/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>601239

>Catholicism

>Orthodoxy

You fear heresies taking over your church, so you flee to churches which have always been governed by heresies? Read Galatians, it is written to you.

>>601239

There's a whole bunch. And a lot of Orthos here are anything but traditional (still nice people though), so this may not be the best place to find out specifics of doctrine (for example, the EO reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I've seen a few Orthodox on here in favor of it, which shows a lack of their knowledge on the difference between original and ancestral sin). If you're truly interested, I would recommend 1. Visiting an EO church near you. A lot of what they believe is present through their Liturgy. 2. Checking out the website for the OCA, which is one of the EO bodies in America. They have a really helpful question and answer section that can help. Finally, 3. Ancient Faith Radio has some good podcasts that might have some explanation of doctrine.

I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual journey. I'm not Orthodox myself, but they're very close to my heart.

>>601239

I think that this link may prove useful. It has quite well formulated short postulates for general Orthodox faith.I hope it helps

https://oca.org/orthodoxy

>>601239

Theoria has good, short instructional videos on youtube if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLXxULchJCYPZF4SlG8XS4A

They also have a website with other resources:

http://www.theoria.tv/

>>601249

>the EO reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I've seen a few Orthodox on here in favor of it

To my understanding this is an issue which we leave up to mystery. In other words, it's not a requirement of faith (doctrine) to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, but one may still hold that theological opinion and be Orthodox.

>>601255

Well, since in Orthodoxy there is no inheritence of guilt, but rather simply death, it's unnecessary. In fact, she wasn't cleansed of that either because she did in fact die (Dormition as opposed to the Catholic Assumption).

>inb4 Catholics don't believe in inherited guilt

Yes you do. If you didn't, Limbo wouldn't exist. Unless that's changed recently.

>>601249

We reject that it is dogma, but we do not reject it completely as a doctrine. Ss. Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, two of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, believed in it. My own priest believes in it, and is a fan of Lourdes. When exactly did Mary become freed of original sin is a theologoumenon, just as long as we agree that it happened at some point up to the Annunciation, when she became pregnant.

>which shows a lack of their knowledge on the difference between original and ancestral sin

I have yet to see a convincing argument that we and Catholics don't believe the same things about the sin of Adam.

>>>601258

Catholics don't believe in inherited guilt.

Limbo is a theologoumenon.

Death isn't the sole consequence of original sin.

Also, we believe Mary was cleansed of the ancestral sin in all cases. If it wasn't at her conception, it was at the Annunciation. She died to follow the steps of her son, particularly since our liberation from death is at the resurrection (but even then, nothing prevents her from not dying - Enoch didn't die either, so it's pointless to argue about this).

>>601247

This. Jist go to a different Baptist church OP

>>601261

A quick question. Is from Orthodox point of view this statement is truthful?

>Church have feast of saints at their death because it's when they are confirmed in grace

>But Church have feast of St. John the Baptist when he was born becuse he was confirmed in Grace at Visitation

>Church celebrates birth of Theotokos

>Therefore Thotokos was confirmed in grace before she was born

When it was it's another deal but since acient Church celebrates also her conception it should have been around that time, right?

>>601258

>Yes you do. If you didn't, Limbo wouldn't exist. Unless that's changed recently.

Limbo exist BECAUSE we don't believe in inherited guilt. If we did there would not be Limbo but only Hell.

You have poor understanding of this doctrine. Read Aquinas.

>>601247

>(USER WAS BEAT WITH A CROSIER FOR THIS POST)

*beaten

>>601247

>m-muh misreading of galatians

>>601354

>>Therefore Thotokos was confirmed in grace before she was born

We celebrate the death of the Theotokos at the Dormition though. We celebrate both her conception and her death.

What do you mean by "confirmed in grace"?

don't listen to the memers here. pray and do not stop. visit different churches and find a nice priest. may god bless you richly lad

>>601247

This, tbh.

Fuck the mods, let the Baptist speak to the Baptist about not leaving the church. If a cathodox were trying to warn a brother away from another denom, you wouldn't banstick.

>>601362

>We celebrate the death of the Theotokos at the Dormition though.

It's beside the point since her death and resurrection is miraculous on their own

>What do you mean by "confirmed in grace"?

By it I mean that that there is nothing that could make saint fall from grace at it point.

>>601368

To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed.

To deny Nicene Creed is to break rules of this board.

To break rules of this board is to merit yourself a band.

>>601306

When you end reading the Galatians read them again. It's the best epistle to disprove notion of salvation by faith alone, better even if James.

You may also want to read this commentary https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/a-catholic-reading-of-galatians/

>>601239

Did you call the DL yesterday?

https://youtu.be/DKg8AzfWJdY?t=1h34m48s

>>601372

>By it I mean that that there is nothing that could make saint fall from grace at it point.

This is a concept foreign to me.

Do you believe John the Forerunner was born without original sin as well?

>>601377

>This is a concept foreign to me.

I made up this term. Being born unto glory might be better one.

>Do you believe John the Forerunner was born without original sin as well?

Original sin is lack of grace. But about John the Baptist it is said "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb". So he was not born with orgianl sin. That is not to said that he was convied without it though. For he was graced during visitation.

>>601372

>To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed.

nah.

>I wrote out a major blog post about my church and the ways that it scares me what might be happening, but /christian/ already gets enough of those

Post it, I've been doing a lot of research lately on the modernization of protestant churches.

>>601386

Is original sin lack of all grace, or only a deficiency of grace?

>>601249

>anything but traditional

says the dude with the Vatican II church

generally, the Orthodoxy you read about online will be consistent with what you experience in person. Roman catholic mass can be all over the place depending on the whims of reform or liturgical paganism (particularly hispanic) influence on the parish. The fact that cathbros here have to say "just go to a latin mass church", which are a small minority of them, is an indictment in and of itself for the state of the Roman church in the USA.

>Baptist to cathlodox

Oof.

What else can be said?

I hope God has you in his hands wherever you go.

>>601404

I'm not Roman Catholic either. I'm extreme high church Lutheran. I've just read a lot on the EO. I took a serious look at both churches fairly recently.

>>601412

What's the practical difference between a divorce and annulment and contraception and NFP (as far as intent goes)?

>>601395

Deficiency would imply that humans are conceived in some kind of (original) grace. But that would mean that we are saved for grace is life eternal. But as we both know, we are saved by baptism (not to mention that we are ought to baptise children asap). So it is defeinetly lack of grace.

I am not saying that God does not give sufficent grace to all indiviudals though. I am not Calvinist to belive in predistination unto damnation.

>>601391

It is indisputable fact that Catholic Church have continuity with Church of Nicea (EOC also btw). This means that it started before it. And to say that it was ALWAYS rooted in heresies means that it's councils, including nicean, was rooted in heresies.

>>601438

>[…] to say that it was ALWAYS rooted in heresies means that it's councils, including nicean, was rooted in heresies.

the guy said governed, not rooted, and either way:

just because the person who says something is a lying scumbag doesn't mean they're wrong.

you can assent to the truth of the nicene creed without thinking it's authoritative in and of itself, but authoritative because it reflects the truths within scripture.

>>601421

used to be me a couple months ago

God bless you OP, can't help you with any resources on the differences between the two denominations. But I'll be praying for you and your conversion.

Dumb Q: How can ROCOR and OCA both exist? Shouldn't a diocese be under only one bishop?

>>601372

>To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed.

Sorry but this is wrong. This assumes that RCC is even the same church. So your logic is not sound and banning someone by using that logic doesn't prove it.

Similar to the whole Mary's title issue. Your logic is incorrect, and banning/harming people on the basis of your logic does not denote a proof. Might does not make right.

>>601412

Like the other guy said, what's the difference between an annulment and a divorce. You really think God is like "Oh, oh, oh, it was an annulment, not a divorce!"

>>601372

Remember that thread where the Baptist sperged out and said that Catholics on this board argue by thinking up the most bizarre interpretation of what you meant and then assume that you made every claim in bad faith? This post reminded me of that. How do you get from "The Catholic Church teaches heresy" to "I deny the nicene creed"? How the fuck do you get that?

>>601518

They think might makes right. That's basically what a lot of this stuff ultimately boils down to. At the same time this also explains a lot of their thinking process generally, how they came to be where they are at on a lot of issues in the first place

>>601520

I'm going to be perfectly honest, I'm going to become Catholic or Orthodox. However, if this board were my only interaction with Catholics, I wouldn't even consider them. It's only the fact that I know this board is very non-representational of Catholicism that keeps me considering it. If this board were painting an accurate picture of Catholics, I would be a complete anti-Catholic in every single way.

Maybe I'll became Catholic and single-handedly raise the post quality of that denomination on this board.

>>601522

>If this board were painting an accurate picture of Catholics, I would be a complete anti-Catholic in every single way.

Anything is better than liberal progressives.

>>601524

Meant to add just don't do that.

>>601525

I don't hate Catholics. I'm probably going to be Catholic for the rest of my life. I'm not anti-Catholic and I don't think I'll ever become anti-Catholic. But like I say, that's because I know the portrait of Catholics I get on this board isn't accurate and doesn't represent reality

>>601372

>To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed.

>To deny Nicene Creed is to break rules of this board.

>To break rules of this board is to merit yourself a band.

Nobody attacked the Nicene Creed, charlatan.

>>601463

>the guy said governed, not rooted, and either way:

It's even worse than.

>just because the person who says something is a lying scumbag doesn't mean they're wrong. you can assent to the truth of the nicene creed without thinking it's authoritative in and of itself, but authoritative because it reflects the truths within scripture.

Heresy is by definition contrary to true. If heresy govern something, organise meeting to discuss it's beliefs, and produce creed with is by definition statement of faith (there heresy) for it's own private use then there is no logical way to it be 100% true. For Heresy (of it's creed is to be sum of core beliefes) is not truth.

Stop being intelectually dishonest.

>>601487

One of it is not recognised by other patriarchates IIRC

>>601507

> This assumes that RCC is even the same church.

Even the most (not all of course, human stupidity is near infinite) anti-catholic of protestants, be it mundane or historians, agree that Church of Nicea and Church of Rome is the same Church (they will insist of course that RCC fell into hersy latter on but at Nicea it was yet ok)

>Mary's title issue.

Chalcedonian Definition which this board use as principle, use title Theotokos. Conclusions are clear.

>>601518

> How the fuck do you get that?

To repeat myself: To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed. It is indisputable fact that Catholic Church have continuity with Church of Nicea (EOC also btw). This means that it started before it. And to say that it was ALWAYS rooted in heresies means that it's councils, including nicean, was rooted in heresies.

>>601543

It follows. To put it in analogy: If someone would say that USA was always governed by illegality and injustice then it follows that this person, willingly or not, deny that Constitution (that is, core principle and beliefes of States) is just and legal.

If CC was always governed by heresy, then it's state of belief is heretical.

>>601627

Your whole understanding of the word church is wrong and your whole conception of the continuity of churches and how it works is anachronistic and simply untrue. To understand how this works, you need to go back to the Bible. Otherwise, you're just improperly using terms.

>>601709

I was just retyping my post this time, false positive!

>>601714

Ah. Alright!

>>601627

>If heresy govern something,

>organise meeting to discuss it's beliefs,

>and produce creed with is by definition statement of faith (there heresy) for it's own private use then there is no logical way to it be 100% true

that's wrong though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>To put it in analogy: If someone would say that USA was always governed by illegality and injustice

>then it follows that this person, willingly or not, deny that Constitution (that is, core principle and beliefes of States) is just and legal.

no, the constitution could still be just and legal while the other branches of government simultaneously/always completely ignore and sidestep it while governing.

but the heresy of your church isn't that it's not following the truths expressed in the nicene creed,

it's that it's not following the truths expressed in sacred scripture.

>>601627

I don't know if you're being thick on purpose or if this is really the way you think. He obviously wasn't talking about the nicene creed. His post obviously had nothing to do with the nicene creed. You are taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said, and assuming he's arguing from bad faith.

>"B-BUT TO SAH A"LWAYS" IS TO SAH THAT-

Listen. Protestantism isn't some sort of phantom religion that just does the opposite of everything Catholics do. If a Protestant says "Catholicism is wrong," they are not denying the nicene creed; because Protestants don't believe Catholicism is wrong because of the nicene creed.

Let me give you another example. The basic tenets of the Baptist faith are "the book, the blood, the blessed hope." Meaning, the Bible, the sacrifice on the cross, and the hope of salvation from Christ. If you say "Baptists are wrong," are you denying the Bible, the cross, and salvation; or are you denying another aspect of the Baptist faith? However, if someone says Catholicism is wrong or was wrong or was always wrong, you assume the worst and make the stretch to "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" which is a massive stretch and just fucking stupid. You banned someone for no reason.

>>601708

>Your whole understanding of the word church is wrong and your whole conception of the continuity of churches and how it works is anachronistic and simply untrue. To understand how this works, you need to go back to the Bible. Otherwise, you're just improperly using terms.

Oh I have read the Bible. And Church of the Old and New Testament is governed by lawful pastors that have continuity provided by lawful ordination my dear Core.

And if you are so sure about me being anachronistic then go and read letters of St. Ignatius and those parts of Adversus Hereises that deals with church governance

>>601729

>that's wrong though

It's not fallacy my dear friend. For we don't deal with "then and now". We deal with statements, beliefs that by their very nature are not bound by time. Gnosticism was as wrong when Ireaneus wrote "Adeversus…", was wrong before Simon magus and is wrong today becuase gnostic statements are just wrong.

If heresy, which is by defintion contrary to truth, produces statement of it's belief (i.e. statement of itslef) then by it's own very nature it will be heretical.

>no, the constitution could still be just and legal while the other branches of government simultaneously/always completely ignore and sidestep it while governing.

Then the State we're not ALWAYS unjust and illegal. For core beliefs of injustice and illegimity are unjust and illegal by the virtue of their nature themselves.

>but the heresy of your church isn't that it's not following the truths expressed in the nicene creed, it's that it's not following the truths expressed in sacred scripture.

And that's your opininion. But when you say it you do not say that Church was always rooted/governed by heresy. For it's core belifes (Creed) are not heretical. Thus it was as some point orthodox in proper meaning of word.

>>601766

>I don't know if you're being thick on purpose or if this is really the way you think. He obviously wasn't talking about the nicene creed. His post obviously had nothing to do with the nicene creed. You are taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said, and assuming he's arguing from bad faith.

I've seen enough of anti-catholics here to know that they mean when they speak about Church. And its literally what they speak. It is worst possible interpretation and it's worse because it's genuine.

>Listen. Protestantism isn't some sort of phantom religion that just does the opposite of everything Catholics do. If a Protestant says "Catholicism is wrong," they are not denying the nicene creed; because Protestants don't believe Catholicism is wrong because of the nicene creed.

You do know that I did mention it?

<Even the most (not all of course, human stupidity is near infinite) anti-catholic of protestants, be it mundane or historians, agree that Church of Nicea and Church of Rome is the same Church (they will insist of course that RCC fell into hersy latter on but at Nicea it was yet ok)

>Let me give you another example. The basic tenets of the Baptist faith are "the book, the blood, the blessed hope." Meaning, the Bible, the sacrifice on the cross, and the hope of salvation from Christ. If you say "Baptists are wrong," are you denying the Bible, the cross, and salvation; or are you denying another aspect of the Baptist faith?

> However, if someone says Catholicism is wrong or was wrong or was always wrong, you assume the worst and make the stretch to "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" which is a massive stretch and just fucking stupid.

Those exemples are not equivalent. To make them such, Baptist would have to have actual creed (Like one of Southern branch of 1963 but it's not universal and bonding for any Baptists ) that is their core statement of belief. Next I would have to come from background that is known and time and time agains prooved to be inhertlly antibaptist. And then I would not have to say "Baptist are wrong". Insted I would have to say that that "Baptst have always been governed by heresies". But the most important thing is to do it in place that determinate if someone can be there by this creed.

And best thing about it is that I could logically hold belifes that are part of this "Baptist creed" if I had creed on my own that overlaps but is not identical with it. For I used word "Heresy" not "Apostasy" that is "Partial departure from truth" and not "Absolute departure from Truth"

>>601790

Oh, and this statement "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" is partialy true.

Nicene creed is sum of all Catholic beliefs (not to mention Chalcedonian definition that also is de facto part of this whole business). To say that Catholic faith always was corrupted means that sum of that corrupted faith have to be corruped as well.

>You banned someone for no reason.

<Implying that I mod in the first place

I am not. Thus this discussion in terms of possible motives. Though knowing our mods it would be something more prosaic along lines "attack beliefs, not denomination". Go and ask them if you want it.

Despite the Pole's semi-intelligible pidgin ravings, the ban had nothing to do with the creed. It was because of ((((((((((rule 2))))))))))))

>>601790

>It's not fallacy my dear friend. For we don't deal with "then and now"

who are you quoting?

i made no reference to past or present.

the genetic fallacy in the strawman you're propping up is basically:

<person says x is wrong about some things and lies about things

<x says y

<therefore, person must believe y is not true

conclusion doesn't necessarily follow, it is possible that y is still true.

>If heresy, which is by defintion contrary to truth, produces statement of it's belief (i.e. statement of itslef)

>then by it's own very nature it will be heretical.

no one is saying that the statements within the creed are heresy, just that the institution who formulated it is governed by heresy.

that doesn't mean that everything they say will be heretical/wrong, because that's fallacious.

>the constitution could still be just and legal while the other branches of government simultaneously/always completely ignore and sidestep it while governing.

>Then the State we're not ALWAYS unjust and illegal.

i don't know what to say, i guess all i can tell you is to read these two statements again.

i'm done, if you can tag in anyone who agrees with you (i would be surprised) and can speak english fluently i'll continue this inanity.

>>601791

>>601790

>Oh, and this statement "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" is partialy true.

No it's not. The nicene creed isn't unique to Catholics. Many people accept the nicene creed while not being Catholic. Therefore, he shouldn't have been banned for "denying the creed" just because he said Catholicism was heresy.

Also, is English your first language? There are some things you said that I didn't respond to because honestly I could piece together what you meant.

>>601821

>who are you quoting?

Link that you gave me, through paraphrasing

> fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Now and then.

>the genetic fallacy in the strawman you're propping up is basically:

Except it does not account for key factor. To make it right:

<person says x is ALWAYS wrong about some things and lies about things AND in its very existence is governed by lies and wrongness

<x says y

<therefore, person must believe y is not true OR unwillingly denies y

>no one is saying that the statements within the creed are heresy, just that the institution who formulated it is governed by heresy. that doesn't mean that everything they say will be heretical/wrong, because that's fallacious.

If what is in large part set of beliefs produces core statement of its core beliefs then it's either right (orthodox), completely wrong (apostasy) or wrong in part (heterodox, heretical).

If this set governed by heresy then it's fallows that it's core statment it's heretical. That does not mean that ALL what this thing is wrong for by very nature heresy is wrong+right. But creed by the very nature of being creed is only orthodox when it comes from orthodoxy, only hertical when it comes from heresy and it's apostostasy when it comes from apostasy.

>i don't know what to say, i guess all i can tell you is to read these two statements again.

And I to read first one. For you say

<X was always Y

<X was not always Y

>>601837

>No it's not. The nicene creed isn't unique to Catholics. Many people accept the nicene creed while not being Catholic. Therefore, he shouldn't have been banned for "denying the creed" just because he said Catholicism was heresy.

*ALWAYS i.e. during Council of Nicea also.

>Also, is English your first language? There are some things you said that I didn't respond to because honestly I could piece together what you meant.

As our nice friend figured out >>601814 I am not. God blessed me in this regard. Deo gratias.

>>601821

His argument has merit. He is saying that if the Church has always been heretical, it could not produce a non-heretical work in any form. The creed is a product of the Church, and therefore if the Church has always been heretical the creed must also be heretical in some manner. Since the Church is, among other things, a teacher to its children, it is covered by the Lord's statement

>18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

Therefore the Church, if it was always heretical in some degree, would be incapable of bearing good fruit. Since the creed is one fruit of the church, the creed would have to be heretical.

>>601944

>He is saying that if the Church has always been heretical, it could not produce a non-heretical work in any form.

thanks for translating.

i bet he is, that wasn't initially what the argument was though. "always governed by heresy" not "always heretical"

>A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

mormon-tier eisegesis.

that verse isn't saying it's impossible for a good person/institution to do/teach wrong, or that it's impossible for a bad person/institution to do/teach right.

i could give numerous examples of why this interpretation would be absurd, but the ones that come to mind leave a bad taste in my mouth.

i am bored with this now, it's mostly just picking nits and way off-topic, you guys win.

>>601944

>>601854

Except the church has multiple beliefs. If the Catholic Church only believed in the nicene creed and nothing else, your argument would have merit. As is, the Catholic Church believes in more than just the nicene creed. Therefore, saying that you disagree with the Catholic Church or saying that the Catholic Church has always been heretical isn't denying the creed. You are a liar and a false accuser

An apple is a fruit

I don't like apples

<Why do you hate fruit?

>>602009

>Except the church has multiple beliefs. If the Catholic Church only believed in the nicene creed and nothing else, your argument would have merit. As is, the Catholic Church believes in more than just the nicene creed.

Except that Nicene Creed, be being the official creed of Church, is ALL CORE beliefs. Each and every one of truths of faiths and dogma of catholic Church can be summed up inand springs from Nicene creed (including papacy and whole of mariology) what current Catheism beautifully illustrates

>>602041

So there is not a single aspect of the Catholic Church that isn’t found in the creed? What’s the point of the catechism then?

>>601944

>His argument has merit. He is saying that if the Church has always been heretical, it could not produce a non-heretical work in any form.

Imagine for a second this was the Herschel Lubbavich zionist board, and you made a post that the Pharisees have been wrong from the beginning, and they ban you for the reason "to deny the Pharisees is to deny Old Testament" because there is "indisputable continuity" between them and Moses.

>>602244

>Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Does this mean you should be banned? If you are denying the Nicene creed yes. To say that the Catholic Church has always been governed by heresy but to maintain the creed is maybe illogical, but not banworthy. I cited the above scripture because the argument "What if [Pharisees/scribes]" holds no merit, as they had a legitimate authority as Jesus explains.

>>602248

>To say that the Catholic Church has always been governed by heresy but to maintain the creed is maybe illogical, but not banworthy.

The analogy I just gave is a better one than you give credit for, but still not perfect. It is better in the sense that Rav Lubbovich who issued the ban in the 21st century has no continuity with the scribes or Pharisees of the 1st century, just as RCC fellows who have a works gospel have no continuity with any early church; in both cases only a presumed one in their mind and it is very much so disputable. While the continuity of the scribes or Pharisees to the Mosaic law is actually more than in the analogous situation, making this not a perfect analogy only for the fact there was never an analogous position of authority aside from Christ Himself, the Son, under the new covenant.

So, the first and the relevant point here is that ban-issuers claimed continuity to any early church is a sham in the same sense as the medieval talmud falsely claims to come (through word of mouth) through scribes and ultimately Moses. It actually doesn't have the continuity that it claims. So the denouncing of any latter day doctrine of catholics is not tantamount to an attack on early church, and even if you ban/harm someone under the pretense it is, this link has not been proven.

>Does this mean you should be banned? If you are denying the Nicene creed yes.

Now to bring up another point here, if I were to to make a new creed by paraphrase a bunch of statements from the Nicene creed and add in a few more true facts like the fact Jesus Christ is Lord and then I ask you to affirm or deny whether my creed is true, have you then accepted my authority? If my new creed I just made from Biblical truth is true and you don't deny it, have you then accepted my authority in every thing and also the authority claims of some unrelated stranger who I never mentioned claiming to be my successor, say 50 years from now, who comes and claims supposed debts owed and the right to your land and property? This is the kind of logic being implied and resorted to currently.

I accept the entire word of God, and that is what the rules honestly should be, not just some micro-summary of a few points in it. The fact the rules say nothing this, even though it is the final authority from which the truth is derived, but instead avoids this, should already tell you something peculiar is going on with whoever wrote those rules.

>>602046

Explanation of Creed. For even though notion of omnipresence and omniscience are in this short phrase "I believe in God Father Almighty" one can not see it. Or notion of papacy in phrase "I believe in One Church". Or whole of mariology in notion "he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary" etc.

Plus, beside dogma, we have both temproal and eternal law. "Thou shall not kill", celibacy etc.

We have prayers with archprayer of "Our Father" worthy to ponder about.

>>602316

>It actually doesn't have the continuity that it claims.

There is a physical succession of persons and belief all the way to the beginning. It doesn't require much effort to see. You can affirm, as I've seen some people here do, that the entire early church was wolves in sheeps clothing. You'd be wrong, but you can affirm that.

>Now to bring up another point here, if I were to to make a new creed by paraphrase a bunch of statements from the Nicene creed and add in a few more true facts like the fact Jesus Christ is Lord and then I ask you to affirm or deny whether my creed is true, have you then accepted my authority?

You are not a bishop, you have no authority to author a creed that speaks for the truth. Your creed may or may not be true, for example I can "author" a creed that just recites the canons of ecumenical councils. That is entirely irrelevant to whether you and I have the authority to author it. Further, a creed is true only if its contents are true, and you and I do not have the authority to declare the contents true or not.

>>602323

Can you tell me the part of the nicene creed that deals with the real presence of the Eucharist? It’s a core belief of Catholics, and Baptists think it’s heresy. Can you tell me what part of the creed teaches it?

>>602339

>it is true that Jesus Christ is God only because a man in a funny hat said so

>>602351

"I believe in one baptism for the remission of sin" is usually interpreted to implicitly contain the other sacraments, and sacramental life overall. After all, we are baptized specifically so that we can partake of the Eucharist. We confess so that we may partake of the Eucharist. And so on.

>>601432

>difference between a divorce and annulment

A divorce it's the ending of a valid marriage, an annulment is a declaration that an invalid marriage was not valid when it started.

If a marriage is valid nobody, even the Pope, can dissolve it (look at Henry VIII and Catherine)

>>602367

>it was real in my mind

Yeah, like I said, nowhere in the creed is the real presence mentioned. And the real presence is believed to be heresy by Baptists, which means if a Baptist says the Catholic Church is heresy you can’t claim they are denying the creed because the creed doesn’t mention the real presence

>>602351

Ethier what >>602367 said on in this two notions:

>"Christ who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven"

>"Christ was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures"

For Eucharist is nothing but representation of Calvary a true, clean sacrifice that prophet Malachi speaks about.

>>602389

>under Pontius Pilate

For all the whining about church fathers form protestants, you folks don't seem to care too much about them.

Pontius Pilate was a saint, for reference, and had nothing to do with the crucifixion.

>>602389

>it was real in my mind

>>602360

It is known to be true because the Church says so.

>>602391

>Pontius Pilate was a saint, for reference, and had nothing to do with the crucifixion.

Pr*testant """Theology"""

>>602383

Every sentence contains both what it says and what it means, and what a sentence means can carry more than just what it says. For example the apostles Creed says only "I believe in the Holy Spirit" however the meaning of these words to the apostles and those who learned from them is not different than what the Nicene creed states "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life". Apostles creed does not call the Holy Spirit Lord but it doubtlessly contains exactly that meaning in those words.

>>602398

Oh you're right. He tried to stall it actually, until he threw his hands up and let the rioting jews have their fun.

I'll tell you what, if there was a riot in your house you'd bend your arms around for them, and then you'd have to apologize for being a hypocrite and insulting Pilate.

>>602401

>He tried to stall it actually, until he threw his hands up and let the rioting jews have their fun.

So he did have a role to play?

>being a hypocrite and insulting Pilate.

I'm not insulting Pilate, I'm stating the fact you just admitted that he had a role to play in Jesus' crucifixion.

>>602398

>Pr*testant """Theology"""

Just to interject for a moment, the idea that Pilate is a saint is Eastern Orthodox. That's also why the anon attacked you for not reading your church fathers >>602391

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Veneration

Unless I'm missing something here

>>602402

Its a valid statement since he tried his best not to have anything ever since his wife came over and warned him of what she heard in her dream. Any comment on that?

>>602404

You mean Oriental Orthodox. There isn't much love for Pilate in the Byzantine tradition.

>>602391

>For all the whining about church fathers form protestants, you folks don't seem to care too much about them.

And what does it have to do with it?

>Pontius Pilate was a saint, for reference, and had nothing to do with the crucifixion.

His wife was in EOC and Ethiopia, St. Claudia. He himself was venerated in Ethipoia after schism. We have nothing to do with it.

>>602396

nod an argumend :DDD

>>602408

Exactly. He loved this world more than the next, so that when he had the ability to simply free Jesus, he didn't, instead freeing Barabbas in order to keep the people happy.

Pilate satisfied the crowds by sending an innocent man to death. That's not the action of a saint, although his sin was less than that of the jews because Pilate did not have the Law and the Prophets to let him know that Jesus was God.

This is a pretty "official" Orthodox position on things, as evidenced by the fact that this appears in the study notes for Matthew 15 in the Orthodox Study Bible which was assembled primarily under the auspices of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America.

>>602411

I can totally understand Pilate's wife being honored.

>>602398

>It is known to be true because the Church says so.

Guess we can just burn the Gospels then, the personal revelation of God the Son in Jesus Christ is totally worthless

>All those people rallying against Pilate because of his forgiven Sin

That's I'm outta here.

>>602404

>Unless I'm missing something here

I was commenting on the italicized part, which is blatantly false.

>>602405

>Any comment on that?

If Pilate was in any way involved, he had a role to play. Whether he was for it or against does not change that he had a part in it, and that Christ suffered and was buried under Pilate is irrefutable. I'm NOT claiming Pilate was for it, I'm claiming Pilate was involved, which is undeniable.

>>602431

>Guess we can just burn the Gospels then, the personal revelation of God the Son in Jesus Christ is totally worthless

Pr*testant reading comprehension.

>>602461

>Pr*testant reading comprehension.

C*tholic argumentation.

>>602339

>There is a physical succession of persons and belief all the way to the beginning.

You are free to think so, but to ban other Christians that don't agree with your idea of succession is not proof of your idea of succession. Since it's nowhere in the word of God. Therefore it is highly disputable. As is your understanding of what "the church" really means.

>You are not a bishop, you have no authority to author a creed that speaks for the truth.

Anyone can author a creed and anyone else has the choice to agree to it or deny it. Your misguided opinion on this is of banning people over not worthy. And it's not how the rules are to be interpreted. There is nothing special about the Nicene creed or those who wrote it. It's not God-inspired scripture. I could theoretically write an equivalent one just by paraphrasing it and it would serve the same purpose. Because the doctrine of Trinity and the other doctrines mentioned has the weight of Scripture behind it. And in fact there are many doctrines a Christian must believe that are not found in this creed but are found in Scripture, meaning it's possible to make a better creed from this if necessity demands.

>>602367

Your interpretations are interesting but, is this the reason why you refuse to include any mention of the word of God or Scripture in the rules? Are there hidden meanings beneath the surface of this particular declaration that you want to assume everyone has to accept and that's why you didn't just use Scripture as the basis for the rules?

If we don't accept your hidden meanings, that means we reject the Trinity and everything else in the NC? Whoever is choosing to enforce these rules in this way is acting like a snake. The original BO certainly didn't intend to do this legalistic and deceptive stuff when he mentioned the MC in his rules. It only started being used as a legalistic stumblingblock to attack non-catholics with the current board owners. Maybe we should change it then, just go back to Scripture from which it was derived. That's what everyone must agree on and no possible funny business with the mods banning people for not being Catholic, which is what this has clearly come to at this point. And of course if questioned, their rule 2 is the "trump card" excuse for any deletion to cover their tracks so no real reason needs to be given. In reality, 90% of posts could be interpreted as breaking rule 2, so the real reason for their ban, which is clearly "not being catholic," doesn't need to be explained.

>>601412

The only reason Catholics have stricter views on contraception is that they uncritically appropriated Aristotelian ideas on natural law.

As to marriage, our understanding is the Church provides the sacrament (and therefore, can exercise economy in its provision). The Catholic understanding is that the partners convey it to each other with the Church acting essentially as a witness.

Of course, one could point out to Catholics that they never had any issue with Eastern marriage economy before Trent.

>muh links

>muh translated bible quotes taken out of context

>>601373

>JOE, JOE, JOE, JOE, JOE!!!!!!!

>>601357

underrated post.

>>605582

>it's an eastern orthodox defends contraception episode

>converting from one denomination to another

hahaha

>>605589

based Joe

>>601239

OP, I would seriously look into pre-denominational Christianity, basically following the 1st century AD church as closely as possible. I tried looking into going full Orthodox once but I couldn't accept their traditions which flies in face of what I read in Isaiah 29:13, although I do respect every (legitimate) denomination and sect and draw something from each and every one of them, also fact that God's Word does not come back void.

>A predenominational Christian is a Christian or disciple of Christ who seeks to base all of his religious beliefs and practices upon the New Testament itself, starting with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He desires to recover original New Testament Christianity, or the faith once delivered unto the saints. He is neither Catholic nor Protestant and rejects any and all Catholic and Protestant traditions that are inconsistent with or contrary to the New Testament, no matter how deeply-entrenched these traditions may have become. His overriding goal is to be true to Christ and true to the New Testament.

>>616645

>He is neither Catholic nor Protestant and rejects any and all Catholic and Protestant traditions that are inconsistent with or contrary to the New Testament, no matter how deeply-entrenched these traditions may have become. His overriding goal is to be true to Christ and true to the New Testament.

So a Baptist.