/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>539750

The Orthodox heresy on divorce is enough for me.

They will say it's allowed in case of adultery, but that's not what Jesus said. He said in the case of pornaia, which means unnatural sexual acts (think incest, pedophilia, etc.) and not mere adultery. Even some Protestants understand this.

You realise you just infringed on Landover Baptists copyright there don't you ?

>>539767

Why is it so consistently translated as adultery then?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm

In the end, there's no "killer argument" against either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, because neither has a "big flaw". They're both -technically- correct. What matters, then, is one's expectations of what the Church should look like, and which way to interpret history is correct. Notably:

- Is the Church of Rome a Mother Church that occasionally acted like a big sister, or a "big sister" Church that occasionally acted like a mother?

- Must we interpret the Greek Fathers and their more precise theology in light of the Latin Fathers and their more elaborate theology, or must we interpret the Latin Fathers and their more elaborate theology in light of the Greek Fathers and their more precise theology?

- Ecumenical councils: authoritative because of collegiality or authoritative because of the Pope?

I am not saying here that truth is relative, of course, but rather, to untangle the mess between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a task that has proven itself to be extremely difficult, because we remember our histories differently and the historical information we have, while more helpful than what was remembered at previous attempts at reunification, is still rather inconclusive. Indeed, both theologians and bishops generally agree that -both- Orthodoxy and Catholicism are natural developments of the first millenium Church, complicated by a lack of communication and general stubborness to even bother treating one another with respect and love. And as I said, what we know about the first millenium Church does not contradict Orthodox doctrine in the Orthodox framework, or Catholic doctrine in the Catholic framework.

Two good, unbiased reads on the things that separate us, both by A. Edward Siecenski:

"The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy"

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

>>539767

Literally no competent scholar interprets "porneia" as meaning anything else than "fornication"/"adultery"/"prostitution".

AFAIK, even Catholic theologians don't have a big issue with us allowing divoce. Us allowing remarriage, and giving communion to remarried couples that live in a chaste manner, is a bigger disagreement. The Pope's trying to implement that, and it's making waves.

>>539767

The RCC, on the other hand, forces priest celibacy and bars them from marriage even though the Bible explicitly states that priests and deacons MUST be married in order to qualify for the position, as a man must understand how to run his own household before he can understand how to run God's household.

Also, here's my opinion on the Gadolig Church :DD, from another thread.

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.

>>539778

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).

>>539779

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. While many heresies sprang up in the East due to using Greek and thus needing to express doctrine in the most precise way possible, this was not a problem with the more general Latin, thus allowing Rome to be a theological backwater, so to speak. But around the time the Eastern Churches began to have a very solidified and unified view on doctrine and expression thereof, and let go of using Greek philosophy as a result, the Western Churches picked it up, and had their own developments. With the Bishop of Rome being estranged from the other Patriarchs, it was difficult for Rome to continue expressing its tradition within the lineage of the whole Church.

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.

>>539781

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. And before you say "there is neither Jew nor Greek" applies similarly to the Orthodox: both phyletism and ethno-phyletism are heresies, especially recognized as such at the Council of Crete, and while it's recognized as a natural problem that arose out of having national Churches, there is an entire theological point in Catholicism about being "of Cephas".

>>539784

tbh, some people's obssession with Marian revelations is borderline Montanism.

Besides, isn't it generally acknowledged that she meant conversion from atheism, not from Orthodoxy? If that means anything, it's that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are not as distinct from one another as their canonical boundaries would tell.

>>539788

Thank you my friend, your comments were very helpful. I only wish I had an appropriate question to ask.

>>539774

The NT doesnt say that priests and deacons must be married, dude.

>>539790

You're welcome, I hope that you'll find your way.

I also hope that a Catholic will give his own perspective on Orthodoxy, to counterbalance what I said.

>>539784

>might want to consider that Our Lady demanded the Pope to consecrate Russia to her and that it would then be converted

And one of the kids said it means Russia would become orthodox, another that it would become eastern catholic.

Regardless, communism fell, and the Vatican says the consecreation was legit, and Russia is religious again(ironically, now the West has weird commie and SJW autism, and Russia is the most anti-ecumenical when it comes to dialogue with catholicism, so make sense of that).

Besides, the Blessed Mary is already the tzarina of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_Derzhavnaya

Said icon was also brought to Fatima to be venerated, so…

>>539815

>Russia is the most anti-ecumenical when it comes to dialogue with catholicism

nah

Constantinople and Moscow are ecumenical as hell when Catholicism is involved.

I'd rather say that the most anti-ecumenical autocephalous Church is either Greece or Jerusalem. Relations in some Eastern European countries aren't flowery, but it's Greek and Jerusalemite bishops who still specifically and unilaterally oppose Catholicism today.

>>539793

>The NT doesnt say that priests and deacons must be married, dude.

1 Timothy 3, m8.

>>539950

This picture loads sideways for me for some reason…

>>540035

Paul is giving directions, not orders. In the 1st century church, a clergyman being married to a single woman was already a rather high standard, for all to follow. When it became the norm for everyone, it's only natural that clergymen would then be held to an even higher standard.

>>540138

Honestly, the two things that would help make a big step in healing the schism would be 1) the "council" of Nicaea in 2025 not being a disaster, and 2) traditional Catholicism becoming the norm again. The main reason Orthodox are scared of Catholicism today is not "muh heresies" or "muh sack of Constantinople", but simply that when they take a look at Catholicism in their country, what they find is a mess they can barely distinguish from Protestantism. Of course, in countries where Catholics and Orthodox look much more like one another (such as France, which is relatively traditional Catholicism compared to the US or Germany), there's still the problem of Catholics not understanding how big our differences are. But I want to say that's secondary - Catholics and Orthodox will certainly get a more clear understanding of what separates us and what we can learn from each other, if we live next to one another and help out each other against the rise of liberalism and modernism. But when Orthodox look at Rome, liberalism and modernism is what they find sometimes, and when Catholics look at the East, they trust the Pope buddying up to the Orthodox over their own experience of what Orthodoxy is like.

>>540138

>I've heard confrontations often get physical at the Holy Sepulchre which makes me very sad.

There once was a gunfight between Jerusalemite (Eastern) Orthodox and Armenian (Oriental) Orthodox priests, I believe. And the Eucharist was present. Lord have mercy.