Orthodox literature/books thread

[Anonymous No.19511025]

Discuss your favorite Orthodox books. What is essential Orthodox reading for the modern man?

[Anonymous No.19511032]

If God is real, then why do bad things happen?

[Anonymous No.19511034]

reported

[Anonymous No.19511057]

>>19511032
Most 'epic' question in the world.

[Anonymous No.19511603]

This book is pretty fascinating. It really gives a deeper appreciation of the liturgy

[Anonymous No.19511704]

>>19511025
Primary chronicles by monk Nestor.
A good introduction to the historical events that led to the formation of the concept of Rus'.
A very good book if you want to understand how the orthodox society worked back in the days, and where to look next.
>>19511032
First, your concept of "bad" comes from God, so that you can do "good".
Second, what is "good" and "bad" is not very easy to define. Only God can say what is actually good and bad.
Third, there is bad because God wants you to avoid it, in order to enter His reign after the Second Coming.
As a matter of fact, you should read some theology books. I'd suggest you "Complete writings of Menno simons" by menno simons.

[Anonymous No.19511722]

>>19511025
I like this book. I'm not that well versed in the subject but it was informative and cleared things up for me

[Anonymous No.19511831]

>>19511603
https://youtu.be/jkmh68urI6A

[Anonymous No.19512149]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19512199]

Can someone explain what’s up with the Moscow–Constantinople schism? It seems like the Russian Orthodox Church is falling into worldly political concerns that shouldn’t effect the larger church. I’m newer to Orthodoxy, but will this blow over, or will Russia continue to be schismatic like this? Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Anonymous No.19512275]

>>19512199
Constantinople supported an illegal parallel church structure (headed by a defrocked bishop, i.e. literally a lay person like you or me) in an area with already existing lawful bishops, which is moreover not under it's canonical control. The setting up of parallel churches is the literal definition of schism, and praying liturgically with schismatics or commemorating them is not allowed which is what Constantinople did. So it's natural to cut ties with such people since they have already separated themselves from Christ's Body by engaging in the sin of trying to split it.

Tldr the EP thinks he is the Eastern Pope with universal jurisdiction.

[Anonymous No.19512283]

>>19512199
Also jurisdiction is a matter of canon law and ecclesiastical structure and that is divinely inspired, not political.

[Anonymous No.19512457]

>>19512283
>>19512275
Hmm interesting, I’ll have to look more into it then. I was mostly looking at Wikipedia which of course will almost always be anti-Russian

[Anonymous No.19512558]

Why isn't this thread pruned? What's wrong with jannies?

[Anonymous No.19512598]

[Anonymous No.19512602]

>>19511025
How to find a bull for your wife is one widely read by Orthos.

[Anonymous No.19512615]

>>19512558
What's an even greater surprise mystery is that (You) stopped taking cock in the ass long enough to make that comment.

[Anonymous No.19512622]

>>19512602
Adultery is a sin, anon

[Anonymous No.19512847]

Is it even possible to be a Christian in modern times?

[Anonymous No.19513861]

Good thread

[Anonymous No.19513965]

I just finished reading St. Ephrem the Syrian's Hymns on Paradise and I've started to read the biography of Fr. Seraphim Rose. Can definitely recommend the Hymns to anyone, they're absolutely beautiful and not too hard to read

[Anonymous No.19514136]

>>19512847
Why would it not be?

[Anonymous No.19514167]

>>19512847
It's more important than ever

[Anonymous No.19514192]

>>19512847
If it's possible under Nero or Diocletian, then why not now? Globalization and mass-literacy makes it easier than ever to learn the faith for those who care for truth.

[Anonymous No.19514782]

>>19513965
Thanks for the rec. I’ll be sure to read it!

[Anonymous No.19514818]

>>19514782
You must have already read and fully understand the Holy Bible so now you have time to read random people that are claimed to be "saints" and whose words can be considered equal to Scripture.

[Anonymous No.19514976]

>>19514818
Nigga when did anyone say that they're completely equal to scripture?

[Anonymous No.19515055]

>>19514818
Reading such works often enriches my understanding of Scripture. I have immense respect for the saints but I do not agree with them on absolutely everything, and neither do all saints agree with one another.

[Anonymous No.19515699]

>>19513965
Translation?

[Anonymous No.19515992]

>>19514818
In all that they agree they're inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the saints who wrote Holy Scripture.

[Anonymous No.19516099]

>>19514976
If it's not equal to Scripture then why waste precious time with it?
>>19515055
Or disrupts your understanding of Scripture in subtle ways which you are unawares.
>>19515992
Why bother when you have actual Scripture?

[Anonymous No.19516116]

>>19516099
>why waste precious time with it?
because this way you don't interpret the Bible creatively as it fits your fancy and end up like prottys who worship homosexuals instead of Christ?

[Anonymous No.19516141]

>>19516116
Oh, ok, I see, so Seraphim Rose's interpretations are gospel and (You) lack his perfect Scriptural comprehension so you should read what he says about Scripture instead of just reading Scripture for yourself. Wait...Seraphim Rose was a homosexual, and you consider what he says about Scripture to be gospel...which sounds like (You) are in very close danger of worshiping a homosexual instead of Christ...

[Anonymous No.19516154]

>>19512275
Reminder that the Russian Orthodox Church is a puppet organization that answers to Putin and the schism is purely over geopolitical games and nothing to do with ecclesiology or theology.

[Anonymous No.19516224]

The demons seem to be activating in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19516279]

>>19516099
>Why bother when you have actual Scripture?
Because (your) understanding of it is clouded with pride and other passions. It's impossible to understand Scripture coherently with the protestant mindset because the intellect of anyone doing so it literally damaged (due to sin and pride) and doesn't work properly. This is how you get insane and blasphemous protestant beliefs like "Jesus being separated from God" on the cross and so on.

[Anonymous No.19516658]

>>19516279
>It's impossible to understand Scripture coherently with the protestant mindset
So miracles made it to where Seraphim Rose, originally a Protestant, had perfect understanding.
>This is how you get insane and blasphemous beliefs like
Prayers to "Mary" begging her to save (You)? Like "Mary" being the "Mother of God" despite the fact that God existed waaaaaaaaaay before her and that He literally created her?

[Anonymous No.19516816]

>>19516658
>Like "Mary" being the "Mother of God" despite the fact that God existed waaaaaaaaaay before her and that He literally created her?
Lel now you’re literally just throwing out church councils and rehashing Nestorian heresies—literally all Prots can do

[Anonymous No.19517575]

>>19511025
know any books on Late Antique Christology that goes into depth on the differences between ousia, hypostasis and prosopon? Preferably from different church views??

[Anonymous No.19518096]

>>19516816
>church councils
No possible way for a majority of human leaders to get fooled by Satan and vote wrong things into the church hundreds of years after Christ.

29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

[Anonymous No.19518201]

>>19518096
Thanks for your input, Pastor JimBob.

[Anonymous No.19518265]

>>19518201
Yeah, weird how Mary was there at the beginning of Acts but there's nothing whatsoever in there or in Paul's letters giving her any special attention whatsoever, much less "venerating" her, and far less actually praying to her. It's almost as if all of that came hundreds of years later and has no legitimate basis in Christ's teaching or intentions for His ekklesia. Enjoy being a Babylonian pagan fooled by Satan.

[Anonymous No.19518326]

Do not respond to Prots

[Anonymous No.19518348]

>>19518326
Rev (which your "church" leaves out of reading in services) 18:4 "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

[Anonymous No.19519465]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19519479]

Refuted by Seraphim Rose

[Anonymous No.19519706]

Went to my second ever Divine Liturgy today. Pray for me frens, I want to be a part of this church.

[Anonymous No.19519726]

>muh scripture!
For they are blind, but cannot see. What's the point in the literal following of scripture when you can't properly interpret it? I refer you to the pr*t demons who claim Jesus was gay.

[Anonymous No.19519742]

>>19511025
Can anyone explain or suggest a book on the stance of EO vis à vis soteriology and free will?
I know you have dodged aug*Stine and all that followed from there which would lead to completely different assumptions and development in regards to such things

[Anonymous No.19519756]

>today I will remind them

You will never be a real Orthodox Christian. You are not Russian, you are not Serbian, you are not Greek. You are a Protestant LARPer twisted by Internet memes and irony into a crude mockery of God's faithful servant.
All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back native Orthodox Christians mock you. Your Protestant parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “pastors” laugh at your sudden conversion motivated entirely by aesthetics and sheer contrarianism.
Christians are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of development of Church Doctrine have allowed us to sniff out heresy with incredible efficiency. Even OrthoLARPers who “convert” look uncanny and unnatural to a native Orthodox. Your obsession with memes, beards and Byzantine chants is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a conservative Orthodox Russian gf she'll turn her tail and bolt the second she gets a whiff of your room filled with icons, piss bottles and used cum tissues.
You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.
Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a Protestant crose marked with your birth name , and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a Baptist is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a tombstone that is unmistakably Protestant.
This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

[Anonymous No.19519773]

>>19519756
>You will never be a real Orthodox Christian. You are not Russian, you are not Serbian, you are not Greek
Yeah, so these are not the only nations which are majority Orthodox, nor is Orthodox an ethno-religion. I will not go further than this because i'm certain this is an anti-transgender copypaste converted to be about new members of the Orthodox churches

[Anonymous No.19519795]

>>19519756
I didn't get this at first, but then I was all smiles

[Anonymous No.19520094]

>>19516658
>Like "Mary" being the "Mother of God"
So Jesus is not God, but a human who started existing in the Blessed Virgin's womb? Because if she is not Mother of God, then who is she the mother of? Is there a Jesus who started existing only in her womb? This is utter Nestorian blasphemy.

[Anonymous No.19520165]

>>19519742
>I know you have dodged aug*Stine
This is blasphemy. St. Augustine is a saint who the West misinterprets on all sorts of things, doesn't make him somehow bad because of it. Even St. Gregory Palamas quotes St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity and uses the same language as him about the Holy Spirit eternally manifesting the Father and Son's love.

>soteriology and free will
Look up St. Maximus the Confessor's teachings on will and gnomic will. Soteriology is tied to Christology, in that our human will must become in theosis like Christ's human will, through our free cooperation with the divine will.

[Anonymous No.19520171]

>>19519756
>Thousands of years of development of Church Doctrine have allowed us to sniff out heresy with incredible efficiency
>has cryptoJew "priests" in the post temple sacrificial era
>calls them "Father" even after Christ specifically instructed not to
>prays to Mary and alleged "saints"
>bows before idols and kisses them
>uninspired writings accepted as canonical Scripture
>Purgatory lie, toll houses real
>dead foot water

[Anonymous No.19520173]

>>19517575
St. John of Damascus' philosophical chapters, it literally explains all these terms from an Orthodox viewpoint. Also his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith explicates the use of these terms in theology.

[Anonymous No.19520187]

I now start to understand why the saints always incessantly call heretics demonic. They are like incarnate demons, since their heresy just makes them into mouthpieces for the demons. I hope the protestant guy repents.

[Anonymous No.19520214]

Why are prots so upset over Orthos praying to Mary and the Saints? Its not as they are prayed to over Christ. Contemplation of Christ always occurs during prayer even if the prayer is directed to a Saint.
Go sing some more rock songs in the Church when you are meant to be worshiping Christ, silly prots.

[Anonymous No.19520218]

>>19520214
Pride. The only answer that makes sense, I know it from experience and probably many ex-protestants will say the same.

[Anonymous No.19520239]

>>19520218
I've seen them call the Jesus prayer 'vain repetitions'. I think the divisionary left vs right good vs bad aspect of politics has seeped too far into religion.

[Anonymous No.19520257]

>>19520214
>Its not as they are prayed to over Christ
If you saw Christ as sufficient then there would be no need to ever pray to others at all.
nb4
>muh ask friends to pray for me
Yeah, try asking your friends to pray for you via telepathy and see if they get your message. There's nothing wrong with asking them face to face or calling/messaging, you know for sure who is on the other side of that. If demons subvert your prayers from God then you have no idea and just because you're thinking "Mary" doesn't mean that the actual Mary is on the other side of your prayer. And still, if Christ is sufficient then you do not need her. Christ is Scripturally our only mediator, period.

[Anonymous No.19520294]

>>19520257
What is 'sufficient'? Is there a video game meter which you need to fill up with prayers? And once you fill up you don't need to do anything else?
> no need to ever pray to others at all.
So I cannot pray to the Holy Spirit or the Father?

[Anonymous No.19520315]

@19520257
>try asking your friends to pray for you via telepathy and see if they get your message
Except those in heaven have Christ's mind since it is Christ living in them.

[Anonymous No.19520392]

>>19520294
>Father Son and Holy Ghost aren't one
>>19520315
Just more conjecture, you have no idea what their state and configuration is yet.

[Anonymous No.19520410]

>>19520392
You said Jesus is the one mediator and used this as argument that we can only pray to Him. Is the Father also a mediator since we can pray to Him?

[Anonymous No.19520425]

>>19520410
Jesus is one with the Father (He said so Himself) yet also the aspect of the 3 that mediates with the other aspect on our behalf. This is not hard, and is all in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19520444]

>>19520425
>yet also the aspect of the 3
>aspect

So you cannot pray directly to the Father or the Holy Spirit, but only through the "aspect" that mediates? Where does the Lord's prayer ask for the mediation of the "aspect" of Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19520461]

>>19520444
No you can pray directly but Christ is the mediator.

[Anonymous No.19520480]

>>19519706
Blessed post. I just went to my fourth today. Meeting one-on-one with the priest on Friday. I’m nervous, but everyone is super friendly there. Never seen anything like it at a church. Best of luck, anon!

[Anonymous No.19520487]

>>19519479
Is this another one of these ‘Darwinism and the Big Bang are just true, okay?? Noooo don’t question the presuppositions of the scientific method please!!!’ books?

Feels good to be an unironic Young Earth chad

[Anonymous No.19520568]

>>19519756

[Anonymous No.19520920]

>>19519756
My church is filled with Protestant and Catholic converts though

[Anonymous No.19520954]

>Newrome Press still hasn't replied to my question about whether the Illuminated Septuagint from September 2020 is still planned to release next year
Anyone want to help me out and give them another nudge?
https://www.newromepress.com/pages/contact-us

[Anonymous No.19520970]

Today I learned of a fascinating Trinitarian image posed by Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Ephesians

[Anonymous No.19521184]

>>19520487
I’m about half way through it. He’s spent post of the book talking about how science works, talking about people like Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and similar figures. Though he’s quite dismissive of ‘fundamentalists’ like Seraphim Rose and Philip Sherrard for their rejection of aspects of modern science, he’s so far given me more reasons to be critical of science with his talk of how paradigms work and stuff like that. I don’t think we’re in any compulsion to accept a lot of these theories at all, honestly. I’m interested to read the more specifically Christian-focused parts of the book though to see what he says. Not sure if I’d recommend it though. It’s okay. I’m still more sympathetic with Rose and his ideas on Genesis and creation.

[Anonymous No.19521350]

>>19520173
thanks!

[Anonymous No.19521368]

>>19521184
>he’s so far given me more reasons to be critical of science with his talk of how paradigms work and stuff like that
I feel like that's the quality of any atheist-type work which explains its own paradigm. An atheist trying to explain/justify his views is the best argumentation against atheism.

[Anonymous No.19521440]

>be typical degenerate coomer 4chan user
>come from church background and want to change myself but keep falling back into my habits
>go through alternating periods of frequent prayer/high faith and periods of feeling worthless and wanting to die out of despair
>keep getting a nagging feeling that there's some truth to the whole predestination of souls thing and that I'll never be able to truly repent or escapy my behavior, which makes even attending church or reading the bible fill me with a kind of dread
How do I break out of this mindset? What should I read/do?

[Anonymous No.19521486]

>>19521368
I agree. It’s quite funny honestly. Because first the author declares that evolution and similar theories are just *too* established to probably ever refute, and then he goes on to spend sixty odd pages discussing Kuhn’s ideas of paradigm shifts, the theory-laden character of data, and the fact that theories are always ‘underdetermined’ by data, i.e. multiple theories can explain the available data, so one cannot easily speak of ‘verification’ of theories. As you say, people like this are essentially undermining their own case when they engage in stuff like this. It’s even funnier in the case of this book, given how he was so triumphant about science in the beginning, and seems to be pushing Christians to uncritically accept the reigning scientific paradigm and to thereby conform to worldly science and philosophy. It’s always Christianity that they want to conform to the world.

And along with all of the other things mentioned, this whole house of cards falls apart when we question the assumption of the uniformity of nature into the indefinite past. Though it may be ‘unscientific’ in the sense of essentially being unfalsifiable, if the Eden narrative happened in any way whatsoever, it presupposes a break in the uniformity of nature in the past, rendering it outside of the scientific method.

But you’re completely right about atheists. I used to uncritically believe a lot of this stuff before I adopted a more critical and inquisitive mind, and began exploring paradigms, presuppositions and similar ideas. It really comes down to absurdity without God, and without Orthodoxy in particular. I recommend everyone look into these topics, as they have greatly helped me in many things.

[Anonymous No.19521541]

>>19521440
You just have to keep perservering. Most importantly, pray for strength, and pray that you do not continue to sin against God. Attending church and socializing with other people for me is very helpful in delivering me from my worst habits. I used to be severely addicted to pornography and doing what I’ve written so far in this post have basically (but not entirely—I still trip up occasionally) cured me. When I do trip up, I don’t beat myself up though. I know it was wrong though, and keep trying. If you fall down seven times, get up eight. Even when you feel as if your faith is being tested, do not stop your habit of prayer. Even people who saw Christ in the flesh had struggles with their faith—I’ve always loved Mark 9:24 for this reason: “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” I can relate to that sometimes.

Also, any thoughts about predestination being real is probably demonic suggestion in a literal sense. Never give up trying to overcome your issues, keep praying for strength, keep attending church, keep reading scriptures, and keep repenting.

[Anonymous No.19521891]

Goodnight, anons. Have a bump

[Anonymous No.19521912]

>>19521440
It takes time anon. You have to remember that all of those bad habits were not built in one day, they are the result of years.
I also struggled with sin (and I'm still struggling), but little by little we find the strength to continue, we find the strength in God and we ask for forgiveness and redemption.
Jesus will forgive and heal, he will multiply the bread (your efforts), but you should never give up and you should always keep fighting, always pray and always know you can choose to be better, you can choose to follow Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.19522599]

I understand icons, but I do not understand which ones I should get. All the meaning is coded, so it can't be a "do what you want" thing I assume. The relationship with icons is still foreign to me and I don't know how to approach them. Searches are marred by marketplace results and "why the Orthodox use icons" articles.
>>19521440
This tribulation is all on your side, on the side of God there is forgiveness. Stumbling is inevitable but you should not indulge in self-hate for it. Think of it as driving a cart pulled by horses who are stubborn, or afraid, and tend to steer one or the other way. It is in their nature to do so, and they will do so whenever they can; your duty is to steer them back on the road.
Try to avoid all the nihilistic worldly stuff. When you browse 4chan do something like pic rel. There's no way a Christian should freely roam this place.

[Anonymous No.19522643]

>>19522599
based

[Anonymous No.19522690]

>>19522643
Filters are great and this site would be much better if everyone used them, but I was advocating specifically for a whitelist approach to filters.

[Anonymous No.19522730]

>>19520257
>If demons subvert your prayers from God then you have no idea and just because you're thinking "Mary" doesn't mean that the actual Mary is on the other side of your prayer
Jehovah's Witness detected

[Anonymous No.19522767]

>>19522599
>I understand icons, but I do not understand which ones I should get. All the meaning is coded, so it can't be a "do what you want" thing I assume.
Just get one of Christ and the Theotokos obviously, I personally love the Good Shepherd icon type. And of saints who helped you to get to Orthodoxy, maybe a saint whose book in the Bible you love a lot, or of events from the gospel. It doesn't matter which ones specifically, as long as they are canonical, i.e. the depiction is traditional and not heretical. If it's from an Orthodox store it should be fine, just avoid the "monastery icons" stuff since it's tied to hindu idolatry.

This blog has posts explaining the meaning behind various symbolism in iconography - https://iconreader.wordpress.com/about/
Also this video is good - https://youtu.be/rCDLNwVvsVg

[Anonymous No.19522770]

>>19520970
The famous Holy Trinity icon has similar symbolism too, with the left angel symbolizing the Father with a house behind Him and the tree in the center being the cross.

[Anonymous No.19522778]

https://youtu.be/qvG4-xXXxf0
https://youtu.be/SVT3ftfXiyw

[Anonymous No.19522787]

>>19522767
Thanks for the answer. Can you clear something up for me, about this bit:
>as long as they are canonical, i.e. the depiction is traditional and not heretical
Which I understand, but this is about prayer, right? Am I supposed to get rid of all Catholic style imagery in my home or images of Catholic saints even if I don't regard them as liturgical?

[Anonymous No.19522883]

>>19522787
Roman Catholic style imagery is usually heretical, sacred heart, over-exaltation and so on. Although say a Roman Catholic-style crucifix is not considered heretical, even though it is slightly incorrect. Just ask a priest about the specific images you have doubts about.

Icons also aren't just about prayer, but are meant to depict certain realities and teach us about them, they're a window of sorts. So an icon of "saint Judas" or "black Jesus" would be a false picture with nothing real being represented by it, same for Roman Catholic post-schism "saints". A false icon is potentially blasphemous as well, like drawing an icon of Nestorius or Arias would be.

[Anonymous No.19522921]

>>19522883
>over-exaltation
what do you mean?
As an example: suppose I have a poster of the classic St. Matthew by Caravaggio somewhere in the house, or I have it as a bookmark in a Bible, or whatever. I do not pray to it, it's just a decorative object. Is this heretical? Does intention count?

[Anonymous No.19522954]

>>19522921
This image doens't seem bad to me, depends on the exact image but I had something like pic related in mind. I wouldn't personally have a problem with your picture, but ask your priest if it bothers you or you have doubts.

>Does intention count?
I would say yes, since icons have to be in a specific form. If it doesn't try to look similar to an icon then it's just art.

[Anonymous No.19522983]

>>19522954
Oh yeah, I think you've made it clear. No I have none such thing and I've always disliked this sort of imagery. But I do have Catholic and also Protestant writings in my library, and I also have art collected here and there that is not expressing what you posted, but nonetheless drawn in a realist, Catholic style, and sometimes of post-schism, Catholic saints. I do not regard it as sacred iconography or anything, just like I do not regard the texts as something I should take as doctrine. At the same time, I was introduced through most of these writings and people to the faith itself, so it doesn't feel right to trash them wholesale.
The Orthodox people I have met were rather friendly and open-minded, so I'm probably just overthinking it. I'm mostly just concerned with not committing horrible blunders as I open up.

[Anonymous No.19522990]

>>19511025
>What is essential Orthodox reading for the modern man?
St. John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies against the Jews.

[Anonymous No.19523005]

>>19522990
Really puts the whole "one Abrahamic faith" nonsense everyone is pushing these days into perspective.

>If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.
>Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.

>Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.

[Anonymous No.19523006]

>>19522883
Sacred Heart is an Orthodox devotion too

[Anonymous No.19523033]

>>19523006
Sacred heart falls under St. Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius and can never be Orthodox. It literally introduces a second adoration to Christ besides the one to His one person.

>If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.

Sacred heart is arguably even worse than Nestorianism, since it explicitly worships a created part of Jesus' human nature.

[Anonymous No.19523039]

>>19523033
Stop listening to Jay Dyer and the Online Orthodox. Kallistos Ware says the Sacred Heart is fine.

[Anonymous No.19523048]

>>19523033
Orthobros have the most ridiculous takes to justify their Catholic hate. Just a reminder you're just Calvinists who want a nicer litugy I guess. Your lack of charity undermines any effort you make to distinguish your theology and proves your "faith" comes down to playing an elaborate game of D&D and rules lawyering.

[Anonymous No.19523070]

>>19523039
Not that guy but when did he say this? And I don't really see how taking a body part of Christ and exalting it separately can be orthodox

[Anonymous No.19523071]

>>19523033
I can understand the angle of nestorianism but I will never get the sacred heart.

[Anonymous No.19523093]

>>19523039
You haven't presented an actual argument, just quoted names of some people I haven't even mentioned.
>Kallistos Ware says
He is not an authority over St. Cyril. Sacred heart divides the single adoration to Christ's person, which is anathema and separates you from salvation.

>>19523048
I was never a part of Calvinism or any other sect. It's very telling that those who support heart-worship never have an argument for their innovative belief (which is nowhere to be seen in antiquity).
Also all heresy is supposed to be hated by the Christian since it is a sin, and sacred heart is just spawned from a group of heretics. There is no charity towards sin or false teaching, only towards people.

[Anonymous No.19523115]

>muh sacred heart

We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God's body. And we neither divide the body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself , nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him far apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that 'the Word was made flesh,' we recognise Him as God also, after having come in the flesh.

- St. Athanasius

[Anonymous No.19523160]

>>19523115
That quote has nothing to do with the Sacred Heart devotion. Orthodox are not renowned for their theological acumen and this is why. Ripping random quotes from the Church Fathers that have no relevance to the topic is essentially Protestant style behavior.

If you don't understand Catholic theology it would behoove you to stay silent rather than making a fool of yourself making outlandish claims about how the sacred heart is worshipping a cretaed nature (it is not)

[Anonymous No.19523291]

>>19523160
>outlandish claims about how the sacred heart is worshipping a cretaed nature
>If you don't understand Catholic theology
Does Pope Pius XII also not understand it? He literally says in Haurietis Aquas that it is the worship of a physical heart of the incarnate Word, given the highest form of worship. The holy ecumenical councils speak of a single adoration and worship of Christ, not a worship of physical parts of His humanity. Nestorius made the exact same excuses as Pius XII by the way, in saying that the humanity of Jesus was united to the Word so it is okay to worship it. The quote is relevant as it speaks of not worshipping the body of Christ by itself, the same applies even more to parts of the body. You are defending long-refuted and anathematized heresy and haven't given a single logical argument against what I presented.

https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas.html

>That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

>22. The other reason which refers in a particular manner to the Heart of the divine Redeemer, and likewise demands in a special way that the highest form of worship be paid to it, arises from the fact that His Heart, more than all the other members of His body, is the natural sign and symbol of His boundless love for the human race. "There is in the Sacred Heart," as Our predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII, pointed out, "the symbol and express image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ which moves us to love in return."(16)

>It is of course beyond doubt that the Sacred Books never make express mention of a special worship of veneration and love made to the physical Heart of the Incarnate Word as the symbol of His burning love. [...]

> Once this essential truth has been established we understand that the Heart of Jesus is the heart of a divine Person, the Word Incarnate, and by it is represented and, as it were, placed before our gaze all the love with which He has embraced and even now embraces us. Consequently, the honor to be paid to the Sacred Heart is such as to raise it to the rank of the highest expression of Christian piety.

[Anonymous No.19523339]

>>19521184
I've just recently read the Bible and am interested in Orthodox Christianity from a traditionalist perspective. From my understanding Sepharim Rose is the go-to for this, is there a reading list for him for someone with very little knowledge in orthodoxy? That book in your picrel seems like a good start? I'm also interested in the philosophy of the trinity and good and evil if you have anything to recommend.

[Anonymous No.19523421]

>>19523339
>Fr. Seraphim Rose
Read Orthodoxy and Religion of the Future (refutation of new-age syncretism) and God's Revelation to the Human Heart, also Nihilism if you're interested in that. The Genesis book is good too, it has both a long Orthodox exposition of Genesis and a discussion of evolutionism/old-earth.
What do you mean by philosophy of the Trinity? For someone with little knowledge of Orthodoxy I'd recommend The Mystery of the Trinity in Simple Language by Priest Daniel Sysoev. It's written both for outsiders and Christians who wants to get deeper in their faith. If you want a more theological work, St. John of Damascus' Exposition of the Orthodox Faith is the go-to, it has answers to a lot of other questions in theology as well.

Good and evil is tied heavily to original sin and the fall, so I'd recommend this article and the quoted sources. It's a hard topic to understand correctly since it is very deep and touches on all areas of theology.
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/04/11/the-orthodox-doctrine-of-original-sin-a-comprehensive-treatment/

[Anonymous No.19523463]

>>19523421
Very useful anon, thank you

[Anonymous No.19523498]

>>19515699
Of course I read it in translation, I don't understand 4th century Syriac lmao

[Anonymous No.19523506]

>>19523498
I think he meant to ask which translation you read, because he wants to read it

[Anonymous No.19523509]

>>19523339
I'd recommend going to your local priest and having a discussion with him in addition to your reading - not to accuse you of anything, but I feel like it's easier to fall into the based trad redpilled epic orthobro mindset if you start with Rose as your entry point to the Church rather than something more basic, especially if you only ever see the Church through the Traditionalist lens and/or only learn about it through 4chan.

[Anonymous No.19523541]

>>19523509
That's the thing though, as I said I'm very new and don't even have a church yet. I was thinking that if I build a better understanding of orthodoxy I might have a better idea of what church I want to attend. Maybe it doesn't matter much

[Anonymous No.19523544]

>>19523509
>if you only ever see the Church through the Traditionalist lens
Traditionalism in a Christian context literally is just apostolic tradition, which is the only valid lense and which Fr. Seraphim holds to. I don't think he meant the guenonian view by traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.19523550]

>>19523541
>I might have a better idea of what church I want to attend
Fr. Seraphim's books are good then, but you need to recognize that reading is never a substitute for worship. It can act either as something to get you into worship or to deepen an already existing spiritual life.

[Anonymous No.19523554]

St Clement of Alexandria's Stromata (and Pedagogue) are a pleasant alternative critic on Gnosticism, more focused on defining true Orthodox Gnosticism as opposed to the heresies, unlike St Irenaeus of Lyons who is more concerned with describing and disproving the heresies.
He also gives an insight into early Christian mysticism, and suggests a schema that reconciles the idea of the Angel of the Lord as the Logos (like in St Justin Martyr) with the idea of the Angel of the Lord being a creature (like in St Augustine).
He also already establishes the doctrine of three-fold spiritual development (purification-illumination-deification; slave-mercenary-son...) that would appear throughout the Desert Fathers and be central to St John Climacus.

Too bad Origen went on to push Clement's teachings too far and corrupt them, turning them into unhealthy speculation at best or heresies at worst, but either way into a condemnable syncretism of Christianity and Greek philosophy.

I think St Clement of Alexandria's tripartite work (the Exhortation, the Pedagogue, the Stromata) is worth reading if one has read the Ladder of Divine Ascent, the Desert Fathers, the Ascetical Homilies... and wants to see how far back these teachings can be found. Or if one has read Irenaeus's Against Heresies and would like to see an alternate, contemporary Orthodox response to Gnosticism (which incidentally sounds more familiar to modern Orthodoxy than Against Heresies does - Clement was not a millenarian for instance, nor did he argue that Jesus had a ministry of 20 years, although he posits instead a ministry of 1 year).

[Anonymous No.19523562]

>>19523554
Better screenshot (source: Esoteric Teachings in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, by Andrew C. Itter; I don't agree with all of his analysis of Clement but I think he's correct concerning Clement's understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, Holy Spirit, angels and saints, and how this relates to the spiritual life)

[Anonymous No.19523565]

>>19523562
And I still didn't post it. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.19523670]

>>19522990
I’ve been meaning to find a physical copy before it is inevitably scrubbed from existence

[Anonymous No.19523695]

>>19523339
>I'm also interested in the philosophy of the trinity
From the Fathers, perhaps look at these:
On "Not Three Gods"
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

On the Holy Trinity
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2904.htm

St. Basil to his brother St. Gregory on the difference between hypostasis and ousia:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm

These are by no means exhaustive in any sense. Kallistos Warre has some interesting and easily digestible stuff on the Trinity in his ‘The Orthodox Way’. Vladimir Lossky’s chapter on the Trinity is pretty good too in his book on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church

[Anonymous No.19523707]

>>19511025
>What is essential Orthodox reading for the modern man?
There isn’t any such thing

[Anonymous No.19523721]

>>19523550
I can’t agree with this enough. Experiencing Orthodoxy worship is entirely different than reading about it or even hearing it on Youtube. It is probably more important to see and hear than any amount of reading, ultimately. Just think of Vladimir the Great, he converted after merely witnessing the amazing beauty of the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia

[Anonymous No.19523722]

>>19523707
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.19523748]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyhCZtYXH8k
Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.19523834]

>>19523748
I was expecting it to be cringe due to American politics but it was decent. I was glad he made a wider point. He basically hit the nail on the head when he says America has abandoned God, needs desperately to return and to repent, and that much of this modern ideology is self-centered rather than theocentric.

[Anonymous No.19523837]

>>19523748
>>19523834
Quick (I trust someone here to be more unbiased that the news) rundown on this situation for someone who is not in the USA and lives under a rock?

[Anonymous No.19523869]

>>19523837
I envy you. Basically last year there were more BLM riots in one city, and some 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse was helping guard a car lot with some other armed people. The night before had led to some other car lots and businesses being torched. Kyle was also providing medical aid to protestors and anyone who needed it, and was putting out fall fires around the area. When he was doing things like this, he was suddenly chased and attacked by a man, and this man was shot and killed when he attacked Kyle and grabbed the barrel of his gun. Earlier that night that man had appeared and told Kyle he would kill him if he caught him alone. So Kyle began trotting to the police line to get away from the concerned and angry crowd, and was suddenly attacked again. One man swung a skateboard at him, and knocked him to the ground, and when he went to attack him again, Kyle shot him in the chest, and he shot another man in the bicep who was approaching him armed with a pistol, and it was proven in court that Kyle shot him after the man had pointed the pistol at him. Two people died. Media circus ensued, and then Kyle got off on all charges innocent, and people said this was ‘White supremacy’ even though it was clearly self-defense.

Just the typical nonsense that happens constantly here in America to get the populace angry at one another and to push certain narratives to demonize White people.

[Anonymous No.19523974]

I can't see Orthodoxy as anything but the more schizophrenic version of Catholicism

[Anonymous No.19523988]

>>19523506
>>19515699
Oops, I'm a retard haha. Here's the cover

[Anonymous No.19524011]

>>19523974
Well, it is the original Catholicism. Maybe it seems weird to you because you're unfamiliar with how coherently our understanding of both Old and New Testament ties together with our worship and spirituality you see in the earliest saints.

[Anonymous No.19524044]

>>19523869
To add - this was white on white violence and Rittenhouse himself said he's not anti-BLM. The race aspect is being forced because this was at a BLM protest and people can't comprehend events that don't follow the usual narrative.

>>19523974
Well, Catholicism takes the base of Orthodoxy but establishes a more systematic and orderly theology, ecclesiology, spirituality... Protestantism takes this and doubles down on it and "democratizes" it.

[Anonymous No.19524055]

How is the Popular Patristics series? On one hand I like the presentation, the focus on an Orthodox point of view, and the release of texts that are otherwise obscure to Catholics and Protestants. On another hand, the whole collection is very expensive, so if I ever buy it I want to make sure it's worth it.

[Anonymous No.19524147]

>>19524011
>Well, it is the original Catholicism
Actually, Eastern Orthodoxy is just a schismatic sect that is no longer connected to the universal church, which is why you have priests supporting artificial contraception, etc. It's not really at all different from the long line of schismatics, including Protestants, "Old Catholics", and Sedevecantists - they all chose to stop being in communion with the seat of Peter and make a new church. It's only that the "Eastern Orthodox" were the first of these schismatic movements, and so appear very attractive to disenfranchised men who look for ancient traditions as a reactionary movement away from society's secular atheism. The Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox bodies, which are separated by schism, cannot, by definition, be the true church, because they do not have one of the fundamental markers of the true church - namely, communion with the seat of Peter, which is the seat of unity for the entire church created by Jesus Christ. It's exactly as St. Cyprian said: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4).

[Anonymous No.19524356]

>>19524147
St. Cyprian died in the 3rd century, hardly a good argument. By the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries the Western Church had steadily innovated in doctrines, unilaterally made additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, and declared the pope to be some sort of god-emperor rather than a primus inter pares figure. The next millennium or so after this has basically proved the fact that Catholics are in error, given that the pope has literally worshiped idols, and that the church is rocked by endless sex scandals, cooperation with Rothschilds, and can’t stop innovating in doctrines such as papal infallibility, Vatican II, etc. Even today they are gradually incorporating more and more Protestant-style worship. The Catholic Church can be judged by its fruits.

[Anonymous No.19524384]

>>19523869
>>19524044
As I imagined, I don't even need to follow the news anymore.
Now I guess that the current narrative is that white people are going to kill blacks unpunished in acts of racist violence because not condemning this guy set a precedent for white people being legally allowed to defend themselves.
Anyway it's not even possibile to rationalize any of this anymore isn't it? There will be more violence and things will escalate one way or the other. Dark times ahead, but I have a faint hope that people will collectively get tired of this madness and it will all peter out instead of swinging wildly from one extreme to the other.

[Anonymous No.19524400]

>>19524384
I say this because I had always ignored the sphere of religion, and although people in the West are largely irreligious, there's obviously some kind of pushback that is beginning to take root all over the world, in highly secularized countries. There's always this little ember that is there, Christianity has survived devastating historical events, and although industrialization has been more damaging to Christian doctrine that anything else so far, I think people are realizing that they need to believe in something, not just a product or a diversion or entertainment. Humanity cannot function properly without fulfilling its spiritual needs.

[Anonymous No.19524412]

>>19523544
He doesn't mean actual traditionalism, he means 4chan-branded "traditionalism." Talk to an actual priest and not just 4chan "orthobros" so you can actually be serious about your journey into the faith and not merely guided by the whims of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.19524473]

>>19524384
>>19524400
You are essentially correct. The media framed it as setting a precedent for people to take ‘vigilante’ action against rioters destroying cities. Two days after the verdict when a man plowed his car through a parade and killed six people (possibly with BLM connections, though it’s far from clear what happened right now) people on Twitter and similar sites were already declaring it ‘self-defense’ in mocking the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. The thing is, none of the people shot by Rittenhouse were even black, though it seems as if the media manipulated a large portion of the population to believe that they actually were, of course in order to push their racist narratives.

I pray that this sort of insanity is temporary. The whole world seems to have completely lost its mind ever since thinking that they are gods and do not need God, and the only possible ending is mass bloodshed, death, technocratic dystopias and a hellish world. Seraphim Rose’s book ‘Nihilism’ is the perfect encapsulation of this. I pray that this is the future we will not have to face though. Luckily I have long stopped putting hope in the world.

“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world“

[Anonymous No.19524541]

>>19524356
>St. Cyprian died in the 3rd century, hardly a good argument.
It shows that there was a clearly articulated patristic doctrine early in the first millennium that held the seat of Peter as the principle of unity of the Catholic church - and that one must be in communion with that seat to be a part of the Catholic church. There are similarly formulated statements articulated even in fathers as great as St. Irenaeus (and even earlier) - it is clearly an apostolic doctrine.
>the Western Church had steadily innovated in doctrines, unilaterally made additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed
I see that you said the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, because you acknowledge that additions to the Nicene Creed at Constantinople 381 were a valid exercise of the Church's authority, and thus did not break canon 7 of Ephesus (rendering all arguments against the filioque addition invalid).
>declared the pope to be some sort of god-emperor rather than a primus inter pares figure
The position of the fathers is clear, as you can clearly see from the 6th ecumenical council, where the letter of Pope Agatho says of the Apostolic Church of Rome, "[...] this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, this Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, [...] nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples, saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired
to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not.""
Pope Agatho clearly articulates the indefectibility of the Roman see unto eternity by virtue of the divine promise of Jesus Christ. What do the council fathers respond with?
"Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS LETTER WAS DIVINELY WRITTEN AS BY THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES".
They completely ratify everything that was said in Pope Agatho's letter, which includes the eternal indefectibility of the seat of Peter by virtue of Christ's promise. Either the council fathers were not guided by the Holy Spirit and are wrong/liars, or the Roman see has eternal indefectibility. This alone is sufficient evidence for the divine authority of the papacy, especially in addition to the teachings of the early fathers on the necessity of communion with her.

[Anonymous No.19524668]

>>19524541
>when your pope worships Pachamama and prays in mosques and says Muslims have the same God as Christians and you still post nonsense like this that has been debunked endlessly

[Anonymous No.19524712]

>>19524668
>no argument

[Anonymous No.19524723]

>>19524668
>doesn't understand that the indefectibility of the seat of Peter does not give the individual occupying the seat of Peter the power to be utterly perfect and sinless in all of their public dealings
Your hatred for the divinely instituted and eternally indefectible seat of unity of the entire Catholic church (as per the Holy Fathers) is clouding your rational judgment. Do a bit of preliminary research on the definitions of papal infallibility and the ordinary and universal magisterium, and how those two interrelate. It is quite embarrassing to demonstrate your lack of understanding on this matter publicly.

The deposit of faith, preserved and defended by the apostolic see of Peter which "remains undefiled unto the end", is what remains untainted and incorruptible. The "orthodox" patriarchs also have no problem with praying in interfaith services with pagans and Muslims. Literally almost every apostolic church has this issue. At Assisi, there were representatives of the orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, then-archbishop Methodius of Thyateira representing the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Finland and Czechoslovakia, Patriarchate of Bulgaria, Patriarchate of Romania, Patriarchate of Georgia, and Patriarchate of Kiev. No matter which Orthodox church you are in, you are being led by somebody who unrepentantly prayed with Muslims and Pagans. Every apostolic Church has the issue of being led by patriarchs who perform prayers with heretics and pagans. None of the bishops or patriarchs were deposed, nothing happened to anybody. Literally nobody is safe from ecumenism. To pretend that it is solely a Catholic issue is just deceptive.

https://youtu.be/T2XUHA3cwd4?t=6052

Plus, you didn't even respond to the patristic and ecumenical council-based arguments. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, please patiently wait for a well-equipped "orthodox" who can actually debate me to respond. You're making your side look bad.

[Anonymous No.19524743]

Any books on how the orthodox rationalize rejecting the council of Florence?

[Anonymous No.19524748]

>>19524743
The Great Schism occurred in 1054.

[Anonymous No.19524774]

>>19524743
Because it took place after 1054?

[Anonymous No.19524802]

>>19524541

>It shows that there was a clearly articulated patristic doctrine early in the first millennium that held the seat of Peter as the principle of unity of the Catholic church - and that one must be in communion with that seat to be a part of the Catholic church. There are similarly formulated statements articulated even in fathers as great as St. Irenaeus (and even earlier) - it is clearly an apostolic doctrine.

The Eastern Orthodox don't seem to think that it matters whether bishops are in communion with each other. This is why they're in an interminable state of full and partial schism amongst themselves. In fact, the true Church is one - not only one around one bishop, but universally one, with all of the bishops in communion with each other.

Once you admit this, you see that there must be a center of unity. And there is no other see that has ever filled this role but Rome, the see of Peter. Ignatius wrote of Rome "presiding over" the other Churches in the early 2nd century... not to mention all of the testimonies of Eastern fathers.

[Anonymous No.19524884]

>>19524723
What if you just detest the Catholic liturgy? This is a massive issue because liturgy is supposed to be important, solemn and beautiful, and when you change it so dramatically then there's this implication that all the traditional liturgy that was done so painstakingly before was never actually very important, and the whole thing was just a little show. Then why not have a rock concert with naked cheerleaders if it's meaningless? This is repulsive to anyone who is actually somewhat spiritual instead of just afraid of death. This is the greatest gripe I have with the Catholic Church. I can't blame Vatican II because liturgy was already degrading over the years, but it is kind of sad that Catholics expect to get all the people who are leaving back on a sinking ship with the same tired argument about legacy. You ask Catholics to go by sola fide not even in the Bible but in an obviously decadent institution. Catholicism needs to roll back if it wants to survive the next decades.

[Anonymous No.19524940]

>>19524884
>What if you just detest the Catholic liturgy?
I am a firm supporter of attending the liturgy which inspires one's reverence to God the most. Attending an Eastern Catholic parish will allow you to attend the exact same Divine Liturgy as the Eastern "orthodox" parishes, with the only difference being the cosmically-accurate re-inclusion of prayers for the bishop of Rome. You don't even need to change rites officially if born as a Latin Catholic, because the universal nature of our church means we can partake in communion in any Catholic parish (unlike the Russians and Greeks in "orthodoxy", who deny communion to one another). They are always happy to receive new guests, and indeed it makes them very happy that their ancient traditions are honoured and sought out by their Latin brethren.
> This is repulsive to anyone who is actually somewhat spiritual instead of just afraid of death
It's important to understand that many Gen X'ers and boomers who grew up with the Novus Ordo mass derive immense spiritual pleasure and benefit from it, even if those who crave ancient liturgical rites find it irreverent. The most important thing is that it is a liturgically and canonically valid mass in which one can partake in the blessed Body of the Lord, and that people who enjoy it can attend it.
>Catholicism needs to roll back if it wants to survive the next decades.
The Catholic church will survive until the actual end of the world, as was promised by Jesus Christ. The church built upon the rock of St. Peter shall never be overcome by the gates of Hell.

[Anonymous No.19524952]

>>19524884

I don't understand this idea that the "novus ordo" liturgy is somehow irreverent.

1.) The mass is said with reverence, at least where I am. You could hear a pin drop during consecration. Everyone is praying along with the priest, most people even sing. Even if there are "bad masses" they're being said wrong and the problem is with the priest, not the rite itself.

2.) Latin mass is if anything significantly less reverent in feeling. Most of the prayers are not even audible. You're just sitting there, hopefully praying to yourself, or maybe clumsily trying to follow along in a missal, or daydreaming. You don't even know when the host has been consecrated if not for the ringing of the bells.

3.) The first church services were in the vernacular. It's clearly, on the face of it, a misstep to have communal worship in a language that nobody speaks and mostly in silence. The "novus ordo" mass is based on the liturgy of Hippolytus which is from the 3rd century.

I'm not a "liberal" whatsoever. I just think this notion that the Latin mass is more reverent, or more historical, or more real, or more anything, is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19525032]

>>19524940
>I am a firm supporter of attending the liturgy which inspires one's reverence to God the most.
This doesn't stand and it's the typical Catholic "everything goes as long as you nod to the Pope".
>It's important to understand that many Gen X'ers and boomers who grew up with the Novus Ordo mass
I don't know about Africa but Catholic churches are emptying out everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.19525212]

>>19525032
>This doesn't stand
What are you even arguing here? What "doesn't stand" about Catholicism having liturgical variety that its members are allowed to participate in?
>it's the typical Catholic "everything goes as long as you nod to the Pope".
You aren't really making an argument here. Churches which accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome are allowed to maintain their liturgical traditions, yes. Do you expect Catholics in Jerusalem to celebrate mass exclusively in Latin, or something?
>I don't know about Africa but Catholic churches are emptying out everywhere else.
Are you deciding which Church was divinely created by Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter by whether or not they are "emptying out"? Does choosing the one true Church based upon worldly concerns like "popularity" seem like a good strategy?

[Anonymous No.19525275]

>>19524356
>St. Cyprian died in the 3rd century, hardly a good argument.
"He's old so what he says doesn't matter"
Didn't think I'd see this argument coming from an Orthodox.

>By the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries the Western Church had steadily innovated in doctrines
The Eastern Church got crushed and withered away into irrelevancy completely and utterly giving up on the great commission. If history is indication of the true Church then the Orthodox Church cannot be it because it failed the task given to it.

[Anonymous No.19525288]

>>19524802
Cathcucks are incapable of not using anachronisms
Dude, until Constantine, the Roman church was run on lines closer with the Presbyterian model
After Constantine, things consolidated somewhat but Augustine could still tell the pope to fuck off when he tried to intervene in African affairs
Monarchic papacy is solely the consequence of the pope essentially becoming king of Rome in the middle ages and even then, he didn't go imperial until the high middle ages when the God as loanshark became the running model in the west
>>19525275
I guess we come to one conclusion then
The evangelicals and the Pentecostals are right because they have been growing at a faster pace than any religion in recorded history in the last two hundred years

[Anonymous No.19525293]

>>19524723
>Catholics have historically tortured and murdered people that didn't convert to catholicism
>Razed Constaninople and many other Eastern cities like barbarians
>genocided the Orthodox that refused to convert in Croatia during WW2
>Monasticism is dead, most monks and nuns are basically just unmarried teachers or nurses now
>Frequently attribute demonic delusions as holy miracles
>List of 20th and 21st century saints is extremely uninspiring
>One head of the Church, Jesus Christ, not the pope

[Anonymous No.19525305]

>>19525288
>The evangelicals and the Pentecostals are right
They lack Apostolic Succession. There is only one Church on Earth that has valid Apostolic Succession and succeeded in the mission to spread the gospel to all corners of the Earth and that's the Catholic Church. There is no Orthodox cope that can be used to deflect this fact, nor can any Orthodox explain why God would allow a corrupted faith to be spread to all nations while the true faith sits in a tiny corner of Eastern Europe getting raped by Muslims for three centuries.

If Orthodoxy was the true faith Christ would've founded a Monastery, not a Church because the Orthodox are good at navel gazing but not much else.

[Anonymous No.19525323]

>>19525293
>Razed Constaninople and many other Eastern cities like barbarians
Shouldn't have massacred the Latins Orthobro. The fact the Orthodox East has had the Latin Wests foot up its ass for various crimes and heresies for most of history isn't really a point against us. Remind me, Nestorius was Bishop of what city? Orthodox history is heretical Bishop after heretical Bishop getting smacked into line by the Popes over and over.

[Anonymous No.19525327]

>>19525305
Again, Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism spread at a much faster pace all over the world
Even in Latin America, half the Catholic preachers had to drop the liberation larp and copy the Pentecostals to even hope to compete
Are we to assume that Pentecostalism is the one true church?
>Muh apostolic succession
Anachronistic meme
You're incapable of understanding context
If Peter was so important then why did he have no actual effect on the Christians of Rome after he arrived there?

[Anonymous No.19525386]

>>19525323
Until the popes allowed pride to take control causing Rome (1) to separate (schism, an enormous sin that the early church sought to avoid, a sin which has had enormous consequences such as protestantism and this sort of bickering) from Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem (4).

>>19525305
>Putting worldly glory ahead of communion with God

[Anonymous No.19525425]

[Anonymous No.19525554]

>>19525386
Maximus the Confessor outright told the Eastern Church thr Filioque was completely fine and orthodox as the Western Church understood it and got martyred for it. The Orthodox then took it and used it as a wedge to play political games with. The Orthodox still put worldly politics above anything else to this day, look at Russia pressuring Ukraine.

[Anonymous No.19525575]

>>19525293
>the actions of people within the church indicate that the church itself is corrupt
>it doesn't matter that the fathers of the 6th ecumenical council declared that the Roman see was indefectible unto eternity and that the Pope's writings were "divinely written as by the chief of the apostles"
Either you believe the fathers of the ecumenical councils were devoid of the Holy Spirit and thus led into error on behalf of the whole church, or you are a schismatic who is refusing to accept the teachings of the ecumenical councils. Either way, your beliefs are contrary to the constant teaching of the church created by Jesus Christ.
>Frequently attribute demonic delusions as holy miracles
And if your opinion on these miracles are wrong, and you falsely attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to demons, you will die guilty of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
>List of 20th and 21st century saints is extremely uninspiring
Again, your personal opinions are not really relevant in whether or not the Catholic church is the church built upon the rock of St. Peter that the gates of Hell will not prevail against.
>One head of the Church, Jesus Christ, not the pope
Do you think that we believe Jesus Christ is not the head of the church? Our ecclesial hierarchy is easy to understand, just Google it or something.
>>19525327
>Muh apostolic succession
Imagine going this hard against a doctrine taught by the successors of the apostles. Read Against Heresies, and the epistles of apostolic fathers like Clement, and maybe you will have a more informed take. Could it be more obvious that you do not subscribe to the same faith as the apostles and their successors?
>>19525386
>causing Rome to separate
Again, this is incoherent ecclesiologically. One defining characteristic of the one, true church is communion with the eternally indefectible seat of Peter, as per the Fathers. Thus, anybody who leaves communion with the seat of Peter would be the ones who "separated" from the one, true church, and not vice versa. See: >>19524541

[Anonymous No.19525593]

>>19511025
When people come in these threads and start saying things like "I was born Orthodox in an Orthodox country and it is so cringe seeing all these Westerners converting to Orthodoxy because they ruin it" it's almost always a Roman Catholic at the keyboard. They are desperate to perpetuate the myth that Orthodoxy is ONLY for certain ethnicities and not for the whole world.

[Anonymous No.19525627]

>>19516154
You can keep peddling this lie but no matter how many people fall for it, it will never be true. The Orthodox Church in Russia survived the second greatest persecution in world history under the Soviets while retaining it's grace, and those who fell under government influence or collaboration are ousted as Sergian heretics. The Orthodox Church works with Putin insofar as he aids the Church though they have not been hesitant to condemn those policies of Putin's that are anti-Christian.

[Anonymous No.19525631]

>>19512598
Fr. Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology" is great and should be read long before Lossky

[Anonymous No.19525634]

>>19525593
It’s definitely a false flag. I was nervous before I went to an Orthodox Church because of the memes online about this, but it was the exact opposite almost

[Anonymous No.19525646]

>>19518096
If you've ever read the Book of Acts you would know that there was a Council in Jerusalem held by the Apostles. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles and Councils were established in the Bible as the means of solving disputes

[Anonymous No.19525656]

>>19518265
Veneration of the Saints is in both the Old and New Testament but because you interpret Scripture however you choose and not by the beliefs of those writing it you miss this.

[Anonymous No.19525677]

>>19525593
>They are desperate to perpetuate the myth that Orthodoxy is ONLY for certain ethnicities and not for the whole world
Dismissing orthodox ethnocentrism as a myth might sound good in your head, but to actually believe it, you must have no knowledge of orthodox politics. A Greek Orthodox man who decides to live in Russia literally cannot partake in communion at a Russian Orthodox church. The churches are hopelessly divided on petty national-political lines, which leads to geopolitically motivated moves like the Moscow -Constantinopolitan schism. The problem is not that Americans can't join Orthodox churches - the problem is that the Orthodox churches that they join are in and of themselves hopelessly divided. The same paranoid and rebellious spirit that caused the Great Schism continues to operate today in the Orthodox world, leading to the "leaders of world orthodoxy" to toothlessly accuse one another of caesaropapism.

[Anonymous No.19525693]

>>19525677
I bet you think you're really intelligent in your head, really keyed-in who knows whats really going on. But you're not, you're foolish, you know nothing, and your foot is in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.19525701]

>>19520187
The frenzy that heretics fly into by the mere sight of the True Faith is doubtlessly demonic. It was the father of lies who led their "churches" to wander astray, it is the father of lies who keeps them separated from the Truth.

[Anonymous No.19525709]

>>19525693
>no argument
Sorry I hurt your fee-fees with easily accessible facts that anybody can look up. If you don't have an argument, and don't have a question, don't bother responding to me.

[Anonymous No.19525711]

>>19520239
Christ tells us not to pray in "vain repetitions" and then in the next chapter teaches us the "Our Father" prayer which, in the Protestant worldview because it is a pre-written and recited prayer, is a "vain repetition". It is hilarious that they claim to be the only ones who read the Bible because a child can read Scripture and see how it contradicts Protestants.

[Anonymous No.19525725]

>>19525709
>no argument
You can't reply with an argument to a non-argument. You did not pose an argument, you repeated several assumptions which we refute every single time one of your kind slides into this thread. You and all your kin are sophists, you don't care for the truth. You repeatedly launch the same, tired lies, slither away when you're refuted and come back the next day launching the same lies. You're not worth it.

[Anonymous No.19525739]

>>19523006
>>19523039
You both are heretics. Go and find a single Orthodox bishop in the world today with no anathemas against him who says the Sacred Heart is fine.

[Anonymous No.19525745]

It's all so tiresome. Catholics and Protestants both see this thread and rage, they come in here either attacking Orthodoxy or pretending to be Orthodoxy so as to subvert it. It is understandable because demons rage against the Light, but it is nevertheless tiresome.

[Anonymous No.19525771]

>Prots and Catholics ITT

[Anonymous No.19525775]

>>19525725
>You did not pose an argument,
I've made quite a few in this thread, and so far not a single "orthodox" has responded to them at all. The argument I made in this post (>>19525677) that you failed to respond to is, obviously, that the inability for Greeks to partake in communion at Russian churches because of geopolitical issues regarding Ukraine (that coincidentally align with the Russian government's political position on Ukraine) is an indicator that the eastern "orthodox" churches are divided along national-political lines, contrary to your post here (>>19525593).
If you couldn't see that, perhaps you should spend less time formulating lies and ad-hominem attacks, and instead deal with the actual arguments presented? While you're at it, how about becoming the first to respond to this argument (>>19524541)?
By the way, get vaccinated as the Russian Governme- I mean, Russian Orthodox Church demands, or else you will have to repent forever. You do want to be a good Russi- I mean, a good "Catholic", right? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/05/vaccinate-or-repent-forever-russian-orthodox-church-warns-a74430

Surely, if I am just a sophistic liar, you should be able to easily refute me, which will show all of the lurkers that the Orthodox church is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. Unless...?
>>19525745
If hatred against a church is the measure of whether it is true or not, you should be rejoining the Catholic church soon. Unless you think the eastern "orthodox" churches receive anywhere near the same level of hatred from the world as Catholics do?

[Anonymous No.19526039]

Yesterday I got my first icon and now I put it up. I also took out my Catholic prayer beads, and looking at Christ I said "forgive me, I make do with this" and the thing fell apart...

[Anonymous No.19526077]

>>19526039
Those beads were condemned hard I’d say

[Anonymous No.19526471]

>>19525554
If there was to be a schism it shouldve been done in an ecumenical council to clearly define what was happening and why.

This was not the case, Rome unilaterally anethematized everyone else, this is clearly not a proper or correct course of action.

Now we see Rome producing newer and newer dogmas, they have become horribly legalistic and have tried to compact God and His activities into the confines of human reason systematically defined and now are even rejecting ancient saints and so forth

[Anonymous No.19526520]

Thank you to the RCs for making me more firm in the belief that your doctrine is of the demons. It's like a form of atheism, anyone willing to know the truth would immediately leave it.

[Anonymous No.19526554]

Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicism? The obvious answer is of course that you think it's the truth, but what makes one truer than the other?

[Anonymous No.19526556]

>>19526471
>Rome unilaterally anethematized everyone else, this is clearly not a proper or correct course of action
The Roman Catholic Church has never been wrong. It can’t be wrong. Dictatus Papae. You are outside the Church. Enjoy Hell.

[Anonymous No.19526561]

>>19526471
>>>19525554
>If there was to be a schism it shouldve been done in an ecumenical council to clearly define what was happening and why.
Just like how the Russian and Greek Orthodox initiated their schism through an ecumenical council, right? The double standards you guys will uphold just to deny the divinely instituted seat of unity are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.19526580]

>>19526471
>If there was to be a schism it shouldve been done in an ecumenical council to clearly define what was happening and why.
Just like how the Russian and Greek Orthodox initiated their schism through an ecumenical council, right? The mental gymnastics you guys have to perform just to deny the divinely instituted seat of unity are ridiculous.
>they have become horribly legalistic
You mean like the legal structure of canons and anathemas as proclaimed at the ecumenical councils? Yes.
>and have tried to compact God and His activities into the confines of human reason systematically defined
If you think that theological systematizing is abhorrent, I look forward to your condemnation of Palamas.
>now are even rejecting ancient saints and so forth
What ancient saints do we reject?

>>19526520
>i can't refute any arguments
>but i'm still right, because.... because i am, okay??????

[Anonymous No.19526586]

>>19526554
Orthodoxy doesn’t change radically over the centuries like Catholics have and continue to do. Things like papal supremacy, doctrinal innovations (filioque, etc), legalistic and overly rationalistic theologizing, the fruits of the church itself, etc. have all led me to conclude that RCs are astray from their origins. Even many Catholics I know IRL have told me these things, and have lamented the changes and introduction of Protestant-esque styles of worship in some cases. Orthodoxy doesn’t suffer from any of this. Plus it represents Christianity at its most beautiful, spiritual and mystical.

[Anonymous No.19526595]

Weird how the Orthodox posters in this thread act like real human beings while all of the Protestants and Catholics are over-the-top and aggressive tradlarpers

[Anonymous No.19526634]

>>19526586
>papal supremacy
Constant teaching of the Church Fathers.
>(filioque
As taught by Maximus and Clement of Alexandria, constant teaching of the Church Fathers.
>legalistic
The church has always dealt with canon law, canons, etc.
>overly rationalistic theologizing
Your personal preferences on theological styles do not determine what type of theology is the only acceptable kind. Many fathers used logic and rationality to make arguments against heretics.
>Even many Catholics I know IRL have told me these things
Who cares?
>Orthodoxy doesn’t suffer from any of this.
Because you are LARPing as a member of the Catholic church as it was in the 11th century, forgetting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth until the end of time. You're in a dinghy, while the actual boat sails on.
>Plus it represents Christianity at its most beautiful, spiritual and mystical.
The Catholic tradition contains everything the "orthodox" tradition has, and more. Eastern Catholic churches are literally you, except superior in every way - the most important way being, of course, a member of the church of Jesus Christ, marked by being in communion with the eternally indefectible and divinely instituted principle of unity, the seat of Peter, as was taught by /your own saints and ecumenical councils/.

[Anonymous No.19526647]

>>19526586
>Even many Catholics I know IRL have told me these things, and have lamented the changes and introduction of Protestant-esque styles of worship in some cases.
We must know each other IRL
I've been looking deeper into Orthodoxy, and I like what I've seen. I've never much liked the idea of Papal Supremacy

[Anonymous No.19526651]

>>19526556
>Enjoy hell
Yes, I am convinced you have the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19526679]

>>19526595
I'm convinced. I'm a born again Ortholarper. Thank you for guiding me to the truth, prAutists and tradcaths.

[Anonymous No.19526682]

>>19526651
The Roman church doesn't care about the Holy Spirit because it only wants the clergy to be graced with it.

[Anonymous No.19526694]

>>19526634
>Constant teaching of the Church Fathers.
Not true.
>As taught by Maximus and Clement of Alexandria, constant teaching of the Church Fathers.
Nope. And even with these copes, it’s a unilateral addition to the creed that risks one confusing their understanding of the Trinity. It was taught by some that the Spirit is *through* the Son, not begotten from the Father *and* the Son. Don’t even bother quoting the ‘principaliter’ and ‘per donum Patris’ stuff, I’m already aware of it. It’s potentially not as big of an issue as some say, but it’s a problem.
>The church has always dealt with canon law, canons, etc.
Not even what I’m talking about.
>Who cares?
Actual practicing Catholics and not LARPers on 4chan, evidently!
>Because you are LARPing as a member of the Catholic church as it was in the 11th century, forgetting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth until the end of time
Crypto-progressive rhetoric here. Implying that the Apostles didn’t have the fullness of Truth with your tired ‘muh seminal doctrine’ nonsense

>>19526647
Check out this: >>19525425. Also, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick has a good podcast ‘Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy’ on Ancient Faith Ministries. Several episodes addressing Catholicism

[Anonymous No.19526747]

>>19526694
>Not true.
A doctrine that not only has scriptural support, not only has support in the ecumenical councils, but appears as early as St. Clement of Rome, and in such patristic heavyweights as St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian of Carthage, is not early and widespread enough for you? I wonder how early and constant a teaching is required for you to accept, for example, the principle of the pentarchy?
>it’s a unilateral addition to the creed
Just like the Constantinopolitan additions. There is literally nothing wrong with the filioque, and as you admitted, it is not an issue at all when understood properly (which obviously requires theological training). The text from the Union of Brest makes this obvious to anybody thinking rationally: "Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son". If you understand that some Fathers advocated for a qualified filioque, and Rome even grants the concession that you don't have to include it in your recitation, because we both agree that the procession is from the Father THROUGH the Son.
>Not even what I’m talking about.
Your critiques are based on your personal preferences, which is fine, but they have no place in a conversation on which church is the true church.
>Actual practicing Catholics and not LARPers on 4chan, evidently!
Your baseless accusation that I am a non-practicing Catholic is Satanic slander and lies, as God Himself as my witness knows. If you don't repent for this sin against truth and charity committed against both me and God, you will die with a stain the mortal sin on your soul. This is 4Chan, there is obviously room for playful discourse and jokes, but as somebody who actually wants you to go to heaven (which is why I am even having this discussion in "enemy territory"), I strongly advise you as a brother in Christ to apologize and repent of this. I will forgive you.
>Crypto-progressive rhetoric here. Implying that the Apostles didn’t have the fullness of Truth with your tired ‘muh seminal doctrine’ nonsense
You didn't actually make a point/argument here.

If you are going to be tempted into mortal sin by this discourse, it will be better if we conclude it amicably. I mean no ill-will. To all who are able to discuss these things level-headedly and with an honest, logical rebuttal to arguments, please respond to the argument made here >>19524541.

[Anonymous No.19526764]

>>19525593
Because it's true

[Anonymous No.19526782]

>>19526747
>If you are going to be tempted into mortal sin by this discourse, it will be better if we conclude it amicably. I mean no ill-will

[Anonymous No.19526798]

>>19526747
>To all who are able to discuss these things level-headedly and with an honest, logical rebuttal to arguments, please respond to the argument made here

[Anonymous No.19526855]

>>19526798
>>19526782
>don't respond to his arguments

[Anonymous No.19527009]

>>19526855
>posting basedjacks
Go back

[Anonymous No.19527066]

>>19523070
>And I don't really see how taking a body part of Christ and exalting it separately can be orthodox

>>19523093
>It's very telling that those who support heart-worship never have an argument for their innovative belief

Eastern Orthodox icons "divide Christ up and worship different parts of him" by illustrating only his face. Thus the criticism made of Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart can be equally applied to Eastern Orthodox icons. Pic related.

As well, the devotion to the Sacred Heart was and is practiced by many Byzantine Catholics - it was most popular among the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Soviet Yoke, such as Bl. Paul Gojdicz and others. Patriarch Joseph the Confessor was especially devoted to the Sacred Hearts and insisted on placing prayers to them in his prayer book.

In addition, devotion to the Heart of Christ IS practiced in Orthodoxy, but not in the way it is in the West.

In the East, there are references to the Wounded Side of Christ in the Octoechos, the liturgical collection of hymns and canons for the variable portions of the Divine Liturgy and the Hours.

Orthodox Saints in BOTH the Kyivan and Greek traditions venerated the Heart of Christ. St Dmitri of Rostov was such a one and St Nicholas Cabasilas was another (in fact, St Vladimir's Seminary, in publishing a Foreword to Cabasilas' work on the Divine Liturgy HAD to admit the Saint's references to the Head and Heart of Christ - but also added that this was different from the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the West).

Orthodox often kiss the edge of the Chalice after receiving Holy Communion to venerate the Wounded Side of Christ as well.

[Anonymous No.19527152]

LARP’er general

[Anonymous No.19527816]

>>19526580
No I mean the way the priests handle confession

>Rattle off a bulleted list of sins and insert 3 Hail Mary coins and 10 Our Father coins for forgiveness

[Anonymous No.19527882]

Thoughts on David Bentley Hart and his NT translation, as well as other writings?

[Anonymous No.19528005]

>>19527882
David Bentley Hart is the greatest living Orthodox theologian at the moment.

[Anonymous No.19528035]

>>19528005
>David Bentley Hart is the greatest living Orthodox theologian at the moment.

[Anonymous No.19528071]

>>19524011
>>19524044
Thank you for giving me a helpful reply.

[Anonymous No.19528075]

>>19528005
>>19527882
He's someone who gets a vocal fanbase online because he says outrageous things and has an aesthetic. Similar to Jay Dyer even if their fanbases anathematize each other. Although Hart is really only concerned with the circle of academics, whole Dyer goes and scraps attention from YouTube and Discord.
I think they both demonstrate a common flaw of reading too much Orthodox texts and not practicing Orthodoxy enough to understand said texts. So they end up being extremely knowledgeable, intellectual powerhouses, but the compassion of the scriptures and the saints that they read gets lost on them and so they themselves fail to represent them well.
Just my opinion of course, as I don't know their actual spiritual lives, nor have I read a fraction of what they have. But in general I'm not a fan.

Hart's New Testament translation is fine though. It tries hard, and IMO succeeds, to convey the text in a way the original audience would have understood it, without all the Nicean-Chalcedonian-Protestant theological baggage that strongly colors every English translation out there. It helps to understand why saints and heretics alike could understand the text to support their doctrines, when from the perspective of the NKJV for instance the Orthodox reading seems evident and the Arian, Origenist, Adoptionist... readings look completely absurd.
The translation also tries to convey better the tone, pacing, voice... of the individual texts, down to rendering questionable Greek into questionable English.
I'd say it's a refreshing take on the scriptures and a pleasure to read.

For edification, I find Fr Stephen de Young's analysis of the 1st century Church and how it is wholly Orthodox very interesting. It's his "Whole Counsel of God" blog but he condensed it into a book, "The Religion of the Apostles". Even shines a light on how we as Orthodox Christians follow the Law.

[Anonymous No.19528104]

It's the fast of the Nativity.
Ignore belligerent posters.
Make sure you pray everyday; even if you mess up your prayer rule because you're bedridden or you haven't figured it out yet, at least remember our Lord Jesus Christ and say the Jesus Prayer.

How good do you think A Monk from the Eastern Church's book "The Jesus Prayer" is? I read it and remember finding it interesting yet I don't actually remember any of it. I've been thinking of rereading it one of these days.

[Anonymous No.19528119]

>>19527882
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R17DNEQ2DC07CS/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300186096
This negative review is very, very long.

[Anonymous No.19528162]

>>19527882
He's a false teacher who is going to hell if he doesn't repent of his errors.

[Anonymous No.19528194]

>>19528119
I appreciate the criticism, and it's true that some of Hart's reasoning is frankly contrived. It feels like he thinks theologically but understands it philosophically and thinks that makes him an academic authority.
However, I think this reviewer missed the point a bit:
>Hart succumbs to the etymological fallacy that what a word is composed of and what it used to mean are the keys to its current meaning.
A fallacy that was extremely normative for the Greeks of the time, who did understand their own language this way and so didn't shy away from re-interpreting their own words with some etymological theories that are bonkers by modern standards but made sense to them so as to establish a rich interweaving of symbolism with language, and even history, ethics...
The point again being to translate the NT so that it would sound to a modern English audience like it sounded to the contemporary Judeo-Greco-Roman Christian audience.

[Anonymous No.19528242]

>>19526634
>The Catholic tradition contains everything the "orthodox" tradition has, and more.
like Pachamama, yeah

[Anonymous No.19528243]

Where does the Orthodox Church stand on evolution and the age of the earth?

[Anonymous No.19528261]

>>19528243
Orthodox can only intepret Holy Scripture in accordance with the consensus of the holy fathers. It's easy to see what their thought is on Genesis, on non-existence of death before the fall of Adam and on the age/duration of the creation week.

Any other answer is basically protestantistic cope which always devolves into subjective interpretation of Holy Scripture.

[Anonymous No.19528361]

>>19511025
thank goodness I almost didn't have the time to post this eerily exact meme

[Anonymous No.19528500]

>>19528243
Death did not exist before Adam. Death was caused by the fall. See canon 109 of Carthage 419.
The Byzantine calendar was based on the age of the world per the Septuagint, which would make the current year >7530.
And the saints always accepted something around this chronology. This includes a literal 6-day creation for many. But some did not consider the 6 days to be literal, some interpreting them as a literary device to put some order and pattern in creation which culminates with man on the sixth day, but really God made everything instantly because why would it take Him a week to create? This is St Augustine's position. St Irenaeus, on another hand, sees the six days of creation as really being a prophecy of the whole history of the world, with the principle that one day equals 1000 years.
To be kept in mind, though, is Augustine's principle that Christians should not reject science, else they make us look like fools to the pagans, but rather the observable world should be embraced as a divine revelation in itself and those with discernment will see how the Bible and science are in agreement.
The saints did not deny evolution... they were not aware of such a theory. They strongly rejected the pagan ideas that the world is thousands and millions of years old (even eternal) and that the Torah is posterior to the philosophers and steals from them. So they had much interest in devising a chronology where these claims are falsified. I'm not sure they would take the same approach today considering that the claimed age of the world is not a religious claim.

In any case, I've seen a variety of views, and that's from clergy. That the patristic chronology is essentially correct; that the six "days" of creation refer to "eras" so that it can still amount to billions of years; that regardless of the literal meaning, what matters is the spiritual reading which is that God made the world as His own temple and man is appointed as priest; that the world before the flood and the world after the flood are essentially not the same thing and so the Bible only really gets into history as we know it with the story of Abraham... In general it doesn't feel like I've seen this topic brought up too much by either clergy or laypeople though, scientific theories hardly enter people's minds and it's not a big deal to them whether the world is old or young anyway. Nevermind the major implications this would have on our faith if either theory is true...

[Anonymous No.19528564]

>>19528500
>The saints did not deny evolution.
There are many modern saints denouncing it, St. Paisios for example and St. Joseph the Hesychast who felt a stench from a person who held to this view. Many early saints also deny the presuppositions necessary for evolutionism, that substances of irrational animals can change into something else, that death existed before the fall and so on. Also St. Augustine believed in six day creation, from his book on Genesis:

>But someone will surely ask: did everything happen outside of time, as it was said outside of time, for time is inapplicable to the Word, coeternal with the Father? It is clear that such an understanding is unacceptable, because in the Scriptures after the creation of light and its separation from darkness it is clearly said: “And there was evening and there was morning: one day” (Gen. 1: 5). Hence it can be seen that this action of God was performed during the day, at the end of which, in the evening, there came that which serves as the beginning of the night, and at the end of the night the whole day was fulfilled, so that the morning of the next day came, on which God performed the following (His creation).

[Anonymous No.19528570]

>>19528500
>St Irenaeus, on another hand, sees the six days of creation as really being a prophecy of the whole history of the world, with the principle that one day equals 1000 years
Not really, he says that some people believe that Adam died in year 1000 and shows how this view symbolically still makes God's words true. Earlier in the same quote he says Christ dies on Friday because Adam died spiritually on Friday, and similarly he ties other days of Christ's passion to the creation week.

>So, they died on the very day that they ate and became indebted to death, because the day of creation is one. For it is said: “there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Gen. 1: 5). And on that very day that they ate, that day they died. In accordance with the circle and course of days, according to which one is called the first, the other - the second, and the other - the third day, if anyone wants to thoroughly find out in which of the seven days Adam died, he will know this from the dispensation of the Lord. For, restoring the whole person in Himself from beginning to end, He repeated his death as well. Therefore, it is obvious that the Lord, obeying the Father, accepted death on the day on which Adam died, disobedient to God. On the same day he died, that day he tasted it. For God said: "On the day you eat of it, you will die a death." Restoring this day in Himself, the Lord came to suffering on the day before Saturday, that is, on the sixth day of creation on which man was created - through His suffering, granting him a new creation, that is, (liberation) from death.

>Some still believe the death of Adam in the thousandth year; for since “the day of the Lord is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3: 8), he did not overstep a thousand years, but died within it, fulfilling the sentence for the crime. So, whether in relation to disobedience, which is death, or because from that time on they were put to death and became its debtors, or in relation to the same day on which they ate and died, since one day of creation, or regarding the flow of days, since they died on the same day on which they ate, that is, on Friday, which is called a clean supper, that is, on the sixth day, which the Lord pointed out having suffered on that day (9), or because he did not step over a thousand years, but died within it, - in all respects God turns out to be true, for those who ate of the tree died, but the serpent was a liar and a murderer, as the Lord says about him: truth "

[Anonymous No.19528636]

>>19528500
I understand from the rose posters that Augustine is a bit controversial. But am I correct in understanding you can be in good standing without undermining he faith even if you believe in evolution and the “old” earth ?

And thank you for the effort posting btw

[Anonymous No.19528689]

>>19528636
>believe in evolution without undermining the faith
Only with extreme mental gymnastics. I see no way to believe in evolution without also believing in already condemned views. How in your view does evolutionism work with no death before the fall? It presupposes that God created death before sin and that Adam is a result of death. It's crypto-gnosticism essentially.

With old earth there's less overt mental gymnastics, but upon closer inspection you still go against the authority of ecumenical councils which dictate (specifically canon 19 of Trullo and the VI ecumenical council) that Holy Scripture is only to be interpreted in accordance with consensus patrum. So it's crypto-protestantism. With either belief you stray into heresy even though the belief itself might not be explicitly condemned (yet).

"And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment."

[Anonymous No.19528739]

>>19528689

I guess it would need to be through looking at the what is meant by death. Kind of like how we believe plants live and die without this same apparent contradiction existing when it comes plants and hence vegetables being eaten as food prior to the fall. But I guess that would fall into your second issue of private interpretation.

Secondly and I won’t continue this beyond this question as I don’t want to derail things but what do you see as being the fault in the theory of evolution/ the point that hasn’t been demonstrated in it? Or is it a more of a faith based matter in that it fails to align with the fathers and bible and hence must be wrong.

[Anonymous No.19528751]

>>19528739
>t what do you see as being the fault in the theory of evolution/ the point that hasn’t been demonstrated in it?
For me it is purely spiritual, evolution contradicts revelation which I know to be true, so I can never believe in it. I'm sure if I was to investigate the paradigm itself it would break apart too, some other anons above mentioned studying it from a more philosophical perspective, maybe they can elaborate on this. Evolutionism and old earth has certain unprovable philosophical presuppositions which when questioned (uniformity of nature before and after the fall) make it stand on extremely shaky grounds.

[Anonymous No.19528757]

>>19528564
>>19528570
I stand corrected, thank you.
Although AFAIK the modern saints' issue with evolution is also with the antichrist, Darwinian philosophy that was taught together with it inseparably.
Do they comment anything in particular not on evolution itself but on other scientific theories like the age of the world (or the Earth), the speed of light...? I haven't read modern saints, honestly. I'm currently reading the Ascetical Homilies of St Isaac the Syrian at a slow pace. I would like to know their arguments exactly though.

>>19528636
St Augustine is sadly much defamed in the Orthodox world. I am aware that Fr Seraphim defended him. But Augustine did say some things that later Western Christians interpreted in a heterodox manner (the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, original sin as inherited guilt, free will basically playing no part in salvation). On the topic of free will and grace at least, Augustine was controversial even in the eyes of other saints like John Cassian and Vincent of Lerins.
But it remains up in the air whether Augustine actually meant these things in the sense that Catholics and Protestants would later understand; and if he did, whether he meant them as the apostolic tradition he received or merely his personal speculation; and either way, whether these teachings are acceptable theologoumena or major errors that should be hidden from sight out of respect for the saint. Some of the tradest of the trad want to say he's not a saint at all or even that he is a heresiarch, but that's plain absurd.
Augustine is without a doubt a saint, even praised by one of the Ecumenical Councils. But in the East he was well known for his holy life and his fight against Pelagianism, not for his exact doctrines on the Trinity and on grace, and so there's a tangible discomfort when seeing Catholicism and Protestantism as the fruits of these things. Some Orthodox try to reclaim Augustine as a fully Orthodox teacher who was misunderstood centuries later, some respect him more for his holy life (like the "Confessions") than for his theological content, and some don't really hesitate to blast him for single-handedly, even if accidentally, tearing the Church apart for centuries (Fr John Rommanides, Fr Placide Deseille...).

I've met more Orthodox who either defended an old Earth or at least were fine with it, than not. There are perfectly canonical Orthodox who defend a young Earth tooth and nail, and perfectly canonical Orthodox who defend an old Earth tooth and nail, and most people are probably agnostic on the topic and don't feel that it impacts their faith either way. Personally I trust the universe is old because we can observe celestial objects billions of light-years away from us, and I'm still in the middle of reading the Fathers, although my spiritual father made clear to me that I don't need to reject evolution to be Orthodox (he teaches that the six days in Genesis refer to "periods" that aren't necessarily 24-hours).

[Anonymous No.19528763]

>>19528757
And please forgive me for rambling on. I'm sick and bedridden.

[Anonymous No.19528818]

>>19523498
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.19529054]

>>19527882
He’s a heretic

[Anonymous No.19529082]

>Beginning in the street ministry days of the Jesus Movement, Matthew Gallatin devoted more than 20 years to evangelical Christian ministry. He was a singer/songwriter, worship leader, youth leader, and Calvary Chapel pastor. Nevertheless, he eventually accepted a painful reality: no matter how hard he tried, he was never able to experience the God whom he longed to know. In encountering Orthodox Christianity, he finally found the fullness of the Faith.In Thirsting for God, philosophy professor Gallatin expresses many of the struggles that a Protestant will encounter in coming face to face with Orthodoxy: such things as Protestant relativism, rationalism versus the Orthodox sacramental path to God, and the unity of Scripture and Tradition. He also discusses praying with icons, praying formal prayers, and many other Orthodox traditions.An outstanding book that will help Orthodox readers more deeply appreciate their faith and will give Protestant readers a more thorough understanding of the Church.

[Anonymous No.19529159]

>>19528739
For evolution, I don’t think the evidence is as strong as its proponents say. I used to believe in evolutionary theory but when I started to think about it, and when I began to research the evidence and critical perspectives on evolution, I came away far more skepical than before. Today, I do not believe that it happened. Most of the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways (as with all theories, see: >>19521486), and I believe that the ideology is built on many theory-laden observations and materialistic / naturalistic presuppostions. The nature of consciousness / qualia is another reason I began to get skeptical of it and eventually dropped it. From a Christian perspective (and I dropped Darwinism before I became one), there was no death before the Fall. The entire world was changed by Adam’s sin. Creationist views are in accordance with Tradition and Scripture. Also, from my experiences of God that I have had, I now tend to trust what’s written in the Scriptures more than I used to. Not that I read everything with 100% literalism—Scripture is multi-layered. When it comes to the age of the Earth, I am less concerned. Most likely younger.

Some sources (One is non-Christian but the content is good)
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
https://back2godhead.com/science/
https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/

[Anonymous No.19529565]

>>19528757
>Personally I trust the universe is old because we can observe celestial objects billions of light-years away from us
If the stars were created for man, it makes sense that God would have created them already visible from the very beginning. It doesn’t matter how far away they allegedly are. Can God not create stars whose light already reaches Earth?

[Anonymous No.19530066]

>>19525627
>they have not been hesitant to condemn those policies of Putin's that are anti-Christian
Can you provide some examples?

[Anonymous No.19530084]

>>19525775
>By the way, get vaccinated as the Russian Governme- I mean, Russian Orthodox Church demands, or else you will have to repent forever.
You wish to sound as if you know a lot, but, clearly, you do not actually do your research.

[Anonymous No.19530117]

>>19526634
>Constant teaching of the Church Fathers.
A great many of them taught the opposite - that the keys represented the authority to bind and loose which was, of course, in fact given to all the apostles.

[Anonymous No.19530175]

>>19526747
>St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian of Carthage
Who taught that the Chair of St Peter was representative of the Bishopric as a whole, not simply the Bishop of Rome. Your own historian, Robert Eno, admits that Cyprian had the chair of Peter in Carthage whilst Cornelius had it in Rome.

Cyprian writes: "Certainly the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the person of our Lord."

Irenaeus writes that Peter left Rome prior to his death, and that he left it in the care of Linus. Does this mean there were two Popes?

[Anonymous No.19530259]

>>19530084
>You wish to sound as if you know a lot, but, clearly, you do not actually do your research.
The ROC having a tentative position against vaccine passports does not invalidate anything that I said. I made the true claim that Metropolitan Hilarion is aligning his position on vaccination (on behalf of the whole ROC) in the same vein as the Russian government, which is why he made statements about those who do not get the vaccine having to "repent forever" if somebody gets COVID from them (even though COVID is spread by the vaccinated). This is obviously attempting to manipulate people into getting the vaccine using the authority of the ROC.
>>19530117
>the keys represented the authority to bind and loose which was, of course, in fact given to all the apostles.
The keys do represent the authority to bind and loose, obviously, I am not arguing against that. My position is right out of St. Cyprian: "On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded A SINGLE CHAIR, and he established by his own authority A SOURCE AND INTRINSIC REASON FOR THAT UNITY. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Unity of the Catholic Church 4)
>>19530175
>Who taught that the Chair of St Peter was representative of the Bishopric as a whole, not simply the Bishop of Rome
So tell me, when St. Cyprian mentions "a single chair" which is "a source and intrinsic reason for that unity [of the Catholic church]", and which he again reaffirms is "one chair", a single chair, which is the unity of Peter, "the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built", where is that single chair? Where did the ecumenical council fathers think that chair was located?
>Irenaeus writes that Peter left Rome prior to his death, and that he left it in the care of Linus. Does this mean there were two Popes?
Irenaeus gives his position quite clearly:
"[...] the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with THIS Church, because of its superior origin, ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3).

Also, if you are learned enough to debate, be the first to answer >>19524541.

[Anonymous No.19530393]

>>19530259
>(on behalf of the whole ROC)
Did you even bother to read what I posted? He states explicitly there that it is his personal view.
>single chair
I am not denying the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, nor that the chair itself is singular; I am stating that Cyprian referred to it as singular as the whole of the Bishopric is singular. You conveniently ignored my quote wherein Cyprian says the apostles were endowed with power and honour equal to Peter.
>that church
It is a mistranslation.
>The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maxima, antiquissima, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenaeus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, "In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.
> The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations?, Chapter III

[Anonymous No.19530505]

>>19530393
>Did you even bother to read what I posted? He states explicitly there that it is his personal view.
The public statements of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations are going to be taken by the faithful as the opinions of the ROC, as is proven by the Moscow Time's headline. Plus, I am quoting the interview that he gave on live TV, not the one you posted. See: https://ria.ru/20210705/grekh-1739899224.html
>You conveniently ignored my quote wherein Cyprian says the apostles were endowed with power and honour equal to Peter.
I did not ignore it, I literally posted a quote which says essentially the same thing, because I agree with you that all bishops have the power to bind and loose: "to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded A SINGLE CHAIR, and he established by his own authority A SOURCE AND INTRINSIC REASON FOR THAT UNITY. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter [...]"
>It is a mistranslation.
If you actually read the passage, you will see that the author has no leg to stand on, he's simply trying to distract from what the clear reading of Irenaeus is. Here's a test: translate "convenire ad" as whatever you want (giving a single scholarly source), and then post the passage for everybody to read. The passage is still undoubtedly conveying the same thing - in contrast to the Gnostics who claim for themselves a seat of power not based upon apostolic succession, the Catholic church has an official unity and authority based upon apostolic succession, and that to demonstrate that, Irenaeus will show the bishopric roll from the greatest and most ancient church known to all, the Church of Rome, created by Peter and Paul, with which all churches, and all the faithful, must [agree with/agree to/your translation here]. Thus it is a clear demonstration of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Also, why do you keep ignoring my other argument here >>19524541? It should be easy to debunk.

[Anonymous No.19530621]

>>19529565
They *are* this far away, full stop. It's as certain as the idea that my screen is about 30cm away from my face as I type this. Unless there are no laws of physics or the calculations for the speed of light are wrong, these objects are definitely billions of light-years away and therefore the universe is at least that old.
Unless you are saying that God created the universe to look old, so that by any measure of observation it is truly old, but in reality it is 7530 years old... Which is a completely weightless claim in my opinion (the universe being 7530 years old is a completely inconsequential claim since it has no effect upon real life, where the world, for all intents and purposes, is indeed billions of years old).
And it gets a bit close to another theory that I am extremely uncomfortable with: that it is the devil who makes the world seem old so as to lead us to apostasy. This basically reeks of Gnosticism to me - we're faced with a trickster god fooling us away from worshipping the true God (and also, nothing that we observe can be trusted).

[Anonymous No.19530637]

>>19530505
>The public statements of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations are going to be taken by the faithful as the opinions of the ROC
He explicitly clarified that these were simply his personal beliefs. You are wilfully ignoring the truth at this point.
>I did not ignore it
You ignore the fact that he says the apostles have the same power and honour generally and choose to interpret this as meaning only that they have the authority to bind and loose, like Peter. I have already covered your points in relation to primacy and the single chair.
>and most ancient church known to all
By this you show again that you haven't bothered to read my post and have only scanned it. As the author himself rightfully points out, Rome was by no means the most ancient church. Irenaeus is making clear use of hyperbole, which rather undermines your thesis. The author explains that it is the universal faith of all churches that Irenaeus holds up as the gold standard here:
>In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenaeus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.
>How then could St. Irenaeus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenaeus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenaeus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.
In other words, Rome is only the greatest insofar as it acts as a proper reflection of the faith of all the ancient churches, which it had done up to this point. Rome is great insofar as it supports Orthodoxy; it does not determine Orthodoxy unilaterally by virtue of some imagined supremacy. (1/2)

[Anonymous No.19530638]

>>19530621
>They *are* this far away, full stop.
Have you ever measured it yourself? What assumptions do these measurements rely on? How does one deduce from a pinprick of light that it is a bazillion miles away and therefore of such and such age?

[Anonymous No.19530643]

>>19511025
"Orthodox™"

[Anonymous No.19530651]

>>19530637
This is supported by the fact that ab his qui sunt undique more appropriately translates to "by those who were of all countries," not "In all that the faithful believe." Rome is great only so long as it represents the universal view of the faithful; it cannot determine this view of its own accord, in isolation (2/2).

[Anonymous No.19530749]

Any books on how the orthodox rationalize rejecting the council of Florence?

[Anonymous No.19530754]

LEILA
@LeylaRostami
>Archbishop Vigano Exposes the Pope as "Zealous Cooperator in the Great Reset" !

https://twitter.com/LeylaRostami/status/1467967739826429959

Cathocucks literally collapsing.

[Anonymous No.19530776]

>>19530637
>He explicitly clarified that these were simply his personal beliefs.
Please provide a link where it shows that his statements about having to "repent forever" were qualified with a statement of personal opinion.
>You ignore the fact that he says the apostles have the same power and honour generally and choose to interpret this as meaning only that they have the authority to bind and loose, like Peter.
I literally did not ignore that, I accept that bishops have power due to the keys given to them by Christ, but I am arguing that the Petrine seat has primacy (as Cyprian says), and is the source and marker of unity (as Cyprian also says). I don't understand how you accept that Cyprian teaches that the seat of Peter in Rome is the source of sacerdotal unity (the mark of being in the true church), and yet you believe you don't have to be in communion with the seat of Peter in Rome to be the true church? "On the top of that they now have the audacity to sail off carrying letters from schismatics and outcasts from religion even to the chair of Peter, to the principal church {ecclesia principalis) the very source of episcopal unity; and they do not stop to consider that they are carrying them to those same Romans whose faith was so praised and proclaimed by the Apostle, into whose company men without faith (perfidid) can, therefore, find no entry (Ep. 59.14).
>As the author himself rightfully points out, Rome was by no means the most ancient church
I did read that passage you posted. You are taking a common expression and making it mean something literally, when the argument does not depend on the literal reading. The expression "maxima antiquissima" is an honorific, meaning "exceedingly/very ancient". The point of Irenaeus is obvious to anybody who does not have a prior bias. Here's a test: give me ANY translation of the whole passage of AH 3.3, and see if it doesn't prove my point.
>In other words, Rome is only the greatest insofar as it acts as a proper reflection of the faith of all the ancient churches, which it had done up to this point
You are ignoring the argument that I keep telling you to respond to. The council fathers agreed with Pope Agatho's letter, and said it was divinely written, that the seat of Rome was to be eternally indefectible as per the promise of Jesus Christ. If you refuse to answer this argument (>>19524541) for the third time, I will assume you concede the point that the ecumenical councils believed the seat of Rome to be eternally indefectible by virtue of the promise of Christ.

[Anonymous No.19530799]

>>19530749
Ubi Petrus has a great video explaining this. In brief:

1. Not every Patriarch ratified the council. The delegates from Georgia escaped prior to the end, despite being put under house arrest.
2. The Patriarch of Constantinople signed it under incredibly suspicious circumstances. His letter of approval was found next to his dead body; it was written in Latin despite the fact that the Patriarch was not known to have understood or written in Latin.
3. Mark of Ephesus, the one bishop who rejected the signing, was not simply a bishop but a representative of the Patriarch of Antioch.
4. The Greeks signed it on the condition that their local synods had to also approve of the signing. They didn't.
5. In some cases, the document was only signed by the representatives of the Patriarch, and the Patriarch would go on to reject their signing.

[Anonymous No.19530812]

>>19530638
I was trying to explain it with my own words, but I'm running out of time and I'm confusing myself. It doesn't help that I barely remember anything from high school.
You can take a look at the Wikipedia article dedicated to this question though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
I should read it myself for a refresher, but for now I've got some things to do.
Have a good one, friend. I'll come back later.

>>19530749
Edward Siecienski's two books, "The Filioque" and "The Papacy and the Orthodox", give a decent analysis of what happened at Florence, how the Orthodox and Catholics felt before that, and how they felt after that.

[Anonymous No.19530814]

>>19530651
>This is supported by the fact that ab his qui sunt undique more appropriately translates to "by those who were of all countries," not "In all that the faithful believe.
I guess you missed the part right after "qui sunt undique" that says "fideles".
If you want to play Latin scholar, tell me what this sentence says from AH 3.3: "Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae, et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosimmis duobus Apostolic Petro et Paulo Romae fundate et constitutae ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, paeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio." Look forward to hearing your translation that proves my point wrong.

[Anonymous No.19530868]

>>19530749
Patriarch of my Church did not even show up, so for all I care it does not exist.

[Anonymous No.19530927]

I understand that this is a Orthodox general but this is probably the best place to ask this question.My friend is basically a lapsed Catholic whose main interest are playing video games. Are there any books you guys would recommend that he would probably read?

[Anonymous No.19530933]

>>19530776
>Please provide a link where it shows that his statements about having to "repent forever" were qualified with a statement of personal opinion.
I already have. I gave you a quote wherein he explicitly states that the comments on the vaccine were an expression of his personal opinion only. You're effectively arguing in bad faith at this point.
>but I am arguing that the Petrine seat has primacy (as Cyprian says)
You have not demonstrated why primacy should mean supremacy. Given the fact that Cyprian plainly states that the apostles were equal in both power and honour, without any adulteration or qualification, it is clear that it should not in his eyes.
>and is the source and marker of unity
He says in the quote that you provided that it is a source, not the source.
>the very source of episcopal unity
This is in reference to the audacity of a select group of heretics specifically. It is like saying "the very idea!" or "I never!" It is not enough in itself to prove Papal supremacy.
>You are taking a common expression and making it mean something literally
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you're now conceding that Irenaeus is capable of hyperbole here, you have lost the argument.
>give me ANY translation of the whole passage of AH 3.3, and see if it doesn't prove my point.
I have already provided the appropriate translations for the relevant parts and explained why they are important. Your refusal to engage with these translations in themselves is proof positive you have no actual argument.
>You are ignoring that argument I keep telling you to respond to.
Forgive me. I don't respond to commands from anonymous posters; I am not a lapdog. I did not read your post because it was not a part of the discussion we were having. For Pope Agatho and his high view of the papacy, see: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/08/10/pope-agathos-letter-constantinople-iii-and-papal-claims/

[Anonymous No.19530947]

>>19530814
>you missed out the term faithful!
Ok. "by those faithful who were of all countries." This does nothing to alter the real meaning of the phrase.

[Anonymous No.19531008]

>>19530933
>I already have.
You have not provided a link. Because you have not provided a link, I do not know whether that statement is regarding the interview where people will have to "repent forever" if somebody doesn't take the vaccine and that leads to a case of COVID from them.
>Given the fact that Cyprian plainly states that the apostles were equal in both power and honour, without any adulteration or qualification, it is clear that it should not in his eyes.
It seems you are confused about how the Catholic church views papal supremacy. The quotes from St. Cyprian clearly support a view that the Petrine seat has the primacy of the church, and is the fundamental source and foundation of sacerdotal unity, which is one of the fundamental tenets of papal supremacy ("[...] the chair of Peter, to the principal church {ecclesia principalis) the very source of episcopal unity [...]" (Ep. 59.14)).
>it is a source, not the source
"to the principal church {ecclesia principalis) the very source of episcopal unity"
>This is in reference to the audacity of a select group of heretics specifically.
It is clear that Cyprian is saying that he believes the seat of Peter to be the source of sacerdotal unity, and my argument is that the Catholic position adheres to this position, and yours does not. You haven't refuted this at all.
>If you're now conceding that Irenaeus is capable of hyperbole here, you have lost the argument.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but that is actually hilarious. The whole point is that the meaning of the sentence is not affected by the adjective "maxima", the sentence is a unit that has to be analyzed in and of itself, and you have not provided a translation of the sentence, despite that apparently being very easy for you.
>I have already provided the appropriate translations for the relevant parts
It is a single sentence, surely you can find a translation that agrees with your point, right? Meanwhile, I have numerous Protestant translations that clearly attest to my point. Why can you not provide even a single one?
>Forgive me. I don't respond to commands from anonymous posters; I am not a lapdog.
You are supposed to be debating for your side and debunking my heresies, so your refusal to even acknowledge the argument is pretty telling that you are simply not equipped to be having this conversation.
> I did not read your post because it was not a part of the discussion we were having.
It became a part of the discussion, because you said "Rome is great only so long as it represents the universal view of the faithful", which implies that Rome could defect from the faith.
>see:
You can't use your own words and ideas to discuss with me man-to-man in a debate? Noted.
>>19530947
> This does nothing to alter the real meaning of the phrase.
Exactly. Provide a translation of the sentence.

[Anonymous No.19531033]

>>19516141
Wait I commit idolatry because I listen to someone's exegesis? Literally what lmaoooo

[Anonymous No.19531045]

>>19531008
>which implies that Rome could defect from the faith
Oh wait we measure faith not by Christ but by Rome?

[Anonymous No.19531050]

>"You are supposed to be debating for your side and debunking my heresies"

[Anonymous No.19531079]

>>19531008
>You have not provided a link. Because you have not provided a link, I do not know whether that statement is regarding the interview where people will have to "repent forever" if somebody doesn't take the vaccine and that leads to a case of COVID from them.
I am sorry, but that is pure sophistry. Do you think he's talking about two different vaccines?
>It seems you are confused
All you have done here is restate your position re: source and unity, which I have already refuted.
>"to the principal church {ecclesia principalis) the very source of episcopal unity"
Yes, I went on to quote and explain that phrase myself. When writing on matters of theology, he calls it "a source;" when writing to denounce certain schismatics from orthodox belief, he calls it "the very source" for effect.
>You haven't refuted this at all.
You haven't explained why Cyprian's point about it being "a source" should be discarded in favour of it being "the very source." I have already demonstrated why the latter is most likely hyperbole. If Peter was "the very source" alone, Cyprian would not state that the apostles had equal power and honour; he does, therefore his remark about Peter being "a source" is more consistent with his objective beliefs.
>The whole point
The "whole point" is that he does in fact call it the most ancient of churches. Clearly, this is hyperbole. Clearly, if Irenaeus is willing to be hyperbolic here, we cannot rush to take everything he says at face value.
>It is a single sentence, surely you can find a translation that agrees with your point, right?
I have already provided the translation and the source.
>You are supposed to be debating for your side
I am responding to particular points you have raised to me. I am not going to trawl through the whole thread to counter every point you have made to everyone.
>You can't use your own words and ideas to discuss with me man-to-man in a debate?
I am sorry you are too lazy to read relevant information when it is presented to you in a concise manner. If someone argues for a position well, I will quote them. This is a fundamental part of discussion.
>Provide a translation of the sentence.
I have already provided you with the necessary translation and the source.

[Anonymous No.19531102]

>>19530621
Is there any reason God couldn't have created the universe with light already in transit? The stars might be far away but they're not necessarily old.

[Anonymous No.19531148]

>>19531033
Why is there any need for exegesis when your supposed "church" has had 2000 years of just knowing what everything means straight from the Apostles?
muh
>we have the fullness of truth

[Anonymous No.19531161]

>>19531079
>I am sorry, but that is pure sophistry. Do you think he's talking about two different vaccines?
You said you provided a link. You didn't. In the picture you posted, he says that the following opinion on vaccine passports is his, and not the church's official opinion. I want to see if he made that same disclaimer in the TV interview where he said that those who didn't receive the vaccine would have to repent forever if somebody got sick.
>which I have already refuted.
How did you refute it? My point is clear - Cyprian aligns with the Catholic position vis a vis the seat of Rome being the source of episcopal unity, and does not align with yours, as anybody can see from a plain reading of the text. Where is the rebuttal?
>You haven't explained why Cyprian's point about it being "a source" should be discarded in favour of it being "the very source.
Because he literally says "the very source". Here is another translation of the same passage, from Robert Ernest Wallis, a Protestant:
"moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access". Where's your translation?
>I have already provided the translation and the source.
I don't see a translation that you posted of Against Heresies 3:3. Please link it, or post it, so that everybody can read it. It would be very helpful to all involved. I'm going off of a Protestant translation, so it's not like there is a bias.
>I am not going to trawl through the whole thread to counter every point you have made to everyone.
I pointed out the relevant argument 3 times in direct response to you. There was no "trawling" necessary.
>If someone argues for a position well, I will quote them
You didn't quote them. I would be fine if you did. You just posted an article to outsource your opinion to somebody who seems to have it figured it out. Why not actually respond to my point with your own words?
>I have already provided you with the necessary translation and the source.
Again, I don't see a link anywhere. Post it.

[Anonymous No.19531191]

>>19531148
The Church explaining what the text means IS the exegesis lol

[Anonymous No.19531220]

>>19531191
>some San Francisco homosexual recent convert LARPer is the Church™

[Anonymous No.19531235]

>>19531220
Wait... what? "2000 years of the church knowing" was referring to ... some guy knowing for 2000 years?
What?

[Anonymous No.19531261]

>>19531235
If the Church™ knows the absolute meanings of everything then the meanings of everything are codified and there is no longer any need for anyone new to come along 2000 years later and provide their 2 cents. No surprise that someone who bought into praying to Ishtar struggles so hard to understand what's being said.

[Anonymous No.19531270]

>>19531261
>the meanings of everything are codified
Yeah. In the Bible lol. I really don't understand why you seethe this hard over contemporary believers using contemporary means for the same exegesis.... Ishar? 2000 year old homosexuals? Lmao whattttt

[Anonymous No.19531280]

>>19531161
>I want to see if he made that same disclaimer in the TV interview where he said that those who didn't receive the vaccine would have to repent forever if somebody got sick.
Now you're asking for something else entirely. Up until this point, you refused to acknowledge that he admitted his comments on the vaccine were his personal opinion. Now you want these same comments from him during his television appearance to discuss the vaccine. Why? Why must this be the standard. It is arbitrary. Again and again you move the goal posts and argue in bad faith. The man has gone on record that the statements re: the vaccine were his personal opinion. This ought to be enough.
>My point is clear
No. You just keep restating the point over and over like a clanging cymbal. Cyprian states explicitly that the apostles, Peter included, are equal to each other in terms of power and honour. This is demonstrably not the position of the Catholic Church, which holds that Peter was and is supreme.
>Because he literally says "the very source."
Elsewhere, he says "and he established by his own authority a source..." which, whilst implying a single source, nevertheless indicates that this source is to be used generally, much like a fountain is a single source used by many. The source in this instance is the whole of the Bishopric, of which the person of Peter and his confession are representative. That he calls Rome itself "the very source" is indicative of the Byzantine mode of respect. In the same way that we call Mary "the only hope of sinners" without in any way actually meaning that she alone is their hope or that it is not Christ alone that saves the sinner, Cyprian is using the language of deference and hyperbole contextually to contrast the orthodoxy of Rome with the distortion of these heretics. Nowhere does he write on the basis of this that the Roman Church should be afforded universal jurisdiction over other orthodox churches.
>I don't see a translation
I gave you the translations of the relevant sentences next to their Latin and sourced the book they came from.
>There was no "trawling" necessary.
It would have involved me looking back over your earlier posts and the responses of others to get the whole of the picture. I am not going to just read the snippet that you provide.
>You didn't quote them.
"Quote" here means reference. Any more pedantries you'd like to discuss?

[Anonymous No.19531315]

>>19531102
Science-worshipers hate having their assumptions questioned like this.

[Anonymous No.19531995]

>>19531280
>Now you're asking for something else entirely.
I made the exact same claim in the first request here (>>19530776 - "Please provide a link where it shows that his statements about having to "repent forever" were qualified with a statement of personal opinion."). Maybe you should be a bit more thorough in your reading?
>Cyprian states explicitly that the apostles, Peter included, are equal to each other in terms of power and honour.
Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one church and one chair - and that chair of Peter is the source of unity, because if someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? Now, which Church still holds fast to the unity of Peter? Hmm...
>That he calls Rome itself "the very source" is indicative of the Byzantine mode of respect
Exactly. Calling the Church of Rome "the very source" of episcopal unity is the Catholic position. I wonder which Church still holds fast to that, and which doesn't? Your personal opinion (based entirely on your own preconceived biases, and not actually on the plain reading of the text) does not factor in here. I am holding the position of St. Cyprian, among others - that the seat of Peter in Rome is THE source of episcopal unity, by virtue of the promise of Christ. You are not.
>I gave you the translations of the relevant sentences next to their Latin and sourced the book they came from.
You did not give a translation of a sentence, at all. Why are you unable to give a translation of Against Heresies 3:3? I have responded with Protestant scholar's translations - can you not do the same? Is it possible that your perspective is not shared by anybody who has actually looked at the text? It should be simple - just give me a SINGLE translation of Against Heresies 3:3 that aligns with your position. You really can't do that?
>"Quote" here means reference
I mean, you can make up a definition, sure, but you did not quote anything. If you have an argument against >>19524541
, I still haven't seen it. Surely you've thought these things through yourself, right? Because, if not, there is no harm in admitting that you are not educated enough on this matter to answer the argument I brought up.

[Anonymous No.19531999]

>>19531102
>>19531315

NTA but they address that part in the post which the part about God creating the universe to appear older than it is.

The issue there is that while there is no reason God could not do it, it raises harder questions as to why God would resort to something misleading like that.

For instance take a look at Islam and how it views the crucifixion - they say the death of Jesus was an illusion. Now could God create such an illusion? Of course, however it creates harder questions as to why God would do something so misleading.

[Anonymous No.19532109]

>>19531999
I would obviously disagree that God is misleading us, as we all should. This is ultimately based on the assumption that the scientists are reaching the ‘correct’ answers given the evidence available in the first place. I would question this claim, and indeed many of the claims of science to truth. Science isn’t some clearly cut, unchanging block. It can change drastically with sudden scientific revolutions which can totally topple the ruling paradigm by which all other data is interpreted. Read Thomas Kuhn. Data is subject to theory-laden interpretations within a paradigm. The existing paradigm right now is a naturalistic, effectively godless paradigm. Clearly this is going to shape how one interprets the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the age of the universe, etc. Because of this, Christianity ought not to attach itself to worldly sciences which shift and flux through in search of some illusive increasing versimilitude to reality. Not to deny that progress can be made in some fields, as it doubtlessly has, but certain varieties of science are on more stable grounds than others (physics and mathematics, for example). There is ample evidence today that science is corrupted as well, given that there is a replicability crisis in science, especially in medical and social sciences, but even in other branches as well. I believe the Covid-19 fiasco goes to show that science readily bends and serves politics too, being a handmaiden of the elite’s agendas.

So ultimately, I see much reason to be skeptical, and many reasons to doubt the underlining assumptions of much of what is said today, and believe that Christians should not hitch their faith to science which may change in a decade or a century.

[Anonymous No.19532565]

>>19532109
I agree about the issue of God being misleading like that, which is why I find the God creating a reality that appears older than it is to be a poor solution to the problem of distance and light speed.

I also agree that science is far from perfect and is often idegological and would almost never rely on say evolutionary psychology or medicine to interpret the bible or religious texts.

That said when it comes to calculating distance and the movement speed of light I think those issues are far far less of a problem and can have value - even if it’s not conclusive in and of itself - in knowing when to understand things literally or figuratively.

[Anonymous No.19532582]

>>19531999
>it raises harder questions as to why God would resort to something misleading like that.
God wanted to create a vast universe full of beauty and splendor. God also wanted humanity to be able to see it. Seems simple enough to me

[Anonymous No.19532618]

>>19532565
>I find the God creating a reality that appears older than it is to be a poor solution to the problem of distance and light speed
This is only a problem if you operate on the assumption of a uniformity of nature into the distant past. Science just assumes this from the get-go with zero evidence. How are we to know that natural laws functioned as they did today a billion plus years ago? We can’t. Scripture teaches us that there was *no* uniformity of nature in the sense that we have it today at the time of creation. The pre-Fall world is very different from the post-Fall world. God created the stars in a pre-Fall world. This necessarily places the pre-Fall world outside of the domain of scientific inquiry. We don’t even know how long Adam and Eve lived in Paradise prior to the first sin. It could have been an extremely long amount of time. One is only ‘misled’ when one ignores Scripture and latches onto worldly wisdom, which Paul warns us against in places such as Colossians 2:8—
>See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ
They are not relying on Christ to reach these conclusions, they’re relying on their worldly wisdom, and unfounded and indeed quite dubious assumptions about the past.

[Anonymous No.19532720]

>>19532618

Of course, because God creating a vast expanse of beautiful is not in question. The issue is comes with the universe being under 10 thousand years old.

>>19532618
I feel like such an extreme degree of skepticism and belief in irregularity runs into the misleading problem.

I mean by this reasoning a Muslim could argue that during the time of their religions founding sperm really was created in the backbone and the sun really did set in muddy pools only to change at a later date.

>they are not relying on Christ...
The belief that God created an orderly universe isn’t unfounded or particularly dubious though - That’s one of the reasons why miracles are so important and valuable.

But that said I don’t won’t to mess up this thread further so I’m happy to drop the matter until a more appropriate thread on his/ pops up

[Anonymous No.19532835]

>>19532618
>The issue is comes with the universe being under 10 thousand years old.
That’s what that post was about, mostly. I don’t see the issue, honestly. It comes down to what assumptions you are holding about reality, and how you are interpreting said evidence. When scientists give numbers like this, they are assuming a universe billions of years old, uniformity of nature over time, and other related things.

>I feel like such an extreme degree of skepticism and belief in irregularity runs into the misleading problem. I mean by this reasoning a Muslim could argue that during the time of their religions founding sperm really was created in the backbone and the sun really did set in muddy pools only to change at a later date
The reason I make such claims is due to the Christian understanding of the Fall, though. According to the Fathers and a reading of Scripture, we see that nature and man were in some senses quite different prior to the Fall. One can just see how in Genesis 1:30 God permits them to partake in green plants for sustenance, showing that there was no eating of flesh. Another obvious point is that there was no death prior to the Fall. Paul himself writes in Romans 8:20 that “the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Thus showing us that decay and futility in nature were also products of the Fall that rippled throughout nature due to Adam’s sin. I do not propose what I am proposing to make ‘unfalsifiable’ claims on purpose, but merely because this is the conclusion we draw from studying the Scriptures and the Fathers. Muslims don’t quite have something like this in their account of the ‘Fall’ to the extent that they have such a narrative, Adam and Eve are merely banished to Earth for a time and they are forgiven. It seems far less dramatic and far-reaching in its consequences in the sense that we see no indications of a full distortion of nature and alienation from God. The specific hypothetical claim of the Muslim here would be ad hoc.

>The belief that God created an orderly universe isn’t unfounded or particularly dubious though
I agree, it is one of the great signs of nature that there is a Creator. From within *their* worldview though (i.e. if we follow their logic and methodology to its logical conclusions), they have no little reason to truly assume it as being more than a mere probability though (if they are being honest).

>But that said I don’t won’t to mess up this thread further so I’m happy to drop the matter
It’s no problem, anon. I’m enjoying it.

[Anonymous No.19532840]

>>19532835
meant for: >>19532720

[Anonymous No.19533102]

>>19511831
Hey thanks! Just picked up the bible not long ago and thought it odd it shared with Judaism so much

[Anonymous No.19533286]

What's the major differences between orthodox and protestant? And it is possible to be orthodox without going to confession? The whole idea weirds me out desu.

[Anonymous No.19533291]

>>19533286
>What's the major differences between orthodox and protestant?
Orthodox actually have history, the Fathers, and are actually legitimate Christian Churches.

[Anonymous No.19533315]

>>19533291
Listen im ignorant on the subject. I was raised protestant and fell away from it for decade plus now. However im realizing Christianity is probably the only true virtuous path forward. I've started watching Jonathan Pageau after finding him through JBP and I relate to this more symbolic and Jungian approach he seems to have towards Christianity. He makes it seem like this is more of an orthodox viewpoint. I don't know where to start looking into this coming from a protestant perspective. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.19533322]

>>19533315
Find your local church and talk to the priest.

[Anonymous No.19533328]

>>19533322
You guys need to stop with this meme.

[Anonymous No.19533362]

>>19533322
>Find your local church and talk to the priest.
I'd like to read more and see if it's something I'm even interested in/agree with before I go down that route. But if it is I will do that. In the meantime I need more info

[Anonymous No.19533523]

>>19530749
Because it teaches the filioque heresy. Everything else is secondary to this fact.

[Anonymous No.19533550]

>>19530621
>Unless you are saying that God created the universe to look old, so that by any measure of observation it is truly old, but in reality it is 7530 years old
Adam was created from the earth immediately in a state of looking ~30 years old. He was never an infant, although someone without faith or revelation suddenly placed in Eden would never be able to understand this. His mind would literally be clouded by his false atheistic presuppositions to see this obvious truth.

Your reasoning relies on the big-bang type naturalistic model of the universe. It's circular. The universe is old because big bang is true and all multiplicity evolved from unity, but big bang is true because the universe is old!

[Anonymous No.19533558]

>>19531999
>misleading
It only is misleading if you do not trust God. He told you he created Adam from earth, but you deny it and try to correct God by saying He didn't actually mean it, and the saints didn't actually mean it or didn't understand it even though the Holy Spirit was promised to lead us into all truth. It becomes "misleading" only the moment you place your trust in man above God.

[Anonymous No.19533588]

>but science said it!

By examining the nature of sensible things, these people have arrived at a certain concept of God, but not at a conception truly worthy of Him and appropriate to His blessed nature. For their «disordered heart was darkened» by the machinations of the wicked demons who were instructing them. For if a worthy conception of God could be attained through the use of intellection, how could these people have taken the demons for gods, and how could they have believed the demons when they taught man

polytheism? In this way, wrapped up in this mindless and foolish wisdom and unenlightened education, they have calumniated both God and nature. They have deprived God of His sovereignty (at least as far as they are concerned); they have ascribed the Divine Name to demons; and they were so far from finding the knowledge of beings–the object of their desire and zeal–as to claim that inanimate things have a soul and participate in a soul superior to our own. They also allege that things without reason are reasonable, since capable of receiving a human soul; that demons are superior to us and are even our creators (such is their impiety); they have classed among things uncreated and unoriginate and coeternal with God, not only matter, and what they call the World Soul, but also those intelligible beings not clothed in the opacity of the body, and even our souls themselves.

[...]

But if one says that philosophy, insofar as it is natural, is a gift of God, then one says true, without contradiction, and without incurring the accusation that falls on those who abuse philosophy and pervert it to an unnatural end. Indeed they make their condemnation heavier by using God's gift in a way unpleasing to Him.

Moreover, the mind of demons, created by God, possesses by nature its faculty of reason. But we do not hold that its activity comes from God, even though its possibility of acting comes from Him; one could with propriety call such reason an unreason. The intellect of pagan philosophers is likewise a divine gift insofar as it naturally possesses a wisdom endowed with reason. But it has been perverted by the wiles of the devil, who has transformed it into a foolish wisdom, wicked and senseless, since it puts forward such doctrines.

[Anonymous No.19533595]

>>19533588
[...]
What then should be the work and the goal of those who seek the wisdom of God in creatures? Is it not the acquisition of the truth, and the glorification of the Creator? This is clear to all. But the knowledge of the pagan philosophers has fallen away from both these aims.

Is there then anything of use to us in this philosophy? Certainly. For just as there is much therapeutic value even in substances obtained from the flesh of serpents, and the doctors consider there is no better and more useful medicine than that derived from this source, so there is something of benefit to be had even from the profane philosophers– but somewhat as in a mixture of honey and hemlock. So it is most needful that those who wish to separate out the honey from the mixture should beware that they do not take the deadly residue by mistake. And if you were to examine the problem, you would see that all or most of the harmful heresies derive their origin from this source.

In the case of the secular wisdom, you must first kill the serpent, in other words, overcome the pride that arises from this philosophy. How difficult that is! «The arrogance of philosophy has nothing in common with humility», as the saying goes. Having overcome it, then, you must separate and cast away the head and tail, for these things are evil in the highest degree. By the head, I mean manifestly wrong opinions concerning things intelligible and divine and primordial ; and by the tail, the fabulous stories concerning created things. As to what lies in between the head and tail, that is, discourses on nature, you must separate out useless ideas by means of the faculties of examination and inspection possessed by the soul, just as pharmacists purify the flesh of serpents with fire and water. Even if you do all this, and make good use of what has been properly set aside, how much trouble and circumspection will be required for the task!

[Anonymous No.19533797]

>>19532835
>When scientists give numbers like this, they are assuming a universe billions of years old, uniformity of nature over time, and other related things

Do they though? Isn’t it the opposite of what they do though when it comes to the distance of far objects and using the light that comes from them.

[Anonymous No.19534017]

>>19530927
Well,unfortunately there is no guarantee of freeing people from hedonism unless they place something higher than mere dopamine. Does he care about the state of the world? Truth and morality? Having a family and raising them well? Reaching salvation?

Nihilism: Root of the Revolution, Death of the West, Crisis of the Modern World, and The Gurus The Young Man and Elder Paisios are good imo, maybe even For My Legionaries

[Anonymous No.19534110]

>>19531995
>Please provide a link where it shows that his statements about having to "repent forever" were qualified with a statement of personal opinion.
His statement obviously concerns the same topic. It can't refer to any other. You are being absurd.
>Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was
You continue to undermine the force of Cyprian's statement. He says they have the same power and honour full stop. He does not adulterate this except to say that Peter's confession is the source of unity. As I have repeatedly stated, the single chair refers to the office of the Bishopric.
>Rome is THE source of episcopal unity,
You can capitalise all the words you like, it doesn't actually help your argument. If you now admit that he is writing in the Byzantine mode, which is hyperbolic ipso facto, then your entire argument falls apart because it relies upon taking out of context effusive statements of respect literally. Do you think Mary is literally our only hope?
>You did not give a translation of a sentence, at all.
Please refer to my quotation from The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations?, Chapter III
>I still haven't seen it.
Because you refuse to read the article I provided. This pedantry of yours, whereby you insist on having the point in my own words, is weak.

[Anonymous No.19534187]

>>19530927
Even though I disagree with Tolstoy these days, "A Confession" by Tolstoy was the first decisive push against nihilism. Does your friend actually feel unhappy being a hedonist? You will not obtain anything if he's enjoying it, and he will most likely dismiss you.

[Anonymous No.19534205]

>>19534017
He's not a degenerate he's just a shy shut in nerd. Me and him are pretty young. Personally I'm thinking about maybe just getting him some sort of fantasy novel written by a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.19534254]

>>19533315
Literally just go to liturgy whenever you can and try to talk to a priest afterwards. If you stick around you will probably also meet laypeople who will talk to you.
>>19533328
What is the alternative? If you don't just want to LARP on the internet that's what you have to do.

[Anonymous No.19534568]

>>19533797
Predictions about the past rely on nature functioning the same way, because if it didn’t you’d have no way to make predictions.

[Anonymous No.19534578]

>>19533328
t. LARPer
Talking to a priest is one of the best things said in this threads. This is literally the job of priests, to answer questions like these, and to help people out spiritually.

[Anonymous No.19534671]

>>19534205
Death of the West is written by the Catholic Pat Buchanan; the only such fantasy I've read would be Siege of Sziget (1651) which was a fun read but may not help as far as changing of ways (kind of a video game in book form, if that makes sense), Lives of Saints will be more powerful but he may not have interest in them.

[Anonymous No.19534735]

>>19534254
>Literally just go to liturgy whenever you can and try to talk to a priest afterwards. If you stick around you will probably also meet laypeople who will talk to you.
This. I know in my early experience I was practically swarmed by friendly laypeople of all ages, the deacon, his wife and the priest afterwards, all of whom were curious how I found them, and were happy to answer questions about the church and Orthodoxy. I’m no chad or extrovert either, so they were just genuinely friendly. Sticking around afterwards for coffee or whatever a given church does is 100% worth it

[Anonymous No.19534754]

>>19534735
Not him but my only problem is that I have to get out in record time out of my shut-in NEET situation of which I'm suddenly ashamed of (since I no longer think "fuck society I'll drop out and then I'll hero eventually") and justifying having zero social media presence which I do not want to change.

[Anonymous No.19534785]

>>19534754
I don’t have any social media either, honestly. If someone wants to connect with me it either has to be by text or email. I wouldn’t worry about that. Getting involved in church stuff is probably one of the better ways to stop being a shut-in too

[Anonymous No.19534862]

>>19534754
Christ can definitely help you with social skills. I know mine improved a lot since I came to the faith, I don't have the usual fear anymore. Ultimately all anxiety (in social interaction too) is a corruption introduced by the fall which Christ can easily hea in the sacramentsl. I recommend this video discussing the topic - https://youtu.be/aIHWLUtJ-Fk
I don't really use social media either like the other anon, you don't really need it. You don't have to go out of your way to justify that, especially for other Christians it should be easy to understand.
Also remember that the prophet Moses and St. Paul weren't good with speaking either, and Moses is described as meekest of all men. But this didn't stop them from being great shepherds of Christ's nation. The rite of ordination of priests has this words, it applies to us receiving the Holy Spirit as well.
>Divine grace, which always cures the infirm, and supplies what is wanting

[Anonymous No.19535042]

>>19533102
Yeah that sort of information is super helpful to know. I can’t tell you how many people today implicitly push or believe some sort of Marcionism where ‘the God of the OT’ is some sort of ‘meany’ whereas ‘the God of the NT’ is a God of love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. All of this stuff comes down to a bad reading of the Bible. It was very enlightening to read books and watch videos such as that one, because really there are numerous continuities from the beginning to the end.

[Anonymous No.19535081]

Anons I have a problem.
Over the last couple years through what I have learned about Orthodoxy I have become convinced that it is the one true Church. The problem is that I don't live anywhere near an Orthodox church. The closest one is hours away and my situation does not allow me to go out on my own and I can't really go anywhere. I live with my parents and we go to the local Baptist church here in town.
I don't know what to do.

[Anonymous No.19535125]

Why is there this strange aggression against Jay Dyer from some people on this board? He is teaching Orthodoxy to lots of young men who otherwise would probably never hear about it. What is the problem?

[Anonymous No.19535133]

>>19535081
>The closest one is hours away
There are many anons here I think who drive even longer. Pray to God about your situation, so that you can somehow go to church and He will surely help. There's really no other way, it's all in His providence. Maybe contact a priest from that church and talk to him
>we go to the local Baptist church
You can't do this if you're Orthodox, faith and loyalty to Christ is more important than family or traditions. Even praying together with a Roman Catholic at your home is an excommunicable offense, let alone baptists. You're not beholden to this rule since you are not part of the church yet, but still it's not a good thing to do.

[Anonymous No.19535160]

>>19535133
>praying at the Church founded by Jesus will get you excommunicated from His church
How does that work, exactly?

[Anonymous No.19535163]

>>19535081
I wake up at 5 to be there at 10. You can do it anon.

[Anonymous No.19535174]

>>19535163
But the thing is that my parents don't want me to go out on my own.

[Anonymous No.19535187]

>>19535125
Depends on who the aggression is from, but he speaks too many "uncomfortable truths". If you were to quote saints on some topics and not tell them who said it, they'd have similar reactions.
I was listening to the martyr Fr. Daniel Sysoev and he was literally saying the same things about the transcendental argument/presuppositionalism and about filioque & created grace being the cause of Western atheism and apostasy. People for some reason think that traditional (i.e. Orthodox) views on creation from Dyer, Fr. Seraphim Rose and so on are a result of their "protestant background", but this doesn't hold up if you consider that the church fathers weren't protestant, and neither are many priests in traditionally Orthodox countries. It essentially stems from a desire to have a more worldy and academic Orthodoxy and ironically itself falls into a protestant mindset.

[Anonymous No.19535198]

>>19535174
"For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

[Anonymous No.19535210]

>>19535125
Jay Dyer is a false teacher, heretic, and a revolving door Christian.
If you still want to listen to him you will be getting the poorest teaching of Orthodoxy possible.
https://youtu.be/XRLOQUnw-FY
Watch this video if you require proof of his poor Christian nature, heresies, ties to the occult, and relentless slander of Catholicism. Maybe he is the perfect 4chan Christian...

[Anonymous No.19535224]

>>19535133
>>19535163
>dude just drive 5 hours for the full larper experience! Jesus will love you for it!
Pathetic

>>19535174
>But the thing is that my parents don't want me to go out on my own.
..... how old are you people? I’m starting to understand why there’s such a push towards ortholarping if you’re all literally TEENAGERS. Hahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.19535239]

>>19535125
Jay Dyer gives off weird vibes to me, really. He seems like he has an overly intellectual view of Orthodoxy, and is caught up in theological minutiae and arguing rather than having a genuine spiritual lifestyle. I have trouble imagining him in church. He’s also responsible in part for Ortholarping (to be distinguished from genuine interest in Orthodoxy). He can sometimes seem arrogant and combative too. Maybe he is sincere, only God knows. I don’t hate him though, I just have some suspicions

[Anonymous No.19535272]

I think part of it is that Jay Dyer does all the goofy meme humor and vaporwave aesthetics when he isn't talking about serious topics, and typical 4chan elitists like to pretend that they are above that sort of thing. Maybe it is silly, but I think that he is still doing good work, and the meme humor and vaporwave aesthetics might help him to connect with young Internet people who have no relation to Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.19535295]

>>19535174
Ehh that seems to be a bigger problem than getting to church.

[Anonymous No.19535321]

>>19535239
>he has an overly intellectual view of Orthodoxy, and is caught up in theological minutiae and arguing rather than having a genuine spiritual lifestyle
I don't know who this guy is but this attitude covers like 90% of internet religious types. It's basically some kind of intellectual hobby in this form. There are people who stream themselves praying and other cringe shit. The thing is that right now every single activity that can be broadcast in any way will be represented online by this type of person.

[Anonymous No.19535366]

>>19535321
>There are people who stream themselves praying and other cringe shit.
I saw a video of someone doing their prayer rule recently when looking for some stuff on Youtube. It was really weird. Reminded me of Pharisees praying on street corners to be seen by others

[Anonymous No.19535383]

>>19535210
>vaticancatholic
You mean those heretics who pretend to be monks living in a seminary whilst actually living in a trailer having never been ordained? The same people who claim that none of the Catholic sacraments are valid anymore, but who nevertheless attend a local Catholic church despite telling their followers to simply pray the rosary at home? They are ill informed and always miss out vital information. Case in point: they claim that Constantinople falling was a divine validation of Catholicism. They of course neglect to mention the fact that Constantinople was uniate when it fell and its priests were performing the Catholic liturgy in the Hagia Sophia as the Turks were banging down the doors.

[Anonymous No.19535391]

>>19535210
>Sedevacantism
Even a bigger LARP and cope

[Anonymous No.19535393]

>>19535239
>theological minutiae
Correct theology is undetachable from genuine spiritual life according to all the saints. And I'm not his priest so can't say anything about his spiritual life or pass any judgement, but he is part of an Orthodox parish.
Also what are you referring to by minutiae? I've only seen him discuss actual heresies (which jeopardize your salvation according to all our catechisms and saints). An anti-theology mindset popular among some is entirely foreign to Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.19535396]

>>19535210
>vaticancatholic
At least post Trent Horn's rebuttal to Dyer.

[Anonymous No.19535400]

>>19535239
>Ortholarping
Is this a new form of gaslighting? I've yet to see a real example of this outside of memes.

[Anonymous No.19535416]

>>19535400
It’s real

[Anonymous No.19535419]

>>19535239
>theological minutiae
Is this really fair? I think Jay can be a bit rough around the edges some of the time - I prefer concise hour long expositions as opposed to these longform three to four hour discussions he puts up. But he does tend to present the information in a clear and accessible format, and I have never felt that the topics were too obscure or arcane. Papal primacy... doctrinal certainty... the natural vs the transcendental approach to theology... sola scriptura... these are all fairly fundamental and important topics.

[Anonymous No.19535425]

>>19535416

[Anonymous No.19535430]

>>19535425
Jay Dyer is not an ortholarper though, to be clear. But they exist.

[Anonymous No.19535434]

>>19535416
>real thing but frog face
These idiots have infested literally every topic you can imagine. I fail to see why Orthodoxy should be singled out.

[Anonymous No.19535440]

>>19535416
>real
>twitter
It's a demonic realm closer to non-existence than to existence.

[Anonymous No.19535456]

I like Fr Spyridon Bailey
https://youtu.be/MTTFwZb3o68

[Anonymous No.19535466]

>>19535456
Based. Also Fr. Christ Moody has some good videos.
https://youtu.be/V9EZtm6ZXvw

[Anonymous No.19535490]

Fr Peter Heers is good too
https://youtu.be/_9n3sU_rHJA

[Anonymous No.19535509]

>>19535419
Dyer’s good on a lot of this stuff and I’ve learned a good deal and gotten good book recommendations from him, I just wish he could be a little more concise and less autistic sometimes

[Anonymous No.19535554]

>>19535509
>I just wish he could be a little more concise
I agree. He needs to do fewer 3+ hour long pieces to camera.

[Anonymous No.19535586]

>>19535366
>Reminded me of Pharisees praying on street corners to be seen by others
Same. I'm cautious with religious searches online because the Internet seems to be full of LARPers, this site included of course.

[Anonymous No.19535633]

Jay Dyer is good at pointing out silly little rhetorical "tricks" that atheists do a lot such as the "We now know" trick. Atheist propaganda types like Richard Dawkins do this a lot.
>We now know that the Bible is just a dusty old book that is not factually accurate
The "we now know" is not a logical argument, but rather, an emotional trick designed to appeal to your pride. Don't you want to be seen as a smart, hip, modern man who is up to date with the current trends? You don't want to be seen as a silly religious old coot, do you?
That's what it is.

[Anonymous No.19535720]

>>19535393
Knowing theology is good, but theology disconnected from spirituality is detrimental. Not saying Jay isn’t spiritual. I don’t know the guy

[Anonymous No.19535873]

>>19534110
>His statement obviously concerns the same topic. It can't refer to any other.
One is referring to mandatory COVID passports, and the other is his TV interview where he says people who do not get the vaccine may have to "repent forever". It is not at all unreasonable to ask for proof that his comments on repenting forever be prefaced with a disclaimer of personal opinion - because as we have seen, news outlets like the Moscow Times reported it as if it was the stance of the Russian Orthodox Church.
>He does not adulterate this except to say that Peter's confession is the source of unity.
It is not Peter's confession that is the source of unity, it is the actual "chief church" of Rome "[from] whence priestly/episcopal unity takes its source". I'm not sure how you aren't seeing the nuance here. "[...] bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source;".
>As I have repeatedly stated, the single chair refers to the office of the Bishopric.
It seems that in the quote above, the obvious interpretation is that the throne of Peter at the chief church of Rome is the very source of priestly/episcopal unity. At least, that is what Cyprian says - you have to twist his words, I don't.
>If you now admit that he is writing in the Byzantine mode, which is hyperbolic ipso facto, then your entire argument falls apart
Your argument is literally Protestantism - I know the Fathers explicitly said X (Rome is the source of episcopal unity), but here's why you can't read the text plainly, and instead have to read my manmade schismatic tradition's interpretation INTO it.
>Please refer to my quotation from The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations?, Chapter III
Again, you still have not posted a single translation of that sentence. Why is it so difficult for you? Can you not find a single scholar who translates that text in a manner that you agree with? It's simple - you can use ANY scholar on the entire planet who has translated that text, Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic - just post their translation of AH 3:3. Do you not see how reasonable a request this is?
>This pedantry of yours, whereby you insist on having the point in my own words, is weak.
Usually, a debate is done by using one's own understanding. Outsourcing your brain to somebody else because you haven't actually thought the issue through, and are unable to debate it, shows that you aren't ready to discuss this. If you can't make any point for your side besides linking to some blog, the intellectually honest move is to say "I have to study this more, and then I will be able to discuss this. In the meantime, I concede that the evidence from the 6th ecumenical council's proceedings SEEMS to testify that the council fathers believed Agatho's letter to be divinely written, though this might not be the case".

[Anonymous No.19535958]

>>19535873
>One is referring to mandatory COVID passports, and the other is his TV interview where he says people who do not get the vaccine may have to "repent forever".
It is clear from the statement that he saying his comments on the vaccine generally are his personal opinions only, not the dogma of the Russian Orthodox Church. Your pathological refusal to see the obvious is honestly getting to be quite tiresome.
>It is not Peter's confession that is the source of unity... It seems that in the quote above, the obvious interpretation is that the throne of Peter at the chief church of Rome is the very source of priestly/episcopal unity. At least, that is what Cyprian says...
No. I'll quote what one of your own, Catholic historians says on this exact subject: "The Chair of Peter... belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome..."

Here is what another Catholic historian, Michael Winter, has to say on the same subject: "Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to deffend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-Papal sense which was alien to his thought... Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any Bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority... Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter."
>but here's why you can't read the text plainly, and instead have to read my manmade schismatic tradition's interpretation INTO it.
Answer the question, please. Do you believe Mary is literally the only hope of sinners?
>Again, you still have not posted a single translation of that sentence.
It's right there in the original quote. He even gives the Latin along with it.
>Usually, a debate is done by using one's own understanding.
This is not a formal debate, but a discussion on an online forum. It is usual to give links in formats such as these.

[Anonymous No.19535967]

>>19535958
*that first quote is from Robert Eno

[Anonymous No.19535975]

>>19535958
*defend

[Anonymous No.19535979]

>>19535466
How come he doesn't have a beard? I'm not trying to criticize but I'm learning about Orthodoxy and I thought priests are required to grow a beard.

[Anonymous No.19536183]

My family's lifestyle is everything I loathe concentrated in a few people. Ignorance, hedonism, I can't take them anymore. I think my family has been the greatest push toward suicide in my life.

[Anonymous No.19536191]

Every moment I spend with them is insufferable. I wish not to offend them but too much of what they do goes against my basic principles and I genuinely cannot suffer them anymore.

[Anonymous No.19536204]

>>19536191
Nothing in this life is forever. Soon you will be able to move away from them.

[Anonymous No.19536215]

>>19536204
I'm not stuck with them. I do it out of familial obligation, because I don't want to put myself against them. However they have no reapect for my own principles so I think it is time for me to detach myself from them.

[Anonymous No.19536224]

>>19536215
>I do it out of familial obligation, because I don't want to put myself against them
Moving out isn't necessarily putting yourself against them.

[Anonymous No.19536256]

>>19535979
They're not required to by any canon, it's just a tradition same as long hair. He's a military chaplain though, you can actually see him in uniform in a lot of videos if you look closely.