/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>594602

I'm just gonna prophetize the whole thread here, so I'm gonna save both catholics and orthodox the trouble:

>Orthodox: Peter wasn't infallible

>Catholic: Something about untying and tying and an out-of-context verse about a rock

>Orthodox: pope should be honored as the successor of Peter but shouldn't be any more powerful than other patriarchs

>Catholic: The pentarchy can't agree on anything

>Orthodox: hurr filioque

>>594609

Its a bot post. They can get the general gist of it. But they can’t discuss the intricacies.

>>594602

>please debate

No thank you, we have enough of this around here.

Make your own research and make your own conclusions. Polemics from either side won't direct you to the truth, but they will make this board just a tiny bit worse than it already is.

As usual, I recommend Dr. Edward Siecienski's two works (so far - he's making a third right now) on the subject: "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" and "The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate." For a look at the more political aspects of the history of the schism, and at the Nestorian and Miaphysite schisms as well, check out "Rome And The Eastern Churches: A Study In Schism" by Fr. Aidan Nichols.

Note also that you don't read yourself into a Christian tradition, which must be lived first and foremost. Don't isolate yourself in a corner with a bunch of books without going to Mass or Divine Liturgy.

>>594650

Also, as for the arguments as to why the Orthodox are right and the Catholics are wrong: I can only repeat what the Orthodox already put on the table at the Council of Florence.

>>594655

What programming language is this supposed to be?

>>594650

Started reading the papacy one last week. He's Orthodox so the books are a little bit Orthodox leaning, but they're the best non-polemic history I have found so far.

maybe they just seem orthodox-leaning because history is orthodox-leaning ;)

The bishop of Rome had an honorary status among the bishops in the early church. First among equals. I believe the catholics still use the phrase “primus inter pares”, which means first among equals. Back in those days, if there was a split on a theological issue that needed resolution, the bishops would pay respect to the roman bishop as the tie-breaker.

So as we can see, there is some manner in which primacy of the roman bishop was there even in the first few centuries.

The question should not be whether the roman bishop was prime, but rather consider the following questions:

>Is the Roman bishop infallible? Why or why not?

<Of course not. His primacy was honorary only. And in fact he was a bishop in the same sense as other bishops. History shows bishops are not inerrant.

>Does the filioque have any business in the creed?

<Nope, catholic theologians have acknowledged this in recent years at ecumenical dialogues. Filioque is a fraud.

>What do papacy and caesaropapism suggest about the one-and-the-many? About iconography?

In the Christian faith, unlike any other faith in the world, microcosm and macrocosm are not at war, but are in fact images of one another. Man is an image of God. Husband an image of Christ. Wife is an image of the church. Bishops are patriarchs, images of Christ. But to elevate one single bishop into the papacy would be to throw off the balance between microcosm and macrocosm and in fact reintroduce the problem of the one and the many. Looj at Jay Dyer's work for more info on this.

>Are papism and caesaropapism consequences of the filioque heresy?

Yes.

>Is God divinely simple?

No, that's heresy. Stolen from Aristotle's weird monism. Thomas Aquinas even denounced his own work after God appeared to him. Bad idea to accept it at face value.

>Is created grace necessary? Is it viable? Is it tenable?

No, it's not tenable. Therefore, it's not viable. Therefore, it's certainly not necessary. The only reason why papists find it necessary is because divine simplicity is dogmatized and divine simplicity cannot reconcile the essence-energies distinction. According to divine simplicity, God could not give mankind uncreated grace because we would not be able to receive it. It's like how muslims think God cannot directly interact with creation. So thomistic dogma says that God could only interact with humanity by creating something as a medium, such as created grace.

>etc etc etc

>>594761

those people literally made a movie how a military dude is gay because he is disgusted by them..these people man

I'm Catholic, I can only speak for my Church…Orthodox Church has its issues, but they are of a different kind.

Catholic ones are the following:

1) too many bishops have turned into modernist/"adult" Christians, and the terrible tragedy and scandal (even if blown out of proportion) of homosexual and pedophile priests;

2) we are often revolting against our roots, identity and tradition and thus against many teachings which came from God himself;

3) a great deal of lukewarmness, of fearing being rejected by the world, its material comforts and its "rulers";

4) lastly, but not the least of the issues, is how soft we became, and thus we allowed perverted fads to seep in and "poison the well".

I still believe the RCC to be the rock onto which God placed His Church, but I won't deny its issues.

I was a lukewarm Christian who ended up in bad circles, had his deal of "earthly pleasures" and hedonism, then a gloomy phase of despair and nihilistic desires of "power" through magic, then fell again into sins of lust for "lack of love" and finally found his way back to Him…and it was through a Catholic priest, and I learnt about the true roots of the RCC. I wish they could come back, I wish we would be hated and humiliated by the world, and now we're facing a great battle to preserve what little can be spared from this storm.

>>594602

As an orthobro pointed out the Eastern church do not deny that the Pope is the first among equals and primate. I read from a synod I think that the eastern bishops and patriarchs said that their rejected of Papal authority is due to the Pope acting like a dominating authoritarian not in loving servitude. The question you must ask yourself is that is that position administrative or is it divinely appointed?

I then present you Matthew 16:18: You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church. The gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

>>594664

The Vatican II is heretical, so John Paul II and Francis are and were anti-popes.

Not that hard to understand. Papal infallibility is also heresy though. Only God is truly infallible. They might be guided by the holy spirit if they are holy people, but we cannot determine what outcomes God ultimately want, and so heresy can still occur.

>>594668

I think that his book on the Papacy is actually a much better source for Catholic apologetics than whatever dumb articles Catholic Answers comes up with. It's actually making me stop and think.

His book on the Filioque has a more noticeable Orthodox bias though, but I think it's justified anyway.

https://www.amazon.com/Eternal-City-Origins-Catholic-Christianity/dp/0988442507

And now go and do your reserch yourself.

>>594958

Interesting. Does it base itself off patristics or not?

>>594953

CELESTIAL

>>594952

That's-a one a-spicy spaghet]

>>594958

>the Messiah would come and assume reign over the nations through the Roman Empire

Ya but the Roman Empire moved out of Rome m8

>>594975

>Ya but the Roman Empire moved out of Rome m8

lol no

>>594602

Orthodox. Papism is morally bankrupt since always, there is no good reason whatsoever to become papist.

read the oldest bible you can find and start a new church

>>594602

Either one gives you a better chance than being a protestant.

>>595126

Wow that Peter Hullerman really looks like Ratzinger. Maybe he secretly became Pope instead of him?

The ortho memes are slowly deteriorating into prot-tier collages made with paint, together with CAPS LOCK and mindless accusations repeated a hundred times over and over again.

>>595126

I thought the whole reason Ratzinger stepped down was because he wasn't willing to protect the homosexual cabal in the Church.

>>594963

SEX

>>595121

>Ortholarp: the post.

>>594602

In the same boat myself.

>>594664

>not even one page in

>very first paragraph

>tells the pope he isn't saved and that all of the catholic church are heretics

ABSOLUTELY SAVAGE

>>594948

His books seem Catholic leaning to me, I'm sure most people are reading their own bias into it.

>>595254

No he's a larper for this:

>papism is morally bankrupt since always, there is no good reason whatsoever to become papist.

Typical protestant larp

>>594602

there was a council recorded in acts

peter did not preside over it

if the other apostles supposedly acknowledged peter as their head, then why didn't he preside? perhaps the apostle who hosted the location presided because all patriarchs were considered equal, with no "head" of the group, and with rome being considered "first among equals" only because of its importance to the empire, and only after the empire legalized christianity

also since peter was first bishop of antioch before being bishop of rome, why isn't antioch held in great regard as the see of the pope? probably because rome, see above.

if peter was the head of the apostles, then why aren't his epistles the most numerous in the bible? could it be that perhaps peter was just one of many, and that others had much more real prominence, esp as teachers (paul)?

when jesus tells peter three times to feed and care for his sheep, and asks him three times if he loves him, it's not done to single peter out for greatness. it's done to restore peter from his threefold denial of christ

all the apostles were present when jesus said what he said about the keys, he said it to all of them, it was upon peter's declaration of faith that the church is built, not upon peter himself, the rock comment is pun on peter's name, jesus liked to make puns, like the bit about straining gnats and swallowing camels, and a few others in the parables

>>595468

He basically gets as close as it is possible to sing praises for Gregory II of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas as being in line with Maximus the Confessor without outright stating it IMO.

The Papacy book is more Catholic-leaning though.

Orthodox

>>595561

I really felt the opposite way, he does say at one point in the filioque book that several Orthodox bishops converted on the strength of the Catholic argument. Maybe I'm terribly misremembering or I was distracted at the time, as I mostly read on transit to work. I'll try to cite, and correct myself later if I am wrong.

>>596047

You must be thinking about the Council of Florence. Three parties formed on the Orthodox side:

- The strongly pro-filioque side (led by Bessarion) that embraced entirely the Latin arguments

- The moderately pro-filioque side (led by Gennadius Scholarius) that thought the filioque must be orthodox but wasn't comfortable with the expression of the Son being "cause"

- The anti-filioque side (led by Mark of Ephesus) that thought the filioque isn't orthodox specifically because the Latins say the Son is "cause"

It is true that the Orthodox bishops, with the exception of Mark of Ephesus, joined Bessarion's side after the last speech of the Patriarch before his death. But pointing out that the Orthodox bishops present at Florence signed the unionist decree isn't exactly a biased pro-Catholic statement… It's just an easily verified fact.

If anything, Siecienski takes a more pro-Orthodox biased side when treating Florence, highlighting that Gregory Palamas's theology may have led to an agreement if the emperor had only allowed Mark of Ephesus to talk about it.

Also, Siecienski is a specialist on Maximus the Confessor, and clearly thinks his Letter to Marinus (which explicitly rejects all causation of the Spirit by the Son) should be the basis for a reunification, so I don't think he takes very kindly to the Latins' insistence on calling the Son "cause" at Florence (which didn't end well - Mark of Ephesus's party was anti-unionist specifically because of this, and Gennadius Scholarius's party would later lead the anti-unionist cause as well).

>>596074

That probably is what I was remembering thank you. The super short form gist of what I got from the filioque book is that there's the potential that the issue is largely semantic. I wonder if others got the same impression.

>>594728

Can I get some more information on St. Thomas Aquinas denouncing his own work?

>thomas aquinas

1. The sufferings of the damned will be perfectly known to the saints or blessed in heaven, and will only make them the more thankful to God for his great mercy towards themselves.

2. There can, however, be no pity in the saints with reference to the damned. For, on the other hand, they know that the damned are suffering what they chose and still perversely choose. On the other hand, pity is painful in the one who experiences it, and there can be nothing painful in heaven.

3. The blessed are in full conformity with the will of God who wills justice. The saints rejoice in the accomplishment of God's justice. To this extent it can be said that they joy in the pains of the damned.

what an evil man

>>602089

bump

Orthodox. I'm not one for church history and intricate debates- I decided based on experience (attended both- liturgy got me closer to God). Orthodox theology is way more sound and sensible. Catholicism has too many extra things going on that don't seem to be truly grounded as concepts.

>>594606

Isn't the Pope simply a renegade patriarch of Rome?

>>594602

Neither. Become a Protestant. I don't get why this board attracts so many works salvation faggots.

>>611978

And sometimes God takes his best to him, like Enoch or Mary.

Christ said that he wrote well of him. And he said that he could give him something in reward. And THomas said that he wants “Nothing but you, Lord.”

And later while celebrating the Mass of Saint Nicholas, Thomas went into ecstasy. Thomas’ friend and secretary Reginald later asks him: “Master, will you not return to your work?” Thomas Aquinas replied: “I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.”

Three months later he died. He got his reward.

>>612141

How's France doing these days?

>>594602

I can't get over how the Orthodox are basically state churches, each with its own agenda and no single leader. I would just feel headless, that's why I will always be faithful to the see of st. Peter.

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)

>Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

>Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)

>He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

>He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

>>612246

I'm not Roman Catholic. To paraphrase Alexei Khomiakov, Roman Catholics were the first Protestants.

Imo, if catholics were right, the first 1k years of christendom would have been much smoother.