/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I think it's because God ordained them to be divided to remind bible believing Christians that a divided kingdom ultimately will not stand.

>>541590

free will fam

Because the Cathodox martyred Pastor Jim pbuh

The same could be said for each of the 30,000 schisms they have had since then

There were many, many unions. The pan-church ones (Florence and Lyons) failed though more local ones (Breast for example) survived to this day. There was even one new union recently, in Puerto Rico.

Maybe "Nicea III" will bring us closer but I would not have much hope (but sufficent amount of it, yes)

>>541590

Because filioque was never important to the faith, only to theologians who like neat systematizations. Also the pope doesn't need to rule everything.

>>541825

>literal Mary* worship

*their version of

>>541889

Catholics worship the female deity known as the "Queen of Heaven" as mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. It is undeniably satanic.

>>541896

Protestants always get jelly when they realize they have little to no apparitions of Christ or Mary. I've always wondered why they blaspheme Mary, and realize it's to down-play the Marian apparitions that have converted millions to Catholicism throughout the ages.

>>541590

Because those who commit the mortal sin of schism are servants of Satan not God and must repent by their own free will.

>>541590

When the Pope with all the bishops consecrate russia to the immaculate heart of Mary, Russia will be converted (Russia hasn't been consecrated, and it's not Atheism to schismatic churches. Therefore, all brothers in Christ should pray that the pope consecrates Russia with all the bishops, even if you have erroneous beliefs about the Catholic Church or the consecration.

>>541896

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH)

>>541896

> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LATRIA AND HYPERDULIA FOR THIS POST

please elaborate

>>541896

You say it is satanic for them to be worshipping the female deity. I can't deny it.

>>542780

>Because those who commit the mortal sin of schism

And which are those?

Even Humbert and Patriarch Michael admited the latins and greeks are ok, but the other guy on the patriarchal chair is an autist.

And as another anon showed in a previous thread, most of the see remained in communion with both, and considered the whole thing stupid.

The Schism didn't develop as an unilateral clear thing until 1724-1729(!).

Even when unions were attempted, they tore themselves apart, or the "loyalists" got shit upon by Rome so much they either went back to the EO(see OCA), or barely held together because the patriarch was very patient(Melkites)

Even Cerulean was to be pardoned, when the Pope realised what a clusterfuck he got himself into with the whole "mutual excommunication" thing.

No, the whole "muh prideful schismatics that are so full of evul and venom they don't want to mend the Body of Christ, despite us being super welcoming and doing everything in our power to bring them back, and they need to repent and come graveling at their master's feet" is a meme, regardless of which side says it.

We don't need dindunuffism, even in ecclesiastical matters.

>>542990

>Russia hasn't been consecrated, and it's not Atheism to schismatic churches.

The Vatican thinks it's valid, and one of the kids said it means conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, so nah.

>>543153

nice ecumenism, ecumenist.

>>543153

>dindunuffism

That's a great word Ima start using it

>>541896

You get banned for disagreeing with Cathodox theology now?

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/09/latria_v_dulia_in_roman_cathol.php

>>543203

What do you mean "now"?

>>543203

>calls Catholics satanist

>w-why wuz I banned? D:

Anon, I …

>>543223

>calling Catholic piety satanic is the same as calling Catholics satanists

>>543153

Anyone who knowing the bishop of Rome to be to head of the bishops but refuses communion with him schisms. So the patriarchs and bishops and anyone who is Eastern "orthodox" simply because of protest of Rome. The average parishoner probably isn't aware they are in schism so don't mortally sin.

>>543814

No one thinks the Pope is the head of the Church and yet refuses to be a Catholic, because if they did, unless they become a non-denom, they wouldn't be really Orthodox or Anglican or whatever either, because according to those, the Pope is -not- the head of the Church.

There are maybe like 10 people in the world right now who believe the Pope is the head of the bishops today but who don't become Catholic anyway. And the Great Schism happened specifically because people ceased to believe the Pope is the head of the bishops, because of the crap behavior of the Papacy among other things. So then, would they be considered as having done the sin of schism?

>>543921

They do m8. You should read the official proclamations of the patriarchs and bishops regarding the role of the pope rather than ortholarping about it.

As I said before only those who knowingly and consensually schism mortally sin.

>>543929

First, stop insulting everyone you pass by. It would do you some good spiritually.

Second, I already know about what our bishops think of the Pope. I'm a filthy ecumenist so I'm into that. They do not believe the Pope is the current head of the Church, in fact they do not believe the Pope is inside the Church at all to begin with. Hell, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who gets called a liberal and an ecumenist by everyone, doesn't even think the Pope was validly baptized, or that any Latin Catholics were, really.

Either you're getting your information from polemical pro-Catholic sites that claim the schism is practically over (in which case your accusation of "LARPing" may very well be turned back against you), or we're not talking about the same thing.

>>543814

>Anyone who knowing the bishop of Rome to be to head of the bishops but refuses communion with him schisms

Like Saint Meletius of Antioch?

Or maybe the Entire Church during the time of Pope Vigilius?

Or how about that part about Saint Maximus the Confessor, where some guys told him he's in the wrong, since the Pope is gonna get into communion with the Byzantine Patriarch, and he replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."

Said Maximus would get vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, while your dear pope would get excommunicated by it.

>But Honorius didn't actually get condemned by the council, because semantics

Yeah, and i'm a tibetan astronaut.