/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It'd be more worth your while learning Greek if you are going to begom ordodogs.

>Any general advice on what to do

1. Don't join the Orthodox Church

2. Join the Roman Catholic Church instead

>>536175

Why would he want to put up with an anti-pope tho?

>>536176

>anti-pope

t. Brother Dimond.

>>536182

The Baptist theology is pretty garbage as I'm reading the Church Fathers and actually reading my Bible

>do not regard Catholics or Orthodox as Christians

Uhhhhhhh they kinda founded the church

>No sacraments

Literally what

>Once Saved Always Saved

Do I even need to go on?

I am looking towards Orthodoxy because as I look upon the history of the church, that's what was founded by the Apostolic fathers and is the original church established by Christ, the Apostles, etc.

Why haven't I considered Catholicism? Two answers: filioque and papal infallibility

Also as a plus orthodoxy is just plain beautiful man

>>536184

I'm glad you've seen the errors of Protestantism, man. :)

>do not regard Catholics or Orthodox as Christians

>No sacraments

>Once Saved Always Saved

From what you've read so far, what made you change your mind on these topics? I wouldn't mind insight from an actual Baptist to use for future debates with other Protestants.

>Why haven't I considered Catholicism? Two answers: filioque and papal infallibility

What are your issues with these two?

>>536184

filioque is a bad reason for you I would say, because you have to do a lot of meditation personally about the trinity yourself in my opinion to try and get an idea of what it is and what the nature of it all is. in my opinion the filioque is true. if you are reading church fathers stuff this is something short and interesting to read:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo/On_The_Trinity

and this is longer:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm

I think it would be easier to discern things going from the church setup, whether you believe that there should be one head for the Church, just as God is the King of Heaven (and head of the church) or there should be some quasi head with no actual primacy power. If you believe in apostolic succession, but you don't believe in the primacy of Peter, despite being given the keys to the church. Whether you believe in one proper global church, with churches in every nook and cranny of the world truly, or a bunch of ethno churches. Like is there an eastern orthodox church of Sri Lanka? Oh I don't think so. The orthodox church is divided, whether you like it or not. And while it's a lot better than Protestanism (but what isn't), I think with some more earnest prayer and research, you might come to see the truth in the One Catholic (universal) church. A house divided against itself can't stand.

>>536184

filioque is a bad reason for you I would say, because you have to do a lot of meditation personally about the trinity yourself in my opinion to try and get an idea of what it is and what the nature of it all is. in my opinion the filioque is true. if you are reading church fathers stuff this is something short and interesting to read:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo/On_The_Trinity

and this is longer:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm

I think it would be easier to discern things going from the church setup, whether you believe that there should be one head for the Church, just as God is the King of Heaven (and head of the church) or there should be some quasi head with no actual primacy power. If you believe in apostolic succession, but you don't believe in the primacy of Peter, despite being given the keys to the church. Whether you believe in one proper global church, with churches in every nook and cranny of the world truly, or a bunch of ethno churches. Like is there an eastern orthodox church of Sri Lanka? Oh I don't think so. The orthodox church is divided, whether you like it or not. And while it's a lot better than Protestanism (but what isn't), I think with some more earnest prayer and research, you might come to see the truth in the One Catholic (universal) church. A house divided against itself can't stand.

Also keep in mind, especially since you're from a Protestant / Baptist background, you probably have a healthy dose of anti catholic bias, conscious or otherwise. Most protestants would say if you were converting out "convert to anything else, just not Catholics!" And when people realize Protestantism is a meme, they still hold strong anti catholic bias and seek out eastern orthodox because they think well at least it's not catholic. Probably the lack of having to submit to Rome and lack of real obedience is also attractive to a rebellious american type mindset. But the Lord requires and loves obedience.

Many protestants have never really even heard much about EO or know their beliefs and how it's very similar to Catholics, they just have preconceived bigoted hate for Catholics and that can influence anyone even after they try and journey towards the truth.

Also, as our Lord said, if the world hates you, remember they hated me first. What is the most hated church?

>>536189

HE’S GOT THE FECES OF A LITTLE BOY

>>536175

>being a Papist

>>536184

filioque is a bad reason for you I would say, because you have to do a lot of meditation personally about the trinity yourself in my opinion to try and get an idea of what it is and what the nature of it all is. in my opinion the filioque is true. if you are reading church fathers stuff this is something short and interesting to read:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo/On_The_Trinity

and this is longer:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm

I think it would be easier to discern things going from the church setup, whether you believe that there should be one head for the Church, just as God is the King of Heaven (and head of the church) or there should be some quasi head with no actual primacy power. If you believe in apostolic succession, but you don't believe in the primacy of Peter, despite being given the keys to the church. Whether you believe in one proper global church, with churches in every nook and cranny of the world truly, or a bunch of ethno churches. Like is there an eastern orthodox church of Sri Lanka? Oh I don't think so. The orthodox church is divided, whether you like it or not. And while it's a lot better than Protestanism (but what isn't), I think with some more earnest prayer and research, you might come to see the truth in the One Catholic (universal) church. A house divided against itself can't stand.

Also keep in mind, especially since you're from a Protestant / Baptist background, you probably have a healthy dose of anti catholic bias, conscious or otherwise. Most protestants would say if you were converting out "convert to anything else, just not Catholics!" And when people realize Protestantism is a meme, they still hold strong anti catholic bias and seek out eastern orthodox because they think well at least it's not catholic. Probably the lack of having to submit to Rome and lack of real obedience is also attractive to a rebellious american type mindset. But the Lord requires and loves obedience.

Many protestants have never really even heard much about EO or know their beliefs and how it's very similar to Catholics, they just have preconceived bigoted hate for Catholics and that can influence anyone even after they try and journey towards the truth.

Also, as our Lord said, if the world hates you, remember they hated me first. What is the most hated church?

>>536189

Okay to start off literally all of my Baptist friends are super sketchy and tense when I say "Catholic" or "Orthodox" merely because of the whole "T-Word" fear. Tradition of Christ, to my knowledge, is what is practiced in the Orthodox church, which is actually said by Christ Himself to be a good thing! Also, I asked some of them if they considered either church to be Christian, and they didn't immediately respond with "Yes". There were conditions.

I haven't questioned it that much considering we never really did communion all but every quarter of the year and baptism is a "physical representation of a spiritual manifestation", so sacraments were a new concept. However, we are commanded to do these things all the time, save baptism which is only once.

Also,

>Acts 2:38

Gee I wonder why baptism is so important and not just a representation

Lastly, there's this idea in the Baptist Church that once you are saved, you're always saved. No matter what you do, you can never fall from the grace of the LORD. This is simply not true. On top of that, I've seen many a newly-"saved" Baptist that, after being dunked, just reverts to their sinful ways. I know man isn't perfect, but this is just ridiculous. It's almost as if they made the decision just to fill a void, not to have an eternal relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Also another quick tidbit church history is all but disregarded. I didn't even know about the church fathers of the Nicene Creed until a month ago when I was finally fed up and hit the books

Now, into the rest.

The filioque is a problem for me because it adjusted without a council what was agreed upon in the First Ecumenical Council, but the Word also directly says that He proceeded from the Father in John 15:26

>>536200

>>536195

>>536192

Bro you only have to say it once

>>536197

What did he mean by this?????

>>536189

HE’S GOT THE FECES OF A LITTLE BOY

>>536173

Best way to learn a language is experience. Go meet some people in the Orthodox church which I'm guessing will speak Russian since I imagine you'd want to join an Russian Orthodox church you're wanting to attend. Also study it in your free time and you should know enough to be golden. Same as learning any other language except this one you'll be speaking in church.

>>536173

We need to end this NEET "where do I get resources" meme. Here's how you get resources to join Orthodoxy:

>1. Go to an Orthodox Church

>2. Ask for resources on conversion

Don't sit online and ask for resources. If Orthodox Bibles and Orthodox Fathers aren't helping you, what more do you need?

>>536231

Entirely true. No one can lead you better than a priest – just head on into a parish and introduce yourself. Worry about the Russian and everything down the line.

Tbh, as an Orthodog, I'm one of the few people who have no issues with the filioque or even with papal infallibility. Wwell, while I think they're heresies, they only attempt to describe very real doctrines of the early Church, they just do it in a very biased way due to the Pope not seeking counsel from us, and they just need some reworking (which in fact is pretty much already done for the filioque, there only needs to be a conciliar statement that puts it the exact way we Orthodox mean it, and we need to return the favor by respecting the Latin doctrine as correct if not clumsily expressed before).

What bothers me is the countless contradicting dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church. Of course, technically speaking they do not contradict, but anybody without a major bias can see that it is because theologians have used major mental gymnastics to concord newer doctrines with older ones.

For one evident example: compare Unam sanctam and Cantate domino to Lumen gentium. Indeed, Vatican II is extremely difficult to reconcile with earlier dogmatic statements. However, at the same time, it's extremely difficult to reject Vatican II due to what Vatican I says about the authority of the Pope.

The liturgical mess that is the Catholic Church today, even for many Eastern Catholics, is only the cherry on the top, of course…

But, I also recognize that there is no real "killer argument" against Catholicism. They're technically correct on every account. In the end, what makes one decide between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is not how correct they are, but what one expects the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to look like. Is the main form of authority collegial or monarchical? Do the Latin Fathers need to be understood in light of the earlier and more terminologically accurate Greek Fathers, or do the Greek Fathers need to be understood in light of the later and more theologically elaborate Latin Fathers? Most importantly, who carried the torch of being the Church when the Great Schism happened (and by "Great Schism" I don't mean 1054, but the period from 1013 to the end of the 4th Crusades)?

This is what I will say: I, with St. Gregory Palamas, agree that Peter is the rock on which the Church was built. He is the source of unity of all the episcopate, as St. Cyprian of Carthage believed, and although many sees are apostolic, and many bishops are direct successors of St. Peter (see Antioch, and see today all the churches that claim apostolicity from Antioch), the title of Apostolic See and of Vicar of Peter is specifically reserved for Rome due to it being the presiding Church, who in particular saved the East's ass many times in the first millenium due to being untouched by the need to express the received tradition in philosophical terms. And I also believe, that the prayer of our Lord - that Peter would strengthen the faith of his brothers - also applies to his successors, and specifically so to the Pope due to him being recognized as Peter's main successor.

cont.

>>536234

But I also believe that to "return and strengthen his brothers' faith" is an expectation to be attained, not something always fundamentally true. If it were always fundamentally true, the Pope would not have alienated the Eastern bishops like he did, by applying his monarchical authority on the West onto the whole Church, which clearly became the true problem when East and West clashed at Florence. And in fact, he would not have ever forgotten about the collegial aspect of the Church, made most evident by St John Chrysostom putting Ss. Peter, John, and James on equal footing, and even giving the title of "holder of the keys of heaven" to all three, something unthinkable from a Latin perspective for a lot of its post-schism history.

But, the situation is changing… While it's the one Eastern Patriarch in attendance (forgot which one tbh) who had to kiss the Pope's feet at Florence (and almost went straight back home because of that, which is why the usual procedure wasn't followed in the end), in 1964 it was Pope Paul VI who kissed Patriarch Athenagoras's foot when the latter announced the renewal of dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And indeed, the Catholics have been buddying up to the Orthodox in recent times, to the point the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has even admitted last year that the Pope was indeed not recognized as holding universal jurisdiction over the Church in the first millenium.

But it's not all roses either. The Catholics, while eager to have us reunite with them, simply have a hard time understanding us. The mere fact that the Papacy dropped the title of "Patriarch of the West" during the last century proves this, and the fact they are more and more willing to recognize the legitimacy of Orthodox theology, but have a harder time recognizing that their own theology is problematic in parts. And, of course, from our side, we're even slower at being willing to understand what we could learn from Catholic theology (or hell, just from the Latin Fathers, who remain obscure in some circles of Orthodoxy).

>>536235

Finally, two great, unbiased books on the subject:

The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy

The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate

both by the same author, A. Edward Siecienski.

>>536235

And also: the potential for heresy that plagued the East in the first millenium, began to plague the West when the East dropped Greek philosophy around the same time the West incidentally picked it up.

The Church can live without Rome, because it is incorrect to say that where Rome is, the Church is (which was true at times and not at others, rather than being always and consistently true). But the Church is obviously somewhat crippled without Rome - first, we lose a lot of Western tradition; and second, we lose a Church founded by Ss. Peter and Paul; and third, we cannot hold an ecumenical council per the canons of Nicaea II. I pray for reunification, although right now we should focus on ending the schism with the Monophysites.

>>536224

Thanks for the advice!

>>536231

>>536233

You know what, you're completely right. Thank you for staying something that i was stupid enough to miss. I'll do that ASAP

>>536234

Y'know, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for the insight!

>>536240

Also, I find these scriptures to be highly relevant:

Matthew 16:19

>And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18

>Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Notice that He says to Peter He WILL give Him the keys of heaven. This is realized in Matthew 18:18, but with all the apostles at once. While Peter receives a certain primacy, he does not receive the keys first, or prior to the others, but together with the others, even if he has the high honors of receiving the announcement firstly and personally, due to his zeal for the Lord.

1 Corinthians 12-13

>Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Being a Catholic means being of Cephas for many Catholics. While I don't think this speaks on the validity of the Catholic Church, it's a huge warning sign.

>>536173 There is nothing uniquely holy about Russian culture or the Russian language. Why don't American Orthodox converts establish their own church in keeping with American culture and using English instead of deferring to foreign ones? The thing about Catholicism is that its grounded in Roman culture and Latin which are common to basically all of Western/European culture, regardless of specific nationalities. A major issue with Orthodoxy for me is that it seems too bound up in specific national identities of Eastern Europe, so it will always come across as alien to the west.

>>536317

Orthodox church does not shill itself, that is why it has not influenced the west, They keep things away from worldly things. You wont hear about orthodoxy but you will hear about the pope on his latest Instagram post about worldly problems.

>>536317

it's too early for america to have a culture, as you can see with the fruits of prottyism

>>536317

The OCA isn't yet actually recognized as an autocephalous church by all of the other churches. You don't hear about a Patriarch of America because we don't have one. So we're dependent on the Greek and Russian modes of liturgy.

>tfw

>>536767

Autocephalous Churches are not necessarily headed by a Patriarch. Besides America, the following Churches are not headed by a Patriarch (as in, the ruling archbishop isn't titled a Patriarch):

Greece

Cyprus

Albania

Czech lands and Slovakia

Poland

>>536771

You're right, getting hung up on the title of the primate isn't important. It's mainly the issue of Constantinople and co. not recognizing OCA's autocephaly. I realize the point of contention is purely administrative, but it still seriously undermines any sort of independent identity that could develop in the OCA. The abuse of archbishop Iakovos over the Ligonier meeting certainly didn't help, either.