/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>645533

Why are you getting into arguments if you haven't thoroughly researched the subject matter?

>>645533

>Lutheran friend who called the Pope a "commie" and said the Eastern Orthodox Church was the first church

Why isn't he Orthodox then

Also the orthoprot meme rings true once again

>>645555

Probably because his nearest eastern church is 200 miles away, so he makes a spiritual communion with the based orthodox despite never having been to divine liturgy or spoken to an eastern christian or priest, but he stays with "the next closest apostolic church who are taking up the fight against evil Rome".

Ortholarp is a mind virus

>Can you guys give me some good arguments defending the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and the infallibility of the Pope?

Try Catholic Bridge, Nick's Catholic Blog and Shameless Popery and look in their posts about papacy.

>who called the Pope a "commie"

Oh, Papa Franco is not commie. He is subscribe to some South American ideology that name I forgot but it's rather right wing.

Also, best argument for bad popes - fact that John XII was one. And that there was no schism then.

> and said the Eastern Orthodox Church was the first church.

Orthoprost meme lives on. Explain to him that ecclesiology of Orthodox and Catholic church is, save for the pope and autonomous churches, identical. Not to mention sacramentology and other core issues. If he belives in OOC primacy and still is Lutheran then he is ethier liar, idiot or does not belive in promises of Christ.

>>645608

>save for the pope and autonomous churches, identical

I'm catholic and you know nothing about any of the churches.

>>645555

>orthoprot meme rings true once again

>orthoprot meme

?

>>645764

>pr*testantism doesn't make any sense to me anymore but those gosh darn Catholics are still on my nerves

>I know, I'll join the other "denomination" which claims to have apostolic succession and to practice sacraments

>>645533

Magisterial infallibility is hardly the biggest issue with Roman Catholic theology. In fact, it's secondary to a lot of other problems. Your questions are best answered by their catechism itself. Give it a read.

>>645598

>Ortholarp is a mind virus

False confession is a sin regardless of what form it takes.

>>645608

Nick got bum-blasted by Jay dyre in debate, gonna need someone else.

Steve ray is excellent in explaining the fundamentals in a no nonsense language. It's also hilarious how he was a hardcore baptist before he read the Bible in its full context.

>>645778

is it the same nick though?

Papism is a disease.

>>646617

Actually, the Pope's right here. Most people do not reject the Christianity of their ancestors (Catholicism), they reject the Protestant theology of pastor jim and pastor bob and whatever european equivalents still exist.

>>645769

> In fact, it's secondary to a lot of other problems.

Like?

Magisterial infallibility is absolutely necessary, or the Church gives up Her right to actually bind what is on Earth.

And if Jesus did not give the Church the keys to the kingdom, to whom did He give it?

>inb4 Catholic and Orthodix poop-throwing

>>645533

>Eastern Orthodox Church was the first church

The Church was the first church. The Church suffered a schism after changes in language (rather than knowing both Greek and Latin, the East generally only knew Greek, and the West generally only Latin), theology and politics had been developing over some centuries, ultimately giving the Orthodox Church (which retained traditional organizational structure, theology, &c.) and the Roman Catholic Church (which, inspired by the political structures of the Latin speaking world and it's special connection to St. Peter and St. Paul, claimed to have total authority over the Church, and continued theological developments with the aid of the Germanic nations that followed it, resulting in the differences that are now present).

Just try doing some research into it, I'm really not doing that good of a job at explaining it.

>>646662

>Orthodix

*Orthodox

Scholars agree today that Rome held a certain primacy, and the Pope did so and so, but both the actual boundaries and the origins of his position were not given a strict definition. So there were different perspectives, both East and West, at different times and places, interpreting the Papacy differently depending on circumstances and what was convenient. Stupidly enough, no councils were held to really affirm or deny what the Pope can actually do and why he can do it. The Pope's primacy was simply accepted.

Then the Gregorian Reform came around and finally cemented a view to be held for good in the West. The East remained more or less ignorant of the exact Western doctrine and its implications until the fourth Crusades, the sack of Constantinople, the Pope's response to it, and the Latin occupation.

The Orthodox never really strictly defined the Pope's job and boundaries actually, except by saying that the Catholics are wrong. Indeed, the only issue that was dogmatically addressed since the schism is the filioque.

Because the issue simply didn't have a single answer until nearly 1000 years into the Church's history, both Catholic and Orthodox apologetics are hard to take seriously since they just disregard the historicity and development of the other side. So do your own research on what you think makes the most sense, I guess.

t. orthodox