/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Protestantism

>>592799

>no sectarian fighting

Do you even know which board you're on? The sad fact of the matter is that this board is continually shit because of a few autistic baptists and Catholics (not all of either group I'm sure). The former don't argue in good faith and the latter are EXTREMELY condescending to non-Catholics and often misrepresent their opponents. If you want any arguments against Catholics, this board should provide more than enough (ye shall know them by their fruit). The same holds true for baptists, but you aren't looking at them so you aren't relevent.

Also, I would recommend looking a lot deeper than the normal filioque arguments. The understanding of original sin and the soul after death are pretty big differences and are much more substantial. There is also a huge difference in the theological basis. The RCC focuses a lot on legalism and dogma, often to the point of dogmatizing things that have nothing to do with salvation (Immaculate Conception anyone? True or not, denying it doesn't send you to hell). The Orthodox focus more on a mystic theology. This can be seen in soteriology as an example. The Catholic understanding is this very legalistic understanding as a courtroom with God as the judge determining if you have unabsolved mortal sins, venial sins that must be expiated in purgatory, etc. The Orthodox understanding is much more mystic in nature, focusing on theosis itself AS justification.

A lot of people pretend that Orthodox and Catholics are pretty much the same, but this is a huge meme. They're actually very different.

>>592804

*they aren't relevant

>>592804

That's what I keep hearing. The most common theme of comparison between the two is that Catholicism is legal, dogmatic, and logical. Their understanding of God has to do with philosophical logic rather than mysticism and theology, which is the theme of Orthodoxy and their respective understanding of God.

I suppose I'm looking for some glaringly obvious proof that one or the other is true, but that doesn't exist otherwise there would be no denominations. I will look further into Orthodoxy, as I am already quite familiar with West and East Catholicism.

>>592806

>Catholicism is legal, dogmatic, and logical. Their understanding of God has to do with philosophical logic rather than mysticism and theology, which is the theme of Orthodoxy and their respective understanding of God.

This seems to be a Latin, not general Catholic view. If I remember correctly, Eastern Catholics don't share it.

>>592806

>Their understanding of God has to do with philosophical logic rather than mysticism and theology, which is the theme of Orthodoxy and their respective understanding of God.

Funny, the Prots here make us sound like pagan magicians most of the time.

>>592806

These are terrible memes. It's probably among the most aggravating meme that people do where they try to create dichotomies that don't exist. "Logical Catholic" and "Mystical Orthodox". Complete hogwash. They seem to forget about the entire history of Catholic mystic tradition. Funnier than that, it was often the common complaint about Latin Catholicism was that it was too mystic. Or this idea that Orthodox are all just running on "feels and spiritual vibes" or something. They have this huge greek philosophical tradition.

Same with "muh original sin" trash. There is a game you can play where you take out parts of the different catechisms on what we inherited from Adam and play "guess the catechism, Orthodox or Catholic?" and you won't be able to tell. Usually strawmanned as "Catholics believe you inherit personal guilt". Worst meme.

Though it does lead to a hysterical situation where prots convert to the EO and then presume to think they don't need to follow any teachings because it's all "personal journey" and the rules are more like suggestions. Don't want to be too legalistic!

The Immaculate Conception was dogmatized because of it's implications on the nature of sin and Mary's relationship to Jesus, and the widespread rejection of the Immaculate Conception in the west. It originated in the east and all the major thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, didn't accept it.

There is also this strange thing where people say "dogma" like it's a bad word. That is the liberal paradigm infecting your brain. Did no one remember that entire books of the bible are dedicated to specific and often obscenely precise legal doctrine? I wonder if anyone accused Moses of being too legalistic.

If you want to talk pastorally, I notice a lot of people are attracted to the "ends justify the means" ethics that EO teach. This sort of garbage leads you directly to allowing birth control and divorce. BIRTH CONTROL. Don't even give me that crap like "well MY priest is against it". It's widely accepted now "for the sake of economy".

If you want to know the fundamental difference now between them, is that Catholicism is top-down and maintains a hierarchy that is inline with the divine hierarchy. The Eastern Orthodox are run by the mob of popular demand. That is to say, a democratic understanding of how to organize, where the mark of true faith is whatever everyone wants to do. Little wonder the east was the promulgator of every heresy known to man during the first millennia and everything about it, except for it's aesthetics, is modern, sometimes even more modern than protestantism. They are in perpetual schism with each other (Don't try and go "well the schisms don't really mean anything", if the schism means nothing, then the communion meant nothing in the first place).

As a Catholic, I'd say: go Ortho if you don't want to struggle to find a decent parish. I am lucky to have a good one here in London, but most of the Catholics in the West (Slavic people excluded) are a bunch of lukewarm backstabbers, and we know what will God do with these piles of human filth.

>>592804

>The sad fact of the matter is that this board is continually shit because of a few autistic baptists and Catholics

The Orthos have their few autistic screechers as well.

>>592833

I think the memes about west being bad and full of rules, while east is dude mythical and enlightened come from late 19th and early 20th century Russian ideologues who were trying hard to fight against modern, degenerate Western ideas (rightfully so) in a wrong way. Their narrative about the rich life of the east in comparison to decadent and empty being of the west was meme'd into the Church characterization, but I don't think these memes hold water. I fully expect them to weaken with time. They already are, from what little contact I have with the east.

>>592834

>most of the Catholics in the West (Slavic people excluded) are a bunch of lukewarm backstabbers

Protip: most of the Orthodox in the Eeast (Slavic people included) are a bunch of lukewarm backstabbers, as well. The only difference is that the overton window in the media is further right so you can hear things west considers shocking, which, of course, spreads to the west. What you don't hear is when the same church cucks.

There's a screenshot going around about how the Orthodox church is staying in the dark age. That article was made by a westerner frustrated he can't personally influence the east. It has nothing to do with the actual state of the church.

You see anon? This >>592833 and similar posts is why you should NEVER ask about denominational differences and think about decent answer, instead of you'll find frustrated posters like these, that will post their prejudicial thoughts here, like this for example

>Catholicism is top-down and maintains a hierarchy that is inline with the divine hierarchy. The Eastern Orthodox are run by the mob of popular demand.

Same way I can say that Orthodoxy maintains Ecclesiarchy delivered directly from Apostles, while Catholicism is ran by Mafia with godfather wannabe as its head?

And this annoying cycle goes on and on.

And this isn't one sided either, there are Orthos who are equally annoying as well with "le ebil papists killed thousand GORRILION serbs in Croatia" and so on, posting that atrocious """icon""" here and there

I am leaving. I stated my opinion. This thread is just a trash bin for "muh heresy" posters from both sides.

>PLEASE. No sectarian fighting. Just provide your arguments and leave it at a casual level of bant if you need to.

where do you think we are

First, check out the council of Florence. While it went off the deep end due to the Orthodox deleagtes being tired of not progressing, being themselves divided on the issue of the filioque with 3 parties (Mark of Ephesus's that said the filioque absolutely is a heresy, Gennadius Scholarius's that said the filioque makes sense but the Son cannot be called "cause," and Bessarion's that said the filioque as expressed by the Catholics is perfectly fine), and the Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph's passing away (and most importantly, the Orthodox delegates not actually holding synods back home to confirm the union, except one in Constantinople years later that lasted for like 4 months), it still highlighted pretty well the actual issues that separate us:

- the meaning of the filioque

- the legitimacy of the addition

- the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist

- Purgatory

- how the Pope's primacy is to be exercised

- and, as a more minor thing, the consecratory formula (do the Holy Gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ when the priest says "this is my body, this is my blood," or is it when the priest prays for the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts?)

For a good history on the filioque: check out Edward Siecienski's "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy."

For a good history on the Papacy: check out Edward Siecienski's "The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate."

We've done various degrees of progress on each of these…

After you've read these books (which detail the history of the doctrines not only before but also after the schism, so they paint a good picture of the current Orthodox and Catholic stances on them today also), it's time to make up your mind on who expresses today the historical doctrines the best.

But this isn't sufficient - check also the documents of the Orthodox-Catholic Joint International Commission, which detail what we can definitely say we agree on today, and so show the current progress (or lack thereof).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

Notably, the documents of Ravenna and Chieti concern papal primacy.

For something of lower authority, but still interesting to check out: look at the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/dialogue/orthodox-catholic/

They have a good document on the filioque in there too.

The reason we don't talk yet about unleavened bread or Purgatory is because history has shown that the primary theological dispute is on the filioque, and, with Vatican I, that the Papacy is in fact an even bigger issue than previously thought.

>>592866

Also, I'd argue that the schism was still a schism within the one Church before Florence, but with Florence being a real attempt to discuss doctrine (unlike Lyons II), this is when the schism became a schism between two Churches, as it was with Chalcedon for the Miaphysites for instance. So that makes Florence extra interesting. Notably, I'm really curious as to what it would look like if we tried to hold a copy-paste of Florence, with the same arguments and sources presented there, but with the fruits of modern scholarship that make more clear what the Fathers and scriptures really meant to say and also the legitimacy of the documents presented at the council (there was a lot of doubt on whether documents were spurious or not).

>>592849

I speak for what I see, and as a Catholic. I know little about the Orthodox, so I only spit in my own plate.

>>592866

>- the meaning of the filioque

>- the legitimacy of the addition

>- Purgatory

>- how the Pope's primacy is to be exercised

>

>

>- the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist

This sounds like "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking"

You folks realize a Representative Democracy is still a Democracy?

>>592833

>If you want to know the fundamental difference now between them, is that Catholicism is top-down and maintains a hierarchy that is inline with the divine hierarchy. The Eastern Orthodox are run by the mob of popular demand.

>Voting for Dogma directly is mob mentality

>Voting for a single guy to elect dogma is not

>>592886

No, it absolutely is not. Democracy cannot be represented. Read Carl Schmitt's The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.