/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>557329

>I want a beautiful church that will lead me to salvation.

Then either is fine unless you're looking for a denominational infighting thread.

>>557329

Just go to whatever is closest, problem solved.

>>557335

>multiple ways to heaven

Heresy

>>557336

This, getting lost in the denominational infighting will just lead you astray.

It's time to choose OP. If you can't choose with a deep reason, then choose with a shallow one. God bless.

>>557337

Through Christ is the only way to heaven. The building you go to doesn't matter.

Have you attended both services? I would say go to both a Mass and a Liturgy and then see how you feel.

>>557343

>The building you go to doesn't matter.

Did you intentionally replace "church" with "building"? I have a feeling you did.

By the way, both Roman Catholics and Orthodoxes believe that the church you go to really matters, so even if OP comes in believing what you said he will have to abandon it in the name of the church. Well, unless he goes to a liberal Roman Catholic sect, in which case, I TURNED MYSELF INTO A PROTESTANT MORTY.

>>557343

Of course it does. Or do you deny that God has consecrated places of worship?

>>557354

OP specifically asked for:

>>557329

>I want a beautiful church that will lead me to salvation.

This means aesthetics are important and, thus, a building. It doesn't matter, really. Anywhere two or more are gathered in his name, he is there. But OP wants a "beautiful church".

>>557357

>do you deny that God has consecrated places of worship

I believe that a dung heap is consecrated as soon as two or more gather in his name.

Matthew 18:20 does not specify a structure.

>>557354

>By the way, both Roman Catholics and Orthodoxes believe that the church you go to really matters

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches view each other's sacraments as "valid but illicit". Both have true baptism, confimation, confession, eucharist, holy orders, etc. Both consider each other a part of the universal Catholic church. Neither have ever said that there is no salvation in the other church, because neither consider themselves different churches from the other. They are both the same church, and the same way to heaven through Christ, only they believe the other is not following disciplinary measures.

I can't think of a single person who isn't just a sperg online who legitimatly thinks "no salvation outside the catholic church" only applies to the latin church.

>>557363

So was the Temple just about as sacred as a dung heap?

Attend mass at a Catholic parish and a liturgy at a Orthodox parish and then go from there. Try talking to both priests.

>>557369

The Temple was destroyed and Christ became the Temple.

>>557375

so how do you take communion?

Begome Melkite so you can roleplay as both Catholic and Orthodox :^)

On the subject of Catholic vs Orthodox… Here are all the top-tier works I know about.

<By Orthodox authors:

The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Edward Siecienski)

The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (Edward Siecienski)

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (John Meyendorff)

The Church in History 1 - Formation And Struggles: the Birth of the Church Ad 33-200 (Veselin Kesich)

The Church in History 2 - Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. (John Meyendorff)

The Church in History 3 - The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D (Aristeides Papadakis)

You are Peter (Olivier Clément)

The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity(George E. Demacopoulos)

Dumitru Staniloae on the Filioque:The Trinitarian Relationship Between the Son and the Spirit and its Relevance for the Ecclesiological Synthesis Between Christology and Pneumatology (Viorel Coman)

<By Catholic authors:

Rome and the Eastern Churches (Aidan Nichols)

Studies on the Early Papacy (John Chapman)

The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 (Adrian Fortescue)

Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451 (Luke Rivington)

The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (S. Herbet Scott)

The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order (Allen Brent)

Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (Allen Brent)

Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century (Allen Brent)

Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory (Markus Bockmuehl)

<By authors of other affiliations:

Peter in Early Christianity (Helen K. Bond, Larry W. Hurtado)

<Ecumenical perspectives:

Rome and the Communion of Churches: Bishop, Patriarch or Pope? (Kallistos Ware)

Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity (Adam Deville)

The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (A. N. Williams)

And of course, the results of the Orthodox-Catholic Joint Commission so far, which can be found online easily.

Since it's stupid to spend 10 years studying to figure out who actually is really right before converting, I suggest that you go to church alongside studying these books. If you end up converting to the wrong faith, I don't think God will have a grudge against you - we've been in schism for 1000 years, clearly it is not a simple issue. Go to the parish that shows the best pastoral care and understanding of the Scriptures and the tradition, if you're worried you're making a mistake, then rejoice, as that means you are like most of us, who make damning mistakes on a hourly basis. Focus on God first and foremost, but of course, if it is God's Church you seek, do not stop studying the Church's history just because you've found a seemingly comfortable place.

>>557364

you don't think your salvation is jeopardized if you join a group of schismatics? religious indifference is condemned by Pius XII, I believe. They are not the same church otherwise there wouldn't be any schism. The Catholic Church will yield much more graces, and so it's not the same way to heaven. For example the Orthodox are 10% of Christians. Did you know this? throughout history they have been pruned excessively by our blessed Lord. Constant persecutions throughout the millennia that followed the schism. Yet their percentage of Christianity, just kept dropping. After the schism, they have only evangelized Alaska and Japan ( both of which have more Catholics today than Orthodox.). Meanwhile Christians that come from the Catholic lung make up 90% of Christians and they have evangelized the world ( even if 30% of those are now Protesting the same church). It's not because the Catholics haven't been persecuted, because they have. It's just they have been pruned like it says in scriptures to bear more fruit, yet it is chastisement with the Orthodox.

it's true the Catholic Church is in its worst crisis right, but like every other crisis, there will be saints who will come and guide us through this time.

The battle for Pascal's denomination continues.

>>557345

I went to both. Divine liturgy felt miles ahead, but I have not attended tridentine mass

>>557430

tbqh i feel like one hasnt given the catholic church a fair chance until they come to latin mass. reserve judgement til then. its beautiful!

>>557442

>the language matters to God

You can't be serious.

>>557449

It's not a matter of language, it is about how a liturgy/mass inspire you to greater worship, let you feel the greatness of God. My weekly mass at the local church inspire me to nap

>>557450

I have been inspired to greater worship by a homeless man saying he loved the Lord. He spoke in simple English.

The greatness of God is in the least of His.

I'd say catholic, unless you live in some slavic dump without many catholic churches around. Better unity imo.

>>557372

Also, this. Though there might be a few crappy priests out there.

>>557462

hegrelian dialectric :DDDDD

Begome Gadolic :DDD

But seriously, after studying history, theology and supernaturals of both churches I can assure you that EOC is schismatic. Not heretical, but schismatic. And schism is serious sin for Church loves neighbor and thus can be in schism.

>>557329

>I want a beautiful church

Nobody here can tell you what your own aesthetics are.

The only thing I can't really say here is that if your worldview about God is more rooted in mysticism, then you'll appreciate Orthodoxy. If it's more rooted in rationality, then you'll probably like Catholicism. But these are really just broad stereotypes.

If you mean literally the physical beauty of the buildings or congregation, then get out LARPer.

>that will lead me to salvation

Both will lead you to salvation. Both have valid sacraments, which are all that anyone of sufficient intelligence and faith needs to achieve salvation. I assume you aren't an idiot if you're posting here, so you won't be drawn in by any wacky heresies. But then again…

>I have been torn between the two

Why have you been torn? What draws you to each? I can't just assume the answer to such an important question.

>>557394

>Begome Melkite so you can roleplay as both Catholic and Orthodox

Please don't make him fall for this meme

>>557329

They are both the Catholic church so you can achieve salvation in both so long as the reason you are choosing on is not because of schism. Be very careful not to choose based on rejection as that will condemn you

I suggest you read the Eastern Orthodox Bible. It is what made me choose roman catholicism. We have the seat of peter which is the source of unity and means we can form dogma and the easterners can't as the affirmation of the patriarch of Rome is required for valid ecumenical council. The east haven't been able to form dogma or hold council for 1000 years because of this. Pretty telling where orthodoxy lies.

I think you know in your heart that Orthodoxy is the way.

>>557594

>choose based on rejection

What do you mean? Is it wrong to choose one Church because you reject certain doctrines of the other?

>>557607

It is wrong to choose something because you reject the other. That is mere protestantism. How can one build faith out of rejection and hate for something? Rather than pursuing God the heart becomes fixated on hate of others and ideologies.

How can one reject either the roman or eastern church? They are both the body of Christ! To reject one is to reject the entirety of Christ. Joining a Church in the spirit of division and rejection is the mortal sin of schism and disobeying the command to be of one body.

Join the church because you love God and desire union with him not because you reject another church.

>>557607

I will also add this: observe which communion is open to all Catholics. All catholics: eastern, oriental and Assyrian are allowed to take communion in Roman churches. In the Eastern Church other catholics are defacto excommunicated.

>>557624

Same guy here, different ID.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches hold very different doctrine in some places, such as the role of the Pope, mortal/venial sin, purgatory, and amount of dogma in general. Clearly, one cannot accept two opposite doctrines at the same time. Therefore, would it be right to choose based on what doctrine one *doesn't* believe? This is what I mean by "reject"–picking one Church due to an inability to accept a doctrine of the other. Not hatred should be involved, but a rejection is still occurring.

>>557594

how did reading the Eastern Orthodox Bible make you choose Catholicism?

>>557629

When you study the theology of both churches you realise they are almost identical with the only differences being that the eastern communion have less developed theology due to its fragmentary nature and inability to form dogma because no patriarch of Rome. The eastern bishops accept the primacy of Rome they just refuse communion because they literally feel offended. Ortholarping protestants then like to obfuscate and confuse things with language barriers and a spirit of disunity.

One doesn't choose a church based on what doctrines one agrees with anyway, one chooses based on orthodoxy and truth. You then conform your will to God not the other way round.

Basically just read the new testament, church fathers and history of the church, pray for guidance then choose based on what you are told by the holy spirit to be truth. If your heart does not crave schism but unity you will not mortally sin by making a heterodox choice and you will achieve salvation.

>>557641

Because I learnt what the eastern bishops actually believed and not what ortholarping protestants erroneously claim. And they hold to the primacy of peter but refuse to commune and obey because they feel offended and mistreated.

>>557364

>no salvation outside the catholic church only applies to the latin church

I'm sure my grandmother would say that Eastern Catholics are fine, and that everyone else is going to hell.

begome gadolic

>>557667

>When you study the theology of both churches you realise they are almost identical with the only differences being that the eastern communion have less developed theology due to its fragmentary nature and inability to form dogma because no patriarch of Rome.

You saying this proves that you have not actually studied Orthodox theology (or even Catholic theology, probably). No offense meant, but, Latin theology is not more developped on every aspect, and furthermore, if Orthodox theology were simply underdevelopped Catholic theology, they would not be in serious contradiction.

> The eastern bishops accept the primacy of Rome they just refuse communion because they literally feel offended.

No, rather, when we look West, we cannot find the primacy of Rome, but rather we find what has developped into a monarchial supremacy. That's not how we remember things were like.

>Ortholarping protestants then like to obfuscate and confuse things with language barriers and a spirit of disunity.

The Nativity Fast began yesterday for those on the New Calendar. Don't you have more healthy things to do than to insult others?

>>557329

Have you prayed a lot about it? If not, that is a start.

>>557775

Why can't your communion form new dogma?

>>557802

What new dogma needs to be formed? God has already given humanity His Truth, it's up to us to maintain and protect it, not innovate as if we knew His Will.

>>557802

What you rather mean is "why can't your communion declare more dogma," right?

We have… The fifth council of Constantinople has dogmatic authority. The Council of Blachernae is the official response of the Orthodox Church to Latin pneumatology, although it's not counted as "dogmatic" since we feel that the first millenium's councils and patristics are sufficient, and furthermore we don't proclaim dogma when dealing with those who are outside the Church, but rather with heresies inside. Blachernae was called in response to the second council of Lyons, so after the schism, and John Bekkos wasn't a significant threat.

>>557641

I believe this is the Catholic guy on here who picked up a copy of the OSB, read only the inserts from a Catholic perspective, and said that it confirmed his preconceptions. I wouldn't take too much stock in his perspective.

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Roman Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

• If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

• If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Seabury, in the American colonies in the 17th century.

• If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.

• If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.

• If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York in 1829.

• If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

• If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

• If you belong to one of the religious sects known as “Church of the Nazarene”, “Pentecostal Gospel”, “Holiness Church,”, or “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

If you are a Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke way from the other four Apostolic Sees (Patriarchates), by tampering with the original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be the universal pastor over other Sees and infallible.

• If you are a Uniate Roman Catholic of any Eastern Rites, you had your roots in the Orthodox Church, but were forced into the Roman Catholic Church, either by financial hardship, or regional political/ ecclesiastical unrest (e.g.: Malankara Syrian Catholics), or by western colonialization (e.g.: Syro-Malabar Rite), or by military strength.

IF you are an Orthodox Christain

If you are an Orthodox Christian, you religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our Church is now almost 2000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

>>557865

We are in a fasting period. Trying to stir up dispute is a very grave matter. I would not do so if I were you.

Furthermore, your claims are erroneous to begin with. The schism in 1054 was only between Rome and Constantinople, and even then, the mutual anathemas were lifted in the 20th century.

And the Melkites were "forced into" the Roman Catholic Church by the Ecumenical Patriarch overstepping his bounds (ironically enough).

>>557810

Neither council is ecumenical or proclaims any dogma.

Curious that ecumenical council ended with the schism with Rome. It is almost like the authority of the pope is required to make a council ecumenical…

>>557808

You don't understand what dogma is. Dogma is the definition of the revealed truth. Like the trinity or the dual natures of Christ. Dogma is required to prevent old heresies continually reappearing and allow the church to build upon its knowledge rather than constantly reinventing the wheel.

>>557827

Never read the OSB. Bearing false witness is a grave sin.

>>557946

The Fifth Council of Constantinople most definitely does proclaim dogma.

>Curious that ecumenical council ended with the schism with Rome. It is almost like the authority of the pope is required to make a council ecumenical…

Did you read the canons of Nicaea II? Of course the signature of Rome is needed to make a council ecumenical. We can't talk about "ecumenicity" when the most honorable Church founded by Peter and Paul in Rome is not present.

>>557960

Sorry I meant to say proclaims new dogma. Anyone can indeed proclaim dogma that already exists.

But if you still affirm that too, how do you reconcile it with the Eastern Communion's directive that only ecumenical council can proclaim new dogma?

>>557960

>Of course the signature of Rome is needed to make a council ecumenical. We can't talk about "ecumenicity" when the most honorable Church founded by Peter and Paul in Rome is not present.

Don't worry, Rome has been working hard whilst the patriarchs have been sulking and there are 14 more new ratified ecumenical councils for you guys to incorporate

>>558042

What do you mean by "new dogma"? All things that are called dogma today have always been the truth, but in the face of heresy and confusion, it became necessary to declare for good that, yes, this is dogma, necessary to believe for salvation. I mean, I'm sure you already know that, but I don't understand your distinction between proclaiming "new dogma" and proclaiming "dogma that already exists."

For clarification: the Fifth Council of Constantinople dogmatized Gregory Palamas's theology of the essence-energy distinction.

>But if you still affirm that too, how do you reconcile it with the Eastern Communion's directive that only ecumenical council can proclaim new dogma?

Assuming again that by "proclaiming new dogma" you mean "adding to the deposit of faith that a doctrine is dogma"… Does a council need to be called "ecumenical" to say the truth? According to whom? That's like saying that local synods in themselves cannot state the truth unless an ecumenical council highlights them later on.

>Don't worry, Rome has been working hard whilst the patriarchs have been sulking and there are 14 more new ratified ecumenical councils for you guys to incorporate

Unfortunately, Rome hasn't kept in mind the collegial aspect of the first 7 ecumenical councils.

We also disagree on what the 8th ecumenical council is - we say it's the council of 879, you say it's the council of 869.

I'll also point out that several of your own Eastern Catholic brethens couldn't care less about those post-schism councils you call ecumenical when they do not actually talk about dogma (in other words, the only post-schism councils to really matter are Florence and Vatican I). And even the Melkites outright reject those in their official educational material…

If your split between Cathodoxy you're on the right path. Just research the early patristics and the schism and see which church, in its current form is closest to the pre-schism beliefs of early Christian saints and martyrs and theologians.

And then u will begome what u where meant to be.

>>557952

I said, "I believe," anon. There was an anon meeting my description on here earlier this year and I was making a guess.

Orthodoxy is, for the most part, a meme

>>557594

>They are both the Catholic church so you can achieve salvation in both so long as the reason you are choosing on is not because of schism. Be very careful not to choose based on rejection as that will condemn you

Terrible way of putting it. Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sales.

>>557364

Heresy

>>557372

>>557460

>Encouraging non-Catholic worship

Heresy

>>558052

New dogma being something being defined dogmatically for the first time. Eg. Homousion in the first ecu council.

Before that it was certainly truth but hadn't been dogmatically defined. If I held another council and reaffirmed homousion I would still be proclaiming dogma just it's not new dogma. Eg. When JP2 dogmatically declared ex cathedra that women cannot become ordained, he was just reaffirming old dogma that had already been defined.

That fifth council did not dogmatise anything because only ecumenical council can dogmatise.

You're moving the goalposts now, we're talking about declaring dogma not merely telling the truth. Anyone can tell the truth but only ecumenical council ratified by the pope can make it dogma.

Rome has maintained the collegial aspect of ecu council, explain how it hasn't?

>>557329

Choose the one with better literature:

Catholicism

>>558095

This^

also, OP watch this vid. He describes his journey into becoming orthodox.

>>558306

>New dogma being something being defined dogmatically for the first time. Eg. Homousion in the first ecu council.

>Before that it was certainly truth but hadn't been dogmatically defined. If I held another council and reaffirmed homousion I would still be proclaiming dogma just it's not new dogma. Eg. When JP2 dogmatically declared ex cathedra that women cannot become ordained, he was just reaffirming old dogma that had already been defined.

OK, we agree. Just wanted to make sure, since you worded it weird.

>That fifth council did not dogmatise anything because only ecumenical council can dogmatise.

No, it most definitely dogmatized something. Where is it said that only an ecumenical council can dogmatize something? Even you Catholics wouldn't say such a thing, since you have papal infallibility.

>Rome has maintained the collegial aspect of ecu council, explain how it hasn't?

Does the vote of every bishop (including the Pope) get the same weight? When the Pope submits a document, is it analyzed by the rest of the bishops to determine whether it is orthodox or heretical? Have the other autocephalous Churches recognized those councils signed by the Pope as expressing the true faith? At the very least, if Rome has not forgotten about the collegial aspect of the councils, then there are absolutely no reasons for treating the council of 869 as ecumenical when the council of 879 gathered many more bishops, was recognized by every apostolic see (including Rome), and anathematized the council of 869 as a robber council.

>>557607

yes, that's the literal definition of heresy.

>>558357

I still don't understand this. Rejection of differing beliefs seems like a fundamental mechanic of belief itself.

As a Catholic, I would assume you reject certain doctrines of the Orthodox Church, such as its positions on the Filioque, the Pope, the existence of Purgatory, etc. If you reject these things, would you consider yourself a heretic, then, sunce you are at least partially acting on rejection?

Orthodox Monk gives a advice to a Roman Catholic

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

>>558477

Glad I'm not under the Church of Greece. Seems like the Greeks still haven't changed their mentality since the beginning of the Church. I've heard that they act as if Greek were a divine language above the others as well.

>>558393

What is this tarkovsky ripoff with autistic jumpcuts and camera panning?

>>558347

Rome states the seat of peter is required to form dogma as the seat of peter is required for ecu council which all catholicapostolics agree is where dogma is formed. Eastern communion claim only ecumenical council is capable of forming dogma. No one allows dogma to come from a non ecumenical council. How can a local council possibly form dogma?

You think some of the patriarchates and bishops rejecting an ecumenical council renders it invalid? So that means Ephesus and chalcedon and the ones after are invalid then because the oriental and Assyrian churches reject them? It is specifically the seat of peter that makes them valid, even if huge swathes of bishops disagree.

This is starting the smell of ortholarp as you are using lots of weasel words and hiding behind red herrings.

>>558503

Your misunderstanding of Orthodox dogma is astounding.

Please do your research before speaking as an authority on things you don’t fully understand.

>>558521

Please enlighten me then or stop ortholarping

>>558605

Now that I've actually had a chance to read the thread, CathoLARP, the other anon was completely right. He said the Fifth Council dogmatized Palamism and your response was essentially "Nuh uh because the Pope wasn't there." You even ignored his central point to spout about Papal authority when he'd already addressed that.

You have no conception of what constitutes an Ecumenical Council aside from your obviously biased Latin view of having the Roman Patriarchate represented – which "all catholicapostolics" most certainly do not agree on. I'm not going to spend an hour trying to teach you Orthodoxy when someone else already began to try and you ignored them entirely.

>>558675

Doh typical ducking and weaving, why are you guys so obtuse. I said that fifth council didn't dogmatise anything because it was not ecumenical (which then leads on to what constitutes ecumenical and the fact that it is pre schism dogma that papal authority and ratification is a requirement) and the entire church all agree that ecumenical council is required to dogmatise things. How can a non ecumenical thus local council possibly dogmatise anything for the entire church? Now that's what I call ortholarping.