[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / f / fur / htg / hypno / rule34 / strek / trap / vore ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: cc90b0a45d5fba0⋯.jpg (108.62 KB, 480x640, 3:4, e2d16bf8b7b217e788f00d1ea3….jpg)

5b52b1 No.551813

As Papism collapses under its own sin, the Church is seeing a restoration in the West. More people in the West are converting to Orthodoxy, my parish is almost entirely converts.

How do we see the projection of Orthodox Christians across Europe? I think it will grow very rapidly, as people are drawn towards genuine traditional Christianity.

https://youtu.be/zYi1jRox9F4

93272c No.551814

not sure, i'm a burger that has known nothing but the baptists and methodists


13eccb No.551815

>genuine traditional Christianity

AKA Independent Fundamental Baptism


5b52b1 No.551816

>>551814

Yeah, I was not very aware of Orthodox Christianity until I converted but it seems that everywhere I see people are converting. Bringing their friends. Sharing the gospel.


047669 No.551818

>>551813

Why can't you just be happy about people converting to your religion and not go out of your way to bring down another Church in the process? Doesn't seem very christ-like to me.


553576 No.551820

File: e879a21b472e605⋯.jpg (119.94 KB, 634x815, 634:815, 1510023893887.jpg)

Original sin is false, the Eucharist is true and there's nothing prots or catholics can do about it lmao!!


924044 No.551821

>unironically proffering the begome ordodox meme

Your life is in shambles, isn't it


92d684 No.551823

File: dae63c0a3b11130⋯.png (93.16 KB, 295x221, 295:221, 1345761651799.png)

>>551818

What.

I mean "what" as in "how did you come to the conclusion he means this"


51a9ba No.551824

>>551813

>More people in the West are converting to Orthodoxy, my parish is almost entirely converts.

Weak people with lukewarm faith always run away instead of fighting against the Enemy, no surprise there


abc361 No.551826

>>551823

>he calls Catholics "Papists"

<how do you come to this conclusion?!

uh … derp


7ca720 No.551827

The Church is getting bigger every year, so who knows. I live in the States, but all around the area I live I hear talk of parishes growing and new churches being built. It's not hard to imagine Orthodoxy becoming more and more prominent in the coming decades.


92d684 No.551828

File: 92c5b7fd4c810b2⋯.jpg (83.02 KB, 448x595, 64:85, 92c5b7fd4c810b26bc1fab58a6….jpg)

>>551824

>Admit you go to the wrong church and actually quit unlike the other guys that are afraid to profess that homosexuality is wrong or fight the liberal church

>Heh, losers

If the newly converted orthodox broke down a Novus Ordo mass, would you start crying because you were being persecuted?


b1d8d7 No.551830

Why do Catholics get so butthurt whenever someone converts to Orthodoxy?


014707 No.551833

File: d0ebfac638a9804⋯.gif (238.46 KB, 1900x1500, 19:15, mapeuropeabrate3big.gif)

lmao glad you guys are saving the west with your loose morals and alarmingly low church attendance rates


abc361 No.551835

File: c6efb47ecc25afb⋯.png (8.52 KB, 346x207, 346:207, nope02a.png)

>>551830

Catholics don't get butthurt when someone converts to Orthodox. This thread is literally "loool Cadolicks be sinful and wrong and hate god 'n shiieeeett cuz 2 guys converted looool".

They even declare the Catholic Church "dead", while completely ignoring the actual numbers. On the chans, Orthodox is the meme church because it is small and, thus, people can LARP as Orthodox without too many difficult questions.

I suspect OP is not Orthodox. Just a LARPer who saw bear memes on /pol/.


b1d8d7 No.551840

>>551835

see

>>551833

>>551824

>>551821

>>551818

>>551835

Half the thread is Butthurtolics being butthurt.


924044 No.551845

>>551840

OP is a LARPer, I don't get why you'd defend him


b1d8d7 No.551846

>>551845

Why is he a LARPer? I don't get why you would be so butthurt about someone LARPing.


51a9ba No.551847

>>551828

who are you talking to?


924044 No.551853

>>551846

>Why is he a LARPer?

The distinctive smell of pride wafting from his post and the characteristic logorrhea all point to a /pol/ regular who believes the natsoc meme, a sign of not having embraced our Lord and still believing this world can be fixed with mankind's own power alone or even worse, "meme" magic.

>hurr y u buthur tho

Seeing his kind is never pleasant to anybody with a healthy brain.


553576 No.551854

File: 2e56274f4530a05⋯.jpg (73.22 KB, 283x350, 283:350, 1491174143339.jpg)

Protestantism is the definition of LARPing. Your churches are younger than Christianity by 1500 years and your clergy/pastors are all invalid lmao

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

abc361 No.551862

File: 2e07b3c89df9c25⋯.jpg (29.76 KB, 288x400, 18:25, MyNigga1.jpg)

>>551854

>classic Jack Kirby

Nice!


f1b0ba No.551864

>>551813

>been reading into orthodoxy

>seems pretty good except a point or two here and there, maybe I just don't understand it

>keep considering contacting one of the local priests

>still can't move past the issues I have with it

I want to, but I just don't know.

I can attest the draw is big, mostly because protestantism failed to be a proper reform and has become corrupt; Papism has always been corrupt.


924044 No.551866

>>551864

>looks for purity in this world

There's another one


b1d8d7 No.551867

>>551853

That's a lot of assumptions my dude. Perhaps the pride lies with thyself.


924044 No.551868

>>551867

>spend years on /pol/ specifically

>learn to know the local fauna

>graduate from being a baby reactionary

>move to /christian/

>see a migratory pollock every once in a while

>see they haven't changed one sliver

>no u r pride neener neener

That's nice dear


f1b0ba No.551870

>>551866

>purity

What?


ea830f No.551872

> More people in the West are converting to Orthodoxy, my parish is almost entirely converts.

Have to be careful with your optimism with things like this, firstly there is the issue that a lot of converts coming in just for marriage as Orthodox people arent as ethnocentric in the past. The second is that there tends to be a natural limit to these kinds of growth - much like with height.

Secondly when your numbers are so small any growth is huge - which is how mormons and JWs talk about triple digit growth without lying.

Whilst Orthodoxy will eventually loose its ethnic association in about 4+ decades outside of existing Orthodox countries its unlikely you are going to have them in significant numbers. It will be interesting to the US get its own Church though once the immigrants are fully assimilated and replaced by non ethnic converts

I say this not troll but so you don't get disappointed. I can tell from your OP that you are almost certainly an ex protestant or atheist. That kind of fervor for revival/numbers is a big tell


ea830f No.551875

>>551870

Not that anon but Orthodoxy can often seem hyper pure/uncorrupt to people simply because its so exotic to Westerners. Its like a Christian version of Shangri La


b1d8d7 No.551876

>>551868

I think your pride has made you a bit delusional.


924044 No.551878

>>551870

There isn't a single human organization that's perfect, no, not one. At most you can choose the least bad.


924044 No.551880

>>551876

Do try to make any argument at all


b1d8d7 No.551883

>>551880

Repent from your pride.


d99cf7 No.551896

>>551875

I didn't mean that orthodoxy was super pure, there's bound to be some sort of failing as the people are human, and We're all flawed. I'm more concerned with doctrine and what the church fundamentally "is" or "should be".

>I've never heard of an orthodox sodomite union

>never heard of the orthodox having gay drug fuelled orgies

>etc.

>etc.

You can only listen to people proclaim kjv inerrant so many times while rejecting the original Koine till you begin to fully wondering if maybe something is wrong.

Granted there are some things, that if they are how I think, are something I wouldn't convert because of. I really should shoot an email to that priest…


b0a0d0 No.551905

>>551896

>while rejecting the original Koine

Is it a rejection of the original Koine or is a rejection of your bad translation and interpretation of it?


628660 No.551908

>toll houses

>divorce

Lo


0d812a No.551923

>>551820

>Original sin is false

>Doesn't even know that Orthodox Catholic call it Ancestral Sin

Ortholarper gtfo.


214be2 No.551925

>>551833

What would you say about all the violence tbat takes place in predominantly Catholic South America? I'm not sure if judging the adherents of a denomination is the best way to go about it.


48fdac No.551978

>>551923

>he thinks original sin is same as ancestral sin

Top brainlet


5b52b1 No.552016

OP here,

When I posted this I expected a sort of negative reaction from a few Catholics, but for people to actually discuss a little bit about how Christian Orthodoxy is returning to the West and how Roman Catholicism is being slowly overtaken.

Some of the posts here are so unbelievably stupid and hateful I cannot even imagine what sort of deranged person would post them. Like there is one that goes into an in-detail attack on my personality, when I wrote like three sentences in the OP. What a bizarre way to think of the world.

>>551864

What issues particularly? If you post them here I could link a source.

OrthodoxInfo is the best information repository if you're looking for more data.

>>551828

SemiTrad catholics always make the point that they are rebelling against some sort of liberal infiltration in the church, but these liberal practices and teachings are being delivered through the Roman Catholic organisation. Through the official channels deemed dogmatically as vessels of divine revelation.

So I see a lot of Catholics in rebellion against modernism, liberalism, universalism about other religions especially Judaism, and tolerance of homosexuality; and of course for any faithful Christian these are in complete opposition to the gospels, but when it is being delivered THROUGH what a Roman Catholic would deem as the Church. Using the proper form for divine revelation, then there really is no defence of it.

>>551872

From observation over here, and on online communities there are lots of people converting simply out of a desire to find ancient Christianity. With very few people converting so that they can marry into the religion.

The numbers obviously aren't too drastic, but I think it's surprising what a visible presence Orthodox Christianity now has.


ea830f No.552027

>>551896

>I've never heard of

Thats the entire point though when somethings exotic all the faults seem invisible. Its why so many people like buddhism. Orthodoxy has the same skeletons in its closet as other denominations.


ea830f No.552030

>>552016

>From observation over here, and on online communities there are lots of people converting simply out of a desire to find ancient Christianity.

Well its important to remember that these online communities are tiny and not representative. What you are saying would be like assessing the political climate in the 2016 US election based on what university students think.

>With very few people converting so that they can marry into the religion.

Well in the United States they arent according to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops

>Almost half the nearly 1 million Orthodox Christians in the United States today are converts, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America reported in 2015. The majority of these married into the church. But a growing number are joining simply out of an affinity for the faith.

>"We can still say that it's not the majority of the laity — at this stage, most have been raised in the church — but there's a lot of them," says the Very Rev. Archpriest Andrew Damick, pastor of St. Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in Emmaus

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-non-greek-greek-orthodox-priest-20170624-story.html

>The numbers obviously aren't too drastic, but I think it's surprising what a visible presence Orthodox Christianity now has.

Not really, in the US there are about 1 to 3 million Orthodox members and about 6-7 million Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians (and probably another 1.5 million others). Where things get interesting is when number exceed immigrants from those countries with that religion. For instance in the England with the Catholic Church having 75% Native English members.


ea830f No.552031

>>552030

Oh and for comparison the Catholic Church in England has 4.5 million members about 2.5-3 million Catholic Immigrant populations.


8aaa58 No.552081

We still grow faster than you.

In this year alone orthodox church of Puerto Rico joined Catholic Church.

Church may be more yellow, brown and black in decades to come, but west will rather submit to imam than to pop. And there are still new wave of traditional church of youth in Europe and America.


811bb9 No.552084

Within Catholicism, many are pushing Catholics toward traditional Catholicism (ie SSPX) or even Orthodoxy. Several communities I know in France use Catholic buildings for their liturgies (in fact, my own parish is getting its own building soon, given to them by the Catholics), and the Catholic priest there even suggests their congregation to go check us out.

But even without push from traditional-minded clergy, you still have many Catholics who go to our open house days and then end up being there every Sunday, because they aren't satisfied with how liberal Catholicism has gotten, and/or because they like how passionate we are for our faith unlike the Catholics they know, and/or because they just really, really like icons.

I feel bad for the Eastern Catholics, since they're actually in communion with Rome but no one really cares about them.

However, as far as I know, it's actually Evangelicals who get the most converts in the US, including from Catholicism. Seems like there are two kinds of Catholic apostates - those who want something more traditional without being satisfied (or simply without finding) the TLM or an EC liturgy, and thus go SSPX or Orthodox.

And those who want something more easy and liberal, and go "spiritual but not religious" or Evangelical. These numbers are actually higher than the former in the US apparently.


ea830f No.552085

>>552081

Not even Orthodox but that's a joke the Orthodox Church in Puerto Rico was under 20 people meanwhile thousands of Catholics are joining the Orthodox Church in Central America


811bb9 No.552087

>>552085

Should be noted that almost all the Catholics who become Orthodox in Central & Latin Americas are Eastern Catholics who are tired of being treated like crap by the Roman Catholic administration. Today, a lot of Eastern Catholics feel like they are only in communion with Rome because of historical circumstances, not because they actually share the same faith, unfortunately. The Melkites & Ukrainian Catholics went one step further and openly reject Catholic dogma in all their educational material, and let's of course not forget the Zoghby Initiative. Even though it is with Vatican II that de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches became a serious project, it's far from being done, and many ECs today still feel hurt by Rome.

I haven't heard of Roman Catholics becoming Orthodox in Central America however. I doubt there are noticeable numbers - it's like expecting there to be many converts to Catholicism in Greece or Russia.


9c7b12 No.552101

File: cce8eb8aa901ca8⋯.jpg (49.32 KB, 590x392, 295:196, truth ml.jpg)

Martin Luther: "The truth lies with the Greeks.” Why didn't he follow up?


ef2b4b No.552112

>>552101

I'd assume there's some context to that one line which explains why he didn't.


69d13f No.552115

I'd rather be Catholic than without apostolic tradition and there are no EO perishes anywhere nearby. Simply put: I don't disagree with Rome enough to leave.


0d812a No.552116

>>551978

>Ancestral sin is the doctrine that the sins of the forefathers lead to punishment of their descendants.

>Original sin is the doctrine that sins of Adam lead to the imperfection of our nature


811bb9 No.552119

>>552116

Frankly, the only reason Orthodox are still angry about "original sin" is because Catholics were historically autistic about following Augustine's idea of it. Orthodox don't seem to know that the situation evolved since then. Nowadays it is simply not reasonable to say that the way Catholicism understands original sin is any different from the way Orthodoxy understands it, although the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception was necessary for Catholicism becausee the Augustinian idea of original sin remains a valid expression of it, while it's not tolerable to Orthodox ears.


6b46dd No.552120

File: 6faaa7d310cc2d1⋯.jpg (82.05 KB, 519x428, 519:428, 1415741630289.jpg)

Someone just post that Basillus(I think that was his name) vs Pope image already, this cornerstone of Cath versus Ortho debating truly is a gem.


813f66 No.552128

>>552119

What is original sin but lack of grace that Adam had from beginning but we due to his sin do not?


811bb9 No.552151

>>552128

We understand the original sin to be the sin of Adam that put a curse upon him, turning the world against us and introducing death. The grace that Adam lost is restored to us in Christ, and the curse is lifted.

But we do not tolerate Augustine's idea of original sin, which is that the guilt of Adam's sin was "genetically" transmitted to his descendants, thus affecting all of humanity. The original sin did not destroy our nature, it only sullied it, and furthermore, it was not a huge dramatic mistake that the adult Adam made, dooming him (and us) to death so that only God Himself can save us, but it was rather a stupid mistake made by the childish Adam, that cursed him but that God promised to deliver him (and us) from.

According to the Augistinian teaching, newborns who die go to Hell, because of the guilt of Adam. According to the greater Orthodox teaching, we simply cannot know the fate of newborns, not because they have guilt from Adam (they are born without guilt) but because they did not have the occasion to grow in holiness.

Similarly, the Mother of God must necessarily be born without original sin in Catholic theology if she was always sinless, but not in Orthodoxy - she could be born with the stain of original sin, including being attracted to sin, but she could also have fought against this attraction to sin, with the grace of God. The Fathers don't agree exactly on when she became and remained without sin either - some say it's at her conception, some say it's at her birth, some say it's when the Archangel Gabriel visited her. God chose a stainless and favored vessel, but in Orthodoxy she could be stainless and favored without being free of original sin - what original sin means is not that we have fallen from grace, as much as that our growth toward deification is blocked and rather we grow toward death.


6b46dd No.552166

>>552151

>The grace that Adam lost is restored to us in Christ, and the curse is lifted.

It is?

But women still feel pain when giving birth.


9c7b12 No.552170

>>552166

Christian women bear the pain with love


811bb9 No.552171

>>552166

And all baptized Orthodox Christians still end up being buried.

We do not instantly regain the grace that Adam and Eve had by being baptized, but by being and remaining united to the Body of Christ, which begins with baptism and ends with deification.

So, we may be able to suffer, fall from grace again, and ultimately even die, but our existence continues after death, and our progress toward deification continues.

Ultimately, we will be resurrected, and the saved will not only have recovered the grace that Adam had, but they will have gone farther than Adam and will have become by grace what God is by nature.

Adam was created in a better state of grace than we are right now, but he was also created with the intent of progressing toward deification.


6b46dd No.552173

>>552171

>The curse is lifted

>The curse is not lifted

Why?

For reference, I was asking about the curse God gave us for eating the fruit, not the curse of the fruit itself.


811bb9 No.552177

>>552173

The curse is lifted, but it does not happen overnight. We progress in our salvation, we are not saved overnight, and the fullness of our reward (or of our punishment) will only come at the Resurrection anyway.


96cfb3 No.552179

>>551908

you guys have purgatory so yeah

also any real orthodox church will not grant divorces, much like any real catholic church will not have clown mass yeah


6b46dd No.552180

>>552177

Might as well just say "the curse WILL be lifted"


811bb9 No.552187

>>552180

We can already say it is lifted, like we can already say we are saved, because we were baptized and, furthermore, we were promised salvation by God and He is currently saving us, and He will not let go of us. But our salvation isn't done proper until we are actually freed from sin and death… You might compare it to God sending us a rope as we are sinking in quicksand. If we grab it, we can proclaim "I'm saved!", especially as the hand of God will not let go, but we can also say we are being saved, as we are not out of the quicksand yet, and we can also say that we hope we will be saved, as we can still let go of the rope and find ourselves still in the quicksand, even if closer to the shore.


eb6c22 No.552188

>>551827

>The Church is getting bigger every year, so who knows

In all honesty something so small as the orthodox church in America can't do much else than grow.

Don't get me wrong, but you guys are about 0,5% of the entire population, you can't go much lower while in the meantime religions with a high percentage are more prone to lose people.

>>552179

>also any real orthodox church will not grant divorces, much like any real catholic church will not have clown mass yeah

A divorce in an orthodox church is not something a church just 'allows' but tolerates.

It's also licit to have one in the orthodox church.


543d97 No.552190

>>551818

Catholicism has deserved to die for 500 years


543d97 No.552191

>>551824

>the Enemy

not even hiding your brain washing tactics a little bit kek


6b46dd No.552195

>>552187

I'm having trouble reading this post but I think I have a proper response to it.

You really made things troublesome for no reason. Lets talk about language for a moment…

So there is "what you meant to say" and "what you actually say". You hope the person you're speaking to will understand the former when you speak, but if you're arguing something serious(IE: Theology), you should take a moment to check what you're actually saying. You seem to recognize this somewhat, considering this sentence:

>If we grab it, we can proclaim "I'm saved!", especially as the hand of God will not let go, but we can also say we are being saved, as we are not out of the quicksand yet

You recognize that we are still in the quicksand just like women and men are still in the curse.

>inb4 But what about the "I'm saved!" thing?

I just explained above, you say that because you're in a moment of panic and don't have time to check if you used proper grammar so you just rush a sentence together and people understand it.

Also

>like we can already say we are saved, because we were baptized and, furthermore, we were promised salvation by God and He is currently saving us

I don't know if its just me but I'm very paranoid about the fact that random Christians I know might not be saved.

You were promised salvation within certain rules and limits(REPENT), and some of those emotional rules(Again, REPENT, love, faith) can be hard to tell. A lot of saints have thought themselves to be unsaved moments before their death despise contradictory reports about their virtue before death or physically appearance of halos.


811bb9 No.552199

>>552188

Matthew 5:32 - our Lord tolerates divorce in cases of whorishness.

Somebody who divorces and remarries lives in adultery, but again, this does not include divorce in cases of whorishness (prostitution, adultery, overall sexual sin).

A marriage can be ended by one of two things: either death

>A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord

…or whorishness.

>But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.


811bb9 No.552205

>>552195

>You really made things troublesome for no reason

I'm sorry… English is not my first language, if that's an excuse.

>You recognize that we are still in the quicksand just like women and men are still in the curse.

Of course. None of us is in Heaven yet, so none of us is truly and finally saved yet.

But a lot of Christianity focuses on the fact that what is to come, is also already present with us. The upcoming Kingdom of God is already within us, the eternal 8th day of creation that the Lord began at the Cross is already here when not all are within the Church. To speak in a more strict manner, since I've apparently been confusing, the Church is the Body of Christ, the community of the elect, of the saved, and yet it is already present here with us, and we can already unite ourselves to it, but only the final judgment will separate the wheat from the chaff forever.

>I don't know if its just me but I'm very paranoid about the fact that random Christians I know might not be saved.

>You were promised salvation within certain rules and limits(REPENT), and some of those emotional rules(Again, REPENT, love, faith) can be hard to tell. A lot of saints have thought themselves to be unsaved moments before their death despise contradictory reports about their virtue before death or physically appearance of halos.

I try not to worry about it… One righteous person's prayers could save the whole world, I'd rather focus on becoming saintly myself and bringing others to this same path than on what may or may not be in the heart of others. Only they and God can know that. As for me, I know what is in my heart, and it is terrible.


e4045e No.552206

Around 4 out of every 5 orthodox I see is a closet protestant who is only fueled by his hate towards catholicism as a consequence of the propaganda they are exposed to.

The remaining are apostates who suddenly pretend they have always hated everything in catholicism, and every single catholic thing, and constantly remind themselves of how much they hate everything in catholicism, even though they didn't acre about any of the things they mention until after their apostasy. Post-apostasy rationalization.


813f66 No.552211

>>552151

>We understand the original sin to be the sin of Adam that put a curse upon him, turning the world against us and introducing death. The grace that Adam lost is restored to us in Christ, and the curse is lifted.

And you do know that this is Catholic definition of original sin?

>But we do not tolerate Augustine's idea of original sin, which is that the guilt of Adam's sin was "genetically" transmitted to his descendants, thus affecting all of humanity. The original sin did not destroy our nature, it only sullied it, and furthermore, it was not a huge dramatic mistake that the adult Adam made, dooming him (and us) to death so that only God Himself can save us, but it was rather a stupid mistake made by the childish Adam, that cursed him but that God promised to deliver him (and us) from.

Augustine teached fallowing:

>Sin of Adam was his personal sin

>Fall of Adam caused whole of human race to be in fallen state

>Because no one is of himself in state of Grace, all need savior who gives grace

The "Genetic" view on spiritual matter is Tertullian one, after his departure from faith iirc

Canons of Council of Orange summarises it in this way:

Canon 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

Canon 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

>According to the Augistinian teaching, newborns who die go to Hell, because of the guilt of Adam. According to the greater Orthodox teaching, we simply cannot know the fate of newborns, not because they have guilt from Adam (they are born without guilt) but because they did not have the occasion to grow in holiness.

You do know that Limbo of Children is a thing in Augustinian theology, right? You know, basically heaven-without-seeing-God for no one without grace can see God.

His so-called denial of it is only denial of Pelagian version of it. He believed in "mild punishment" i.e. not seeing God.

>Similarly, the Mother of God must necessarily be born without original sin in Catholic theology if she was always sinless, but not in Orthodoxy - she could be born with the stain of original sin, including being attracted to sin, but she could also have fought against this attraction to sin, with the grace of God. The Fathers don't agree exactly on when she became and remained without sin either - some say it's at her conception, some say it's at her birth, some say it's when the Archangel Gabriel visited her. God chose a stainless and favored vessel, but in Orthodoxy she could be stainless and favored without being free of original sin - what original sin means is not that we have fallen from grace, as much as that our growth toward deification is blocked and rather we grow toward death.

And that's the shame, for the whole immaculate conception biz got so much grounding in west because we looked at our Eastern Brothers, who always believed it, and had fest for it in Syria.

I don't even mention that catholic theology outgrowth Augustine. We are more into St. Anselm really.


b1752a No.552225

The incredible bitterness and vitriol that some Catholic posters are willing to post here continually shocks me. While the Orthodox Church is growing, yes, this is clearly a bait thread, and I would have hoped that you guys would recognize that and not bite. This is shameful.

I think I'm going to start collecting caps of some of these posts and ones that I've seen in the past. Someone needs to archive this behavior so that it can't be ignored in the future.


543d97 No.552227

>>552225

30 years we fought

How many more decades of combat do we need to put an end to the Catholic menace


96cfb3 No.552231

>>552206

i don't hate u guys :)

also John Paul II referred to St. Seraphim of Sarov as a saint


047669 No.552243

>>552225

>Someone needs to archive this behavior so that it can't be ignored in the future.

Good idea. Make yourself a nice little collage of every post that hurt your feefees so everyone can see how the poor little struggling orthos are being oppressed. It's much more mature to blame everyone else except the person who started this thread in the first place.


6b46dd No.552246

File: 702bb5fa6b6e344⋯.png (162.67 KB, 454x800, 227:400, 702bb5fa6b6e3441df4e355b50….png)


b1752a No.552247

>>552243

He is certainly in the wrong, but this doesn't make this sort of response acceptable. You are my brother and this simply isn't an acceptable state of affairs.


cf38b2 No.552268

>>552243

he's talking about the bait thread dumbass


80f4cf No.552761

>>551815

Despite our differences I regard IFBs as good people and good Christians. The same cannot be said for Roman Catholics.


eb6c22 No.552794

>>552761

>Baptists

>Spit on almost everything for what your church stands for

>They are good people and good christians

>Roman Catholics

>Almost the same as eastern orthodoxy but with a pope, a -que and unleavened bread

>They are bad! No good people and no good christians!

Found the orthoLARPer.


5efa99 No.552797

>>552247

>>552794

Do you know who says we're brothers all the time ? Catholics. Do you know who attacks the Church and the Pope all the time, making up "facts", i.e. lieing, insulting and the like ? Orthos. And know what ? It's not only the retarded /pol/-LARPers, it's also high ranked clergy.

That is the problem: Orthos are not only objectively in the wrong, being a mere tool of secular governments, they explain their shit with "it feels right" and ignore literally almost 2000 years of Church history.

Despite that fact that you can't assemble ecumenical councils (btw lol'd, because it can't be ecumenical without the Pope declaring so anyway) because the Patriarchs can't make up their minds who sits where. Literally. Some years ago it ALMOST happened, because Kiril said "I don't care where I sit". That's the state of your "Church", where certain national Churches refuse to acknowledge others - WHICH ARE ACKOWLEDGED BY OTHERS AGAIN. Wth man. I'm not denying that heterodoxy is rich - but you made yourself fools by stating how you're the "original Church", and you continue to do so, and that makes me sad - because the literal reason the schism cannot be undone is pure arrogance, pride.

There are Catholic Churches in the Eastern Rite - they are infact FULLY orthodox, and in communion with Rome. Do you know what they focus on ? God. Not on politics or banter. There you go.


e09b0b No.552816

>>552797

That's a lot of buzzwords with no actual justification for those accusations.

Please justify further why you say that:

- we make up "facts"

- we are mere tools of secular governments

- this makes us objectively wrong

- we ignore 2000 years of Church history

- canonical irregularities (like the Patriarch of Moscow thinking he's the Ecumenical Patriarch) prove we are not the Church

- the schism cannot be undone simply because we are arrogant and prideful

- Eastern Catholics are just Orthodox in communion with Rome (which is true for the Melkites, but you'll have to explain for the other rites)

>>552794

You Catholics need to stop pretending that we're the same but with a few differences that can be chalked up to tradition. We're not the same. Maybe, when you look at us, you see something recognizable, but when we look at you, we see countless things that are completely contradictory to the tradition we've held.


80f4cf No.552823

>>552816

>Maybe, when you look at us, you see something recognizable, but when we look at you, we see countless things that are completely contradictory to the tradition we've held.

Beautifully said.


86f4ba No.552837

>>552101

It may have been as simple as geography and circumstance. A letter could take as long as six months to get from Luther to the Patriarch in Constantinople who was also working under restraint while in bondage to the Ottomans.


eb6c22 No.552847

>>552816

>We're not the same. Maybe, when you look at us, you see something recognizable, but when we look at you, we see countless things that are completely contradictory to the tradition we've held.

Then please mr. orthoLARPer, explain the differences between the orthodox and the catholic church that are not:

- Leavened/unleavened bread

- Filio/filioque (which has been already resolved anyway)

- Papacy


b4ff2d No.552852

File: 06cbdb6dce5990b⋯.jpg (91.8 KB, 680x972, 170:243, 06cbdb6dce5990bdbcedbc4bda….jpg)

>ok fam we're going to ignore the fact that Peter holds primacy over the apostles, has personally received 3 revelations from Christ, and was given reign over the Church (Matthew 16:18-19) and instead we're going to choose to support a specific Orthodox bishop from a specific ethnic group which is in a rivalry and struggle with other Orthodox bishops from other ethnic groups because all of them lack a leadership (hmmm) and are trying to get more power

orthodoxy in a nutshell


a3388f No.552853

I tend to suspect that the Orthodox Chur h is also guilty of many sins, just like the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't know for sure, but based on my experiences in Orthodox Churches in America, it seems that they are part of the same 'conspiracy network' which doesn't keep the well-being of believers in mind.


e09b0b No.552861

>>552847

Essence-energy distinction.

Understanding of apostolic succession and authority - which includes the Papacy of course, but also concerns the ideas of Petrine succession.

Sources of infallibility within the Church, and notably what exactly made ecumenical councils authoritative.

The issue of unleavened bread is something nobody cares about anymore except traditionalists. However, the filioque has not been resolved, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.


e09b0b No.552875

>>552861

By the way, when I say the essence-energy distinction, I don't just mean the doctrine alone. I also mean everything that is implied by it - theosis, a rejection of a lot of what Aquinas taught, etc.


eb6c22 No.552894

>>552861

>essence-energy distinction

A non-issue and already solved; we don't see it as heretical anymore and was never against one of our dogmas anyway.

>Understanding of apostolic succession and authority - which includes the Papacy of course, but also concerns the ideas of Petrine succession.

We have the exact same understanding of apostolic succession as the orthodox.

Nothing from our views about apostolic succession has changed after the Schism.

>Sources of infallibility within the Church, and notably what exactly made ecumenical councils authoritative.

Once again we got the exact same understanding on what makes councils authoritative.

The only difference being is that since we're centralized around Rome we could do more Councils than you guys who can't agree with each other.

>However, the filioque has not been resolved, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

It IS resolved, both Churches agree that it's just semantics that it doesn't mean much as long as the Greek one doesn't get the -que added.


e09b0b No.553027

>>552894

>A non-issue and already solved; we don't see it as heretical anymore and was never against one of our dogmas anyway.

Funny, because as lately as in the 20th century, you had theologians like Simon Vailhé calling us polytheists because of it. Even today, I've discussed with several Catholics who had a big problem against it, and even John Paul II recognized that the West had issues with Palamas historically. While more Catholic theologians are open to him today, that is a very, very recent movement that still needs to be recognized with a dogmatic declaration - I say this because the essence-energy distinction is a dogma of Orthodoxy.

>We have the exact same understanding of apostolic succession as the orthodox.

>Nothing from our views about apostolic succession has changed after the Schism.

The notion of "Petrine succession" is completely foreign to Orthodoxy, for one.

For two, we recognize apostolic succession to require apostolic faith as well, so we cannot technically say that you guys have apostolic succession for instance.

>Once again we got the exact same understanding on what makes councils authoritative.

Collegiality alone? So it's not the final word of the Pope that gives a council dogmatic authority? And a council has more authority than any one bishop, including a Pope?

>It IS resolved, both Churches agree that it's just semantics that it doesn't mean much as long as the Greek one doesn't get the -que added.

No, it is NOT resolved. The pneumatologies of the Council of Blachernae and that of the Council of Ferrara-Florence still haven't been reconciled. While theologians on both sides recognize that the means to end the dispute are there today (Maximus the Confessor's epistle, Gregory Palamas's essence-energy distinction, the Latin doctors' already well-expressed pneumatology), it does not mean the issue is fixed. There is still the need to actually use these means and put them together to reach a common expression that can reconcile Blachernae with Florence.

Also, we still insist that Rome ceases to use the filioque even in Latin.

But it is true that we made a huge step by recognizing that John Bekkos's defense of the filioque is heretical from both an Orthodox and a Catholic perspective.


04778e No.553040

>>551833

Poland and Portugal catholic wall of Europe


864f13 No.553046

>>552861

>Essence-energy distinction

Is this a real distinction or a virtual one?


eb6c22 No.553047

>>553027

>Funny, because as lately as in the 20th century, you had theologians like Simon Vailhé calling us polytheists because of it.

And you guys had theologians as late as the 20th century promoting toll houses.

>that still needs to be recognized with a dogmatic declaration

As far as I can find there's no dogma declared in the orthodox church about this.

>For two, we recognize apostolic succession to require apostolic faith as well, so we cannot technically say that you guys have apostolic succession for instance.

You guys recognize our apostolic succession, but as illicit like we do yours.

One time in a conversation in my parish my priest told me that he could not deny an orthodox his or her last sacramental rites if on a deathbed and no orthodox priest is available.

>Collegiality alone? So it's not the final word of the Pope that gives a council dogmatic authority?

Councils are called on by the pope (at requests sometimes), and concluded by the pope.

What gets decided in such a council is not a matter for the pope alone.

>No, it is NOT resolved.

Say what you want, but everybody can look it up for themselves.

The filioque is only allowed in Latin translations, and Eastern-Catholics don't use it.

If this was dogma the easterners would have to use it.


e09b0b No.553053

>>553046

Real.

>>553047

And that remains a valid theologoumenon, and not a heresy at all.

>As far as I can find there's no dogma declared in the orthodox church about this.

Although we obviously have the 7 ecumenical councils, we also have the 879 Fourth Council of Constantinople, as well as the Fifth Council of Constantinople, that have dogmatic authority. The council of 879 is even called ecumenical, since Rome agreed to it at the time. The Fifth Council of Constantinople dogmatized the essence-energy distinction.

>You guys recognize our apostolic succession, but as illicit like we do yours.

No, we recognize you as having better ties to the undivided Church than, say, Lutherans do. It does not mean that we recognize your apostolic succession as valid - or rather, whether your apostolic succession is valid or not depends of which bishop you ask, but those who say they are valid do not mean what you mean by "valid" - they mean that you are canonically still part of the Church.

>Councils are called on by the pope (at requests sometimes), and concluded by the pope.

You know about the history of the 7 ecumenical councils, right?

>Say what you want, but everybody can look it up for themselves.

Just stop saying nonsense and post sources already! Any official statement from the Orthodox bishops that we're fine with Latin pneumatology!

>If this was dogma the easterners would have to use it.

Eh?

Of course the filioque is dogma. Eastern Catholics don't use it in their language because even Rome has recognized that it's only orthodox when said in Latin (which, again, is a step up - it means that John Bekkos's pneumatology is wrong even from a Catholic perspective) but the Eastern Catholics officially recognize nonetheless that the filioque, said in Latin, and that the resulting pneumatology of the Latin Church, is correct and orthodox. In fact, they must recite the filioque in their liturgies if it is judged that there is confusion on whether they agree to the doctrine or not. Because it is a dogma of the Catholic Church…


864f13 No.553055

>>553053

>Real

Then how is it not Polytheism?


e09b0b No.553062

>>553055

Because the energy has no hypostatic property on its own. The essence is called super-essential and the energies are called essential. They are not separate from the essence, they are the essence "for us" so to speak, and proceed from the essence.

We also need to remember why Palamas had to point out this distinction - Barlaam was accusating the hesychasts of seeing the divine essence, as they claimed to see the divine nature. Palamas's response is that they could not possibly be seeing the divine essence, as it is in itself super-essential and thus beyond all participation, but what they see is truly the divine nature nonetheless, so it is the divine energy. The essence-energy distinction justifies why God can be truly transcendent and truly immanent at the same time, and it must be a real distinction because otherwise 1. God is not truly transcendent since we can begin to participate in the divine nature even now, or 2. we ourselves become God if we can participate in the divine essence, as the only way to know God as He knows Himself is to know Him as He entirely is, thus there is no distinction between the Creator and the created, and we find ourselves with what is either apotheosis or God being the world itself (I forgot what it's called tbh). Those are of course two ridiculous notions, both in Catholicism and in Orthodoxy.


e09b0b No.553064

>>553062

I'll add that the doctrine of divine simplicity applies to the energies for us… It cannot apply to the essence simply because God, being God, cannot possibly be examinated under reasonment, at least not in His essence, otherwise He is not truly God but simply a higher kind of intellectual object than what we usually deal with.

The good side of the essence-energy distinction, for an ecumenical perspective, is that it solves nicely the dispute about the filioque - indeed, Palamas outright agreed completely to Latin pneumatology, on the level of the divine energy (since the hypostasia of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are about essence, so we can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but energetically proceeds from the Father through the Son, or even from the Son, so that the Holy Spirit finds existence in the Father alone but exists through the Son and comes down unto creation eternally from the Son).


864f13 No.553079

>>553062

Please define 'energy'

>>553064

>I'll add that the doctrine of divine simplicity applies to the energies for us

From what I can gather from your previous post, you believe "essence" would accurately describe energy but it is not used as such because of established terminology. If this is accurate, then you believe God possesses two essences. This is repugnant to the divine simplicity. The doctrine of simplicity is not that there is a genus which is simple and then three beings participate in it. This would be to believe in four gods, the genus and those which participate in it. The doctrine is that God, not His essence or 'energy', but God is absolutely simple, and absolutely free of all composition.

>It cannot apply to the essence

To the contrary, it must apply to the essence, since if God is absolutely simple, then there is no room for distinction between God and His essence. If God is distinct from His essence, then God is simply another creature, participating in a form. God must be all that He is and He must be incapable of being that which He is not.

>God, being God, cannot possibly be examinated under reasonment, at least not in His essence, otherwise He is not truly God but simply a higher kind of intellectual object than what we usually deal with

There are certain universals, which, being truly 'universal', must apply to all things (yes, even God). An example of this is being. Everything either possesses being or non-being. If something does not exist, it possesses non-being, and if a thing does exist, it possesses being. So it is with God. This is evident reason.


51a9ba No.553085

File: 8d6df3a4bcb6f00⋯.png (111.75 KB, 1475x711, 1475:711, da4e4a43ae871ea87b8e61ec10….png)

>>553053

>Real

no it is not




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / f / fur / htg / hypno / rule34 / strek / trap / vore ]