/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>568129

>I can’t imafine going to a Catholic 62 times a year

Don’t type when tired, kids

You really should begome because you agree on the theology. Have you considered beginning catechism, maybe even with both churches, to see if things would workout for you?

What you find compelling or appealing to your feelings is totally and absolutely irrelevant. You can only have one master.

This is actually an aspect of modernism that many of our Popes have spoken so heavily against.

It doesn't matter what you want, all that matters is what God wants.

If you do something for "aesthetic" reasons you are literally putting your sensual pleasures above God.

Some masses are unpleasent in some ways, but regardless Christ is there as well as a chorus of angels.

If you have any suffering, offer it to Christ as a sacrifice for other souls or your own.

It's not only wrong but it's putting you in a place where your ultimate judgement of things is your sensual feelings and passions, which leaves you totally open and vulnerable from outside negative spiritual influences whether just through social/cultural/psychological manipulation or outright spiritual attacks.

All the problems you have with the NO mass (comes from priests, not in the actual rubric of the mass) are because of the same error you are commiting. People change things to be more appealing to people. They think they will like this music more, or prefer certain things one way or the other. The problem is focusing on what humans want instead of what God wants.

God has a Church, a parish near you, and is giving himself to you physically there. What matters is that you humble yourself and accept his gift to you, not that you look for how you can have the most enjoyable aesthetic experience or feel good.

Also for what you actually said, the Orthodox are in error and reject the Pope and actual hierarchy of the Church, they are outside the normal plan of salvation and we can't be sure they won't all be damned. (God will likely/hopefully extend his mercy to them though we can't know this.)

Schism is a mortal sin and can damn you (of course knowledge can effect your responsibility of this, but by the fact you are here you likely know enough to be responsible for it).

>>568129

>I like the Divine Liturgy

Might I ask why?

>>568129

>I like the Divine Liturgy.

You could become an Eastern Catholic who is in communion in rome if it bothers you that much. I'd recommend you join the Latin rite though unless you are a Slav.

>>568184

>I don’t want to just be a superficial LARPer.

>>568177

>Schism is a mortal sin and can damn you

You see OP, this is the real important this to consider. Right now, you have access to eternal life through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are you really willing to set that gospel and the mercy therein aside for the passing superficialities of whatever it is in the mass of Rome or the liturgy of Constantinople that attracts you? I suggest you read through Galatians again, OP, but this time as a letter written to yourself, and consider strongly the seriousness of such a decision.

>>568184

Thanks man, but that’s not an option where I am

>>568129

Since you already said you agree more with Orthodox theology, what it probably really will go down to, first and foremost, is whether you think Rome or the other Patriarchs were on the right side of the schism, and whether you agree with the Catholic assertion that Papal primacy pre-schism meant the Pope always had absolute authority over the church. If you think the Schism happened because the Pope overstepped his authority, then go Orthodox. If you think it happened because the eastern patriarchs stubbornly refused to comply with the Pope, then go Eastern Catholic.

I come from a Catholic background myself, I'm well versed with all the Catholic apologist arguments about supreme papal authority from Peter, but when I actually looked objectively at the history of the early church and especially the background of the Ecumenical Councils, I found it nearly impossible to accept their arguments that the Pope was always meant to have absolute authority over the whole church. He certainly had a primacy among the Patriarchs, but it wasn't what the Catholic idea of Papal primacy means.

The liturgy is pretty important, since it's where our entire faith is expressed at once, but you might want to make sure you theologically agree with the church first.

>>568177

>If you do something for "aesthetic" reasons you are literally putting your sensual pleasures above God.

When God created all things, He also consecrated all things by calling it "kalos" - "good," but also "beautiful."

All of creation is called to be divinized and transfigured, not just mankind. This is why beauty is very important and not just a matter of bells & smells.

God also demands a beautiful worship by the Israelites, giving Moses exact proportions and shapes patterned after that of Heaven.

Just get your liturgical tradition together, man.

>>568245

I'm not OP, but I'm curious about such things too; what would you say are the most important aspects of Orthodox theology?

>>568253

That's a huge question. The Church is one big, living tradition, so you can't think of some aspect of it independently of everything else.

I mean, I guess I'd say theosis, and unceasing prayer, but you can't mention them without mentioning the essence-energy distinction, which you have to understand in the context of what Church Fathers prior to Palamas have had to say about prayer, theosis, and God… which inevitably leads to talking about the Trinity (I've heard several Reformed tell me that we Orthodox have the best understanding of it, apparently), and so our Christological theology that concerns the Incarnation, the natures of Christ, what was accomplished at the Cross, what this concretely means for mankind, etc. which will also inevitably lead to talking about Paradise and Hades, the intermediary judgment, the final judgment, the Kingdom of God and Gehenna… which will inevitably lead to talking about God's love and the fire that it is, what the Scriptures say about God's nature and intentions, what the Scriptures say overall about God and His Son, how to understand the Old Testament in light of the new… I could go on.

I'm so sorry for the unclear response. I just don't know how to answer. It's all a big package, and I don't have the skills to speak of one aspect of Orthodox theology without having in mind everything else, from the theology of the ecumenical councils, to the lives of the Saints, and of course not forgetting the most relevant thing, the leading light of tradition: the Bible.

My lack of satisfactory answer comes from my incompetence, but it might also come from the fact theology and praxis are so closely tied in Orthodoxy, making categorizing a difficult task.

>>568253

St John Damascene (of whom we celebrated on the calendar recently) wrote "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.i.html

It's sort of an Orthodox catechesis, and I also saw it being described as a "prototype" of Aquinas's Theologica Summa. Maybe you'll find your answer in there… I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

>>568129

>Would it be wrong to convert to Orthodoxy over Catholicism for that reasons?

If you're asking that way: yes. Your problem is that you're inclined by aesthetics - which is absolutely not wrong, don't misunderstand me here. But chosing the original protestants over the people that /actually/ practice the ancient faith and do not do things like sway over political opinion and leaders, do not let the laity decide democratically (!) about dogma and so on - only because you are drawn in by aesthetics - is really a poor argument. It's like arguing that "it's right, because it feels right".

Also regarding your point with doctrines: There's no "feeling". There is only right or wrong. Christ promised that the gates of Hades will no prevail against the Church - protecting it with all Dogma from corruption. And history proves exactly that.

And my last point, which is your first: NO and Latin Rite mass in general: You don't like it ? Well I have a pretty important piece of information for you - it literally does not matter if you like it or not. Because the only thing that matters is the Eucharist. The Holy Communion with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And as long as the Eucharist of these masses is not corrupted through liturgical abuse, you have no reason or even right to complain about things like

>so modernist

>wow much guitar mass

>more modernist ew

>can't relate to the modernism

>but the aesthetics are poor

>…and modernist

Because that is - I assume - what it boils down to from your whole argumentation.

And one more thing: Catholic means universal, that is: We are everywhere and we have it all - because we're the one true Church. Therefore, we also have Eastern Catholic Churches (which are btw, too self-governed) practicing the Byzantine Rite, and therefore the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Because remember: It is not about what YOU think is ok and "feels right". It's about what God wants. And He sure wouldn't have made a fuzz about instating the Church on the back of Peter and his direct successors as source of unity of the Church - which btw is blatantly violated by Eastern "othodoxy" - if he wanted you to do whatever "and feel good about it".

>>568280

>And He sure wouldn't have made a fuzz about instating the Church on the back of Peter and his direct successors as source of unity of the Church - which btw is blatantly violated by Eastern "othodoxy"

We don't deny that Peter was foremost among the apostles, but the Apostles acted as equals, and Rome was not the only Petrine See of the early church. And nor do scripture or the early church fathers' writings ascribe universal jurisdiction over the church to Peter or any of his successors–quite to the contrary: in Acts, James clearly takes the role of bishop in Jerusalem, and Peter while within Jerusalem acts under James' authority.

>>568280

>And He sure wouldn't have made a fuzz about instating the Church on the back of Peter and his direct successors as source of unity of the Church

Gee, if only we had the interpretations of many saints, and the recorded acts of 1st millenium councils, to actually know what it means for the Church to be built upon Peter, and how Rome's relation to Peter and to the rest of the Church was understood before the schism…

>>568331

See >>564679 for an incomplete list (I didn't cover St Leo because I was asked to stop)

My point is of course not that the Catholic position has no ground to stand on, but that "the Church was built on Peter, the Pope is the successor of Peter, thus the Church is where the Pope is" is not a development that would actually reach this state until the 9th century. Before that, interpretations on what it meant for the Church to be built upon Peter varied a lot, and even though Pope Leo in particular began the strong elaboration on the Pope being a special successor to Peter distinctly from other bishops, we know from Pope Gregory the Great that this view was also found to extend to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch - to paraphrase him, "one Petrine See, on which sit three bishops."

It'll take until the 9th century for the the East and West to actually clash doctrinally on the role of the Pope, but even then there could be an agreement (see https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/7gv4ad/the_photian_schism_the_fruits_of_current/ ).

It's only during the era of the "pornocracy," the era of isolation between East and West from the 10th to the 11th century when Rome would be busy with its own controversies and the Eastern churches went on to do their own thing, that the current Roman Catholic idea of papal primacy found its final (as in, schism-worthy) development. And it's in reaction to the sack of Constantinople that the current Eastern Orthodox idea of papal primacy found its final (as in, schism-worthy) development.

>>568336

Note that I say that it's only with the sack of Constantinople that the EO position on the Papacy would be settled, because even though the authority of the Pope is part of why the schism of 1054 happened, this was only between Rome and Constantinople, and the other Eastern churches simply didn't pay a lot of attention - they thought Rome was autistic for including the filioque in the creed, and Constantinople was autistic for hating on every small difference between the Western and Eastern traditions, but they thought they'd fraternally correct the Pope later on and swept it under the rug.

>>568267

what’s so good about aquinas? he’s the reason catholics are legalists today. dude doesn’t quote the church fathers (or if he does tries to disprove them) and extracts theology from pagan philosophers. Just read this: "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."

Is that not fucked?

>>568848

>Just read this: "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."

You do know that this is part of Orthodox tradition too, right? While the exact happenings between death and arrival in Paradise/Hades are theologoumenon, tradition holds that, before the particular judgment of the soul by Christ, the soul is allowed to see the bliss of Paradise and the torment of Hades.

Also, Aquinas shows a lot of respect for the Fathers, although unfortunately not a few of his sources were forgeries.

And to remix pagan philosophy to give it redemption in Christ is what many of the Fathers did, John Damascene among them… Even Gregory Palamas bases himself on remixing Aristotle in his essence-energy distinction.

>>568848

Anselm of Canterbury is a much bigger divide between Orthodox and Catholics. But Aquinas is alright, in fact Ecumenical Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios loved his stuff.

>>568867

>Gennadios Scholarios loved his stuff

>Scholarios

Gee you think?

>>568871

What's wrong with Scholarios?

>>568873

Nothing, I was pointing out that he liked Scholasticism so much that he was nicknamed Scholarios as a result

>>568874

Right, but what's the problem with that? Scholasticism isn't anathema to Orthodoxy - John Damascene was the father of scholasticism, after all, and Aquinas was generally well-received in the East when his writings reached us.

Although I didn't look at the ID and thought you were >>568848, sorry.

>>568876

>Right, but what's the problem with that?

Did you read the very first word in the post you're quoting?

>>568876

It’s just people riffing off the scholasticism vs mysticism meme about Western vs Eastern Christianity.

>>568884

>I can't read

Also checkem

>>568129

You can't be Catholic and participate in schismatic sacraments. Going to Divine Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday obligation, the Church has always taught that.

>>568129

I agree with you on Divine Liturgy and not liking Tridentine. The LARPing scare was driven by Catholics, I think, running out of arguments for why people feel attracted to the Orthodox church…they must be tricking themselves.