it, but it did stigmatize it, which is vital.
>And Christ is not the Son of God now either?
Where did I say that? Why do you continue to argue with some other imagined opponent?

>>19619723
There has always been a stigma against it. It has become normalized among such various peoples as Athenian aristocrats, Afghan tribesmen, and Christian clergymen, but nowhere does everyone in general say "oh this is fine." Even in Plato there is a an undercurrent of contempt for it—Socrates is chaste, and the best delivered speech on love in the Symposium is given to a woman, Diotima, rather than one of those lovers of "beardless youths." Christ is absolutely a child sacrifice if he is the Son of God. It would seem your version of things is the imaginary one

>>19619709
>>19619714
The notion that the dogma is fine even if the world is chaos, only mystifes this further, which I suppose is convenient.

>>19619776
>There has always been a stigma against it.
I am sorry, but this simply isn't true. It was practically systemic in certain cultures and castes.
>Christian clergymen
The difference is that they are ideally punished severely for it. The Church has never once endorsed paedophilia and has, in fact, rejected it in the strictest terms possible.
>the Symposium
You mean the dialogue where Socrates "admires" the glistening bodies of young men and Alcibiades laments over the fact that Socrates wont have sex with him? Paedophilia, at best, is considered a treat to be avoided. Only with Christianity do we see the wholesale rejection of it as inherently revolting.

>>19619786
During the monothelite controversy the Emperor had the Pope Martin I arrested and convicted of heresy and forced Rome to replace him while he was imprisoned, so it's not like this is something new to either side. Rome is just currently independent of it.

>>19619811
>The difference is that they are ideally punished severely for it.
How far up your backside did they go for you to spit out this much cope? The moral police are always the worst offenders, after all, they have cultivated such an impregnable image of conduct.

>>19619786
Think of it like this. Say Russia breaks communion with Constantinople, but Russia is still in communion with Antioch (or anyone else), and Antioch is still in communion with Constantinople, so it's not a true schism where someone has left the church.

reposted to fix typo

>>19619848
The fact that you're resorting to ad hominem shows you have no argument. Yes, there is a difference between the ideology that both supports and allows for something and the ideology that categorically rejects yet cannot prevent that something in every instance. I am happy to talk about the failings of Catholics, but seeking after this from a perspective of pagan superiority is weak.

>>19619904
Attacking something as broad as paganism over aristocratic pederasty as proof that abrahamism was somehow less violent is your wacky line of thought, not mine. The fact of the matter is that those who go around enforcing moral standards have the greatest moral hazard to be abusers, and as is very obvious from the clergy that is what is going on behind closed doors.

>>19620022
>Attacking something as broad as paganism over aristocratic pederasty
Pagan societies had a far greater propensity for pederasty than Christian ones. Musings on the broadness of paganism do not change this fact.
>those who go around enforcing moral standards have the greatest moral hazard to be abusers
People who want to do the wrong thing speak out against moral standards only so they'll be able to practice their perversions with impunity. You're not fooling anyone.

>>19620077
lol keep defending the child abuse religion then. You've picked a bad angle here

>>19620113
>lol keep defending the child abuse religion then.
Says the man doing just that by defending paganism.

>>19620126
Christian abuse of children by clergy is a very real thing. Aristocrats in a pagan culture being sex perverts by Christian standards is a separate issue.

>>19620134
>Aristocrats in a pagan culture being sex perverts by Christian standards is a separate issue.
You're downplaying the issue, and you know it. Paedophilia was systemic in Greek society and was permitted within Rome. In Japan, an entire era was typified by the practice of Samurai's taking boy lovers. In Germany, it was not uncommon for tribal chiefs to use boys as "bed warmers." To imply that it was just a handful of localised elites being a bit rowdy is absurd. Many, many ancient writers speak of paedophilia in either positive or indifferent terms. There is every indication that this was a widespread and enduring societal practice that was not condemned with anything like the force that Christian societies would later condemn it with.

Why do Orthodox Priests have wives?
Isn't that kinda concupiscent and unworthy of one administering the Sacraments? kinda sus desu, as if Orthooooxy is actually a LARP. We already know it's full of repressers, but what else could it have in store when looked at beneath the surface.

>>19620256
*beneath the obscurantist, byzantine surface that is.

>>19620256
>Why do Orthodox Priests have wives?
>A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

>>19620256
The Catholic rule against priests having wives is canon law, which means it is determined by the bishops and is subject to change. It is not a law of God. Learn your own theology.

>>19620173
So i take it you view the clerical centralization of abuse into an exclusive province of those ordained by the one true God as a positive, progressive development in ethical life away from the previous situation? I suppose with the total demolition of theism we can finally end this great ill.

>>19612511
>Maximus defends the pope and the filioque
>In the 4th century Augustine literally talks about how he explicitly joined "the Catholic Church" centuries before the schism
And orthos still claim that Catholics broke away from them and not the other way around.

This thread is about Maximus the Confessor.

Stay on topic or you will be reported.

>>19612737
not him and not orthodox, or christian but the answer to the quote is simple.

I will not need to consider the well-known fact latins falsify quotes and I will not need to examine the quote in the text.

The "church of the romans" is not necessarily exclusively the church of the romans. That means the Church, is of the romans and of north africans, gallo-romans,... it is the church of catholics, universal, that is in the context the church of romans more specifically. In this context saint Maximus speaks of the Church, manifested as the Church of the romans. So know you can understand that he speaks of the universal Church.
You just happen to interpret it exclusively as it arrange your case.
It is the romans that belongs to the Church, not the Church that belongs to romans. Your interpretation of "Church of romans" is directly the papist axiom, to think that he speak of the romans, when he speaks of the Church. Your bias and confusion shows and the arbitrary of papal supremacy through it. Instead of accepting the fact they only manifest the Church, romans confuse themselves with it.

>>19620599
>not him and not orthodox, or christian but
stopped reading there

>>19618223
Allow me to respond to this in the way an Orthodox would
>NOOOOO It's a forgery it's not real! It's only his opinion it's not part of tradition!

>>19619425
>theocratic character of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages
Based. Only a bunker tranny would think theocracy is a bad thing. Anyway it's indisputable that the Pagans were far more cruel and barbaric than even the worst Christian regime so your argument fails at the starting line.

>>19619625
Christian violence is often justified. Pagan violence is not. Your facile and reductionist view that all violence is equivalent is not serious thinking. Mohammadeanism must be stamped out wherever it exists, this is a basic moral imperative for whoever values truth.

>>19620885
>>19620904
>killing people over fairy tales isn't cruel and barbaric when we do it

>>19620913
You've assumed your position is correct. Christianity is true, atheism is false and your argument is moot because of this fact.

>>19620904
>Mohammadeanism
lol

>>19620967
Complete lack of self-awareness. NPC-tier election tourist random encounter

>>19620979
>He doesn't agree with me, he lacks self awareness
I was a former atheist into my 20s. I've read much more philosophy than you and I can only see atheistic materialism as a childish position that only people who have done no further reading beyond atheist and pop science blogs can accept as a coherent position. If you still accept scientific materialism as an acceptable philosophy and worldview then you are trapped within Plato's cave, unable to enter the world of the Nous and understand the forms of what is, rather hyperfocusing solely on limited instantiations of those forms.

I highly recommend picking up "Why Materialism is Baloney" by Bernardo Kastrup for a relatively easy introduction for why the modern metaphysical position is necessarily incorrect.

>>19621018
No, you lack self-awareness for elevating your fairy tale above the others and declaring those invalid. If you are atheist of other peoples' gods because "they're false," why is yours true? Prior to the invention of monotheism and the mosaic distinction this was never an issue. There were atheists who denied all gods and theists who preferred some gods, but rare was the person who could say only mine is real and everyone else should be persecuted, as this would not get you far in a diverse world that necessitated all sorts of pacts and oaths be sworn mutually by different parties under the names of their own gods. Read Assmann. I don't give a shit about "atheist materialism" and I've told you nothing of my metaphysics anyway beyond rejecting yours.

>>19621104
>fairy tale
Back to lebbit with you. Not reading anymore of your drivel.

>>19621104
>If you are atheist of other peoples' gods because "they're false," why is yours true?
Awful argument that doesn't understand what "God" is. If you're talking about "other gods" then you're talking about beings within the natural universe which is NOT what God is and is irrelevant.

>>19621124
>>19621136
>i don't have to prove my outrageous claims
You don't have armies and governors anymore. It's a bad joke. If you can't make your case, you'll be replaced ideologically. And you have been across the developed world. The lack of intellectual vigour means eventually only the most slow-witted people will agree with you in a few generations

>>19612511
peak catholicope

>>19621160
You do realize the secular world in in the middle of trannifying themselves right? No argument needs to be made for eternal and immutable truth, if you do not base your society on it then it will simply crumble as lies cannot sustain it. Secular society will collapse and dissolve as the weight of human depravity cannot be sustained indefinitely.

>Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.

>>19620772
you got btfo by a none-christian. Everyone, even outside of chrisrianity knows papism is an heresy.