/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The liturgical difference are often more major than the differences between Latin and Protestant Churches, in the case of more traditional Protestants. If I was stuck somewhere without an Orthodox Church I would go to a Latin one, but I'm already Orthodox with a priest I talk to. If you aren't Orthodox yet maybe you should reach out to the nearest priest and see if you can go through some catechism online and join them for some important feasts, even if that's a bit of a journey for you

There are plenty of Liturgy livestreams online.

I know an app I use called Ancient Faith Radio has it. Never watched it, but I still recommend watching the Orthodox Liturgy

Liturgy is extremely important and not to be taken lightly. It is the best way the Church found to communicate basic and fundamental theology to the layman without him needing to read 300+ books.

Even the simplest actions are filled with meaning and language. It is very compact so any deviation from it can and does influence the message greatly.

The Catholic answer is yes. Orthodox Christians share valid apostolic succession and thus your Sunday obligation is fulfilled at a Catholic church. Orthodox may take the Eucharist without issue.

The Orthodox answer is no. The Catholic church does not have valid apostolic succession and thus will not satisfy your Sunday obligation. If you do go, you may not take communion.

If I attend an orthodox church, will I be a larper?

>>656953

Well that depends, why are you attending?

>>656953

OP here: It's easier to LARP as a Deus Vult'er tbh

>>656953

Are you american? If so then yes, youre probably larping

>>656968

If you go to a Latin church in America youre LARPing as a Mexican

>>656974

Americans have a long history of both catholicism and protestantism.

I can guarantee no American on 8chan is choosing orthodoxy over catholicism because of theological reasons, instead it will be some recovering /pol/ack who hates le liberal pope and/or "man look how edgy and traditional and cool I am"

>>656978

>I can guarantee no American on 8chan is choosing orthodoxy over catholicism because of theological reasons

Very, very, very broad generalization. He can simply disagree with the Papacy and the Vatican for him to disregard Catholicism.

What's the preferred Bible for Orthodoxy, btw?

>>656943

>watching liturgy

No. Be there.

>>656951

Most Orthodox believe Catholics have valid apostolic succession.

However, one absolutely shouldn't commune with schismatics or heretics.

>>656953

Depends. If you want to attend an Orthodox church because the Catholics and Protestants are cucked by modernism and we need a glorious Byzantine empire again and Putin is a saint… You probably should get your priorities put in order first.

>>656989

I think parishes in the US either use the RSV, the (N)KJV, or their own translation.

There's no single "Orthodox" translation, although the RSV has the whole canon, while the OSB has nice notes for a beginner (and has the Greek canon).

>>656978

False witness

>>656940

Depends on how stringent those catholic dudes are I guess.

>Currently attend a Baptist church

>Not Baptist

> theologically, both Catholics and the Orthodox are very, very different.

Apparently not, the schism is political and basically every respected scholar understands that

all the big theological differences came up post-hoc afterwords and Orthos literally dismissed people by saying they were too latin because they hated rome so much.

Catholic and Orthodox scholars having a conversation.

>>657044

at the time of the schism there were effectively no theological differences, but 1000 years of unchecked papal dogma has changed that

>>657044

This tbh. The only real distinction is the filioque and essence/energy distinction, both of which don't really lead to much practical differences

>>656987

I've never spoken to one who has any real reason to join orthodoxy over any other church. It's not like I have anything major against orthodoxy, I just have something against people joining a church for vain reasons, like >>656999 said.

>>656940

Why don't you ask your priest? Don't you talk to a priest? How do you confess? Are you even baptized?

Anyway in the case this isn't another larp thread trying to start a flame war the only correct answer is >>656951, move close to a church.

>>656940

>Since there's no Orthodox parishes near me, would it be fine for me to go to a Catholic one without converting to Catholicism per se?

Sorry but no. Praying with heretics is SIN.

Where are you from? Let's see if we can help you out.

>>657044

Lmao. There are no two religions in the world as different as Orthodox Christianity and Roman pedophilism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Qm_CDMrTY

>>657044

That's where you're wrong kiddo

>>656940

>There's no Orthodox parishes in my area.

Your area as in city? Neighbourhood? States? Country? Or just nearby vicinity? I know some that would travel 2-3 hours either by train or walking or across towns just to attend the liturgy. If it is just a matter of convenience then I think you just need more dedication. If it is that your states or country does not have Orthodox church or you do not have any means of travel besides walking across towns, then I suggest you try to procure one.

>>657015

If you're not catholic you can't get communion, that's about it.

Even this isn't as hard-lined as one might think, and the occasional orthodox attending out of good will can join for communion if he likes. protestants are out of the question though

>>657078

>Sorry but no. Praying with heretics is SIN.

tigga, we can get our last rites with each if needed.

>>657079

>There are no two religions in the world as different as Orthodox Christianity and Roman pedophilism.

Ask me how I know you're a protestant convert.

What's your main server btw.

>>657088

>Ask me how I know you're a protestant convert.

Jay Dyer was a Roman Catholic convert, though.

>>657087

This. I currently drive 1 hour 40 minutes to my parish for liturgy.

>>657088

>tigga, we can get our last rites with each if needed

source? we don't even have "last rights" like Roman Catholics. Thd dying person just recives confession and the Eucharist. And the oil is Holy unction for the sick not only for the dying. It may be so that the Catholic Church says Orthdox Christians can recive last rights, you cannot recive Eucharist from us unless on your death bed you became Orthdox.

>>657110

I asked how I knew the poster was a protestant convert, not the video maker.

Besides everybody can shit about Vatican II, heck almost every catholic I know does it.

The fact is, there's no significant difference between catholicism and orthodoxy besides papal supremacy, divorce and contraception (of which the latter is almost always condemned by any patriarch of the East).

>B-but muh filioque!

That's already been resolved and recognized as being done against Arianism in the West while the meaning is the same in the Greek.

>Muh essence-energies!

While we catholics have scholastic autism, this is definitely the peak of mysticism autism.

It's such an insignificant thing to either salvation or Christology or anything else that we don't care about it.

It's even kind of accepted these days.

The poster I was quoting also used muh pedophile church which, considering that any denomination has these, is just a cheap way to shit on someone.

>>657113

>we don't even have "last rights" like Roman Catholics

<Starts quoting what the last rites

Do you even understand what these things are?

Our last rites are holy unction, Eucharist and confession (if possible), just like orthodox.

>source?

One of my priests, Tridentine rite, which said that it's apparently a kind of 'silent agreement' that if either a catholic or orthodox is on its dead bed and their priests can't come in time, the other one can give the last rites even though it has to be avoided.

We both recognize each other's sacraments as valid but illicit.

>>657117

>Besides everybody can shit about Vatican II, heck almost every catholic I know does it.

Dyer would agree with what that anon posted. His critique of Roman Catholicism goes way beyond just Vatican II. My point was that your assumption that any Orthodox who is critical of RC is necessarily a protestant convert is false.

I look forward to the schism ending, but I have no idea how that will happen and I will not be a Uniate. Can we just let the Pope have all of Western Europe, Central America, and South America as his diocese and call it even?

>>657117

>One of my priests, Tridentine rite, which said that it's apparently a kind of 'silent agreement' that if either a catholic or orthodox is on its dead bed and their priests can't come in time, the other one can give the last rites even though it has to be avoided.

Cool so no source

>We both recognize each other's sacraments as valid but illicit.

no we don't the concept of "valid but illicit" is a consequence of Roman Catholic theology not Orthdox. There are Orthdox priests who will say they are but this is an almost entirely western thing and minority view, not to mention wrong based on how we veiw sacraments.

>>657117

>Do you even understand what these things are?

Also yes i do, and again we have no concept of "last rights" we administer it as we would to a normal person who is living it is not the "last rights" it is communion,confession and unction which is not always done.

>>657119

>My point was that your assumption that any Orthodox who is critical of RC is necessarily a protestant convert is false.

I never said that, I just know that the poster I was quoting was a protestant as was my whole point.

>>657138

>no we don't the concept of "valid but illicit" is a consequence of Roman Catholic theology not Orthdox.

The rites of ordination haven't changed, and even in the NO the basics of the ordination is still there.

Therefore the sacraments are also valid, but just not licit.

>>657140

>we have no concept of "last rights" we administer it as we would to a normal person who is living it is not the "last rights" it is communion,confession and unction which is not always done.

<We have no concept of "giving communion, confession and holy unction to terminal people"

Are you really this dense?

We both give communion and confession to people who are dying, the only difference being that we also always include holy unction and have a name for it.

>>657146

>The rites of ordination haven't changed, and even in the NO the basics of the ordination is still there.

>Therefore the sacraments are also valid, but just not licit.

You just ignore what i said and repeated what i understand is Roman Catholic Theology, it is however not our theology. Your sacraments aren't valid not because of Novus Ordo but because you are heretics.

>Are you really this dense?

>We both give communion and confession to people who are dying, the only difference being that we also always include holy unction and have a name for it.

As i said, you have a special ceremony which involves giving these three sacraments to dying people. We do not, we administer it to them the same as a normal living person. Only after they die do we have specific ceremony which involves prayers.

You are misinformed about Orthodox Theology considering your "source" of Orthodox theology is a Catholic Priest. It is actually hilarious that Catholics spend so much energy trying to be ecumenical and saying we are actually the same when the feeling is really not mutual. It goes as far as the Vatican basically saying the Orthodox view of first among equals was how Rome was viewed in the first century.

>. Apostolic Canon 34 offers a canonical description of the correlation between the protos and the other bishops of each region: ‘The bishops of the people of a province or region [ethnos] must recognize the one who is first [protos] amongst them, and consider him to be their head [kephale], and not do anything important without his consent [gnome]; each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese [paroikia] and its dependent territories. But the first [protos] cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord [homonoia] will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit’.(10)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

>>657152

>You just ignore what i said and repeated what i understand is Roman Catholic Theology, it is however not our theology. Your sacraments aren't valid not because of Novus Ordo but because you are heretics.

This is simply not true.

Our theology is the same in regards to the sacraments, and our ordinations go back to the same rites and are seen as valid.

Therefore, both our sacraments are seen as valid.

https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

This link explains that some would call them invalid while others don't, but since a former catholic priest will not be re-ordained but only vested this means a formal recognition of priesthood and thus the validity of the sacraments.

>You are misinformed about Orthodox Theology considering your "source" of Orthodox theology is a Catholic Priest.

The only thing I ever heard about orthodoxy about my priests was that 'silent agreement' and only because we were discussing the last rites, nothing about the orthodox church gets taught whatsoever.

>It is actually hilarious that Catholics spend so much energy trying to be ecumenical and saying we are actually the same when the feeling is really not mutual

This also differs from church to church to be honest.

I know some people who sometimes attend divine liturgy in a nearby Russian orthodox monastery, they're on pretty good terms.

>>657159

you make so many assumptions

1) when people are recived into the church by a method it implies a validity to the sacraments previously performed. Baptism for example, it permissible to recive through Chrismation heterodox baptisms, not because the baptisms were valid but because the Chrismation makes it valid.

2) because the OCA says something they cannot be just wrong, as stated by the OCA infact there are some who hold that the sacraments are valid i would say that all evidence points to the contrary and most non western priests and Saints would agree with me. This is different from Catholic dogmatic statements on the validity of Orthdox sacraments.

as for people attendeding an Orthdox divine liturgy and being on good terms, of course they are who said we had to hate Catholics. On the contrary we pray for them to return to the Church.

>>657152

>Your sacraments aren't valid not because of Novus Ordo but because you are heretics

You realize that saying this makes you the heretic right? That’s Donatism, anon.

>>657170

>You realize that saying this makes you the heretic right? That’s Donatism, anon.

Do you know what donatism is? it is retarded arguments like this which made me turn away from Catholicism dishonest apologetics.

>>657056

It's worth to note, from a Catholic perspective, that although there are some theologians that consider the lack of essence/energy distinction to be a dogma, they seem to be a minority. Others instead hold it to be merely a very popular theological opinion, but not a dogma.

>>657079

Live

Action

Role

Play

>>657172

I think his Donatist accusation comes from that the Donatists held that the validity of the sacraments was dependent on the holiness of the person administering them.

Since you judged sacraments of a completely validly ordained priest to be null because of his theological differences which you deem heresy (and don't even apply to the sacraments themselves) you technically took a Donatist position which was condemned at the first Council of Arles in 314 (St. Augustine also fought against this heresy).

>>657274

He still hasn't told me his main server…

>>657079

As much as I like Jay Dyer he's pretty much the Orthodox version of Most Autistic Family Monastery (he admitted in his recent video he used to be in contact with them so this isn't surprising)

His argument is basically Filioque > Arianism > Vatican I > Vatican II which led to Satanic/Masonic/Protestant infiltration of the RCC, which is three extra steps more than most Sedes

Most Orthodox reject this conspiracy bullshit and maintain their objection to the Papacy on historical grounds, and not on the grounds that Francis is a cuck/Mason or whatever. If the RCC had a traditionalist Pope like Pius X, guys like Dyer would still be Catholic

>>657439

Jay dyer disagrees wit the papacy on Historical grounds, you haven't read or watched enough of his stuff if you think his argument is pope francis has the big gay.

>>657297

I know why he called me a donatist, but i know he is being retarded for 2 reasons. 1) the Donatism was about the priests who were sinning, not priests who were not in the Church. and 2) he assumes we share the same theology of the priesthood i.e it leaves an indelible mark on someone, which we don't or at least there it is not a common position to hold.

Orthodox are lacking for thinkers so hard they need a youtube e-celeb?

>>657555

not an argument

>>657478

>the Donatism was about the priests who were sinning, not priests who were not in the Church.

The Donatists went so far as to call themselves the real Church, Donatism is not limited to priests inside your church.

>he assumes we share the same theology of the priesthood i.e it leaves an indelible mark on someone, which we don't or at least there it is not a common position to hold.

Except for this we have the same theology about priests, else they had to be re-ordained when converting.

Heresy does not make the sacraments of a validly ordained priest invalid unless the heresy revolves around said sacraments.

>>657635

>The Donatists went so far as to call themselves the real Church, Donatism is not limited to priests inside your church.

You don't understand what donatism is, they went into schism because they believed they had the right theology, hence they of course thought they were the true church. You argument has no bearing about what i said. The Donatists were saying priests who Sinned could not administer the sacraments, not that they could not do it because they were not in the Church. Basically all the Fathers with the exception of Augustine taught there were no sacraments outside the church, but since Catholic theology basically just takes Augustine as the only father you use his theology of sacraments which he used to argue against the donatists. Because we do not take the Augustinian view of the sacraments you are incorrect about the point below, we don't rebaptise or reordain because the grace is conveyed by Chrismation and vesting, The previous sacrament is then grace filled. You don't understand Eastern Orthodox Theology, your priest is not an accurate source for Eastern Orthodox Theology, many say we should re ordain and baptise because to not do so causing confusion to the people who don't understand the theology and erroneously leads people to believe that there are sacraments outside the Church.

>Except for this we have the same theology about priests, else they had to be re-ordained when converting.

>>657637

I'm Orthodox and literally every priest I've had a discussion with, and my own bishop, has said Catholics have valid but illicit sacraments and that schismatics being graceless is a fringe view held by fundamentalists.

>>657649

Your priests are calling the Church Fathers Fringe fundamentalists, this isn't even a debate outside of western priests. I Would say it is perfectly acceptable to say you don't know if there is grace in the Catholic Church, but to affirm it is in contradiction to everything the Church Fathers say.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stcyprian_eccles.aspx

>>657657

I would also like to say, Schismatics being graceless is a different issue, but Catholics are not Schismatics, old calenderists are Schismatics, Catholics are Heretics

>>657657

We aren't a religion that looks back to the Fathers as if they were fossils.

Also, are you repeating what your priest teaches, or did you come to these conclusions by yourself?

The idea that schismatics have no grace comes from the apostolic constitutions and St Cyprian. However, the tradition that schismatics do have valid sacraments is equally as old, and in fact the African and Roman traditions fought over this and never really agreed.

>>657658

Catholics are both schismatics and heretics…

>>657660

>We aren't a religion that looks back to the Fathers as if they were fossils.

Ok Show me a modern Saint then who is not in favour of the re baptism of Catholics, And says the sacraments contain grace?

Here is what St Paisios said to a priest in trouble with his bishop for re-batising converts.

> This elder was only told that a Fr. X was in trouble with his bishop and could not serve nothing else. A month later a monk acquainted with this priest went to see Fr. Paisios ( who had no way of knowing this monk knew this priest) and before this monk spoke to him, Fr. Paisios the elder said, "I know Father X is in trouble with his Bishop Y. Tell Father X to continue to do what he is doing, but to be very discreet." This elder knew everything: he knew the monk in front of him was acquainted with the priest in question, he knew the Bishop's name, and he knew the reason this priest was in trouble: none of which was told him.

>>657662

The authorities of the Church are the bishops, not the saints. Many saints are bishops, many are not. But the primary authority is -your- bishop. Your priest is appointed by your bishop to pastor you.

So, I'll ask again - are you just repeating what your priest and/or bishop teaches? Or did you come to these conclusions on your own?

>>657637

>You don't understand what donatism is, they went into schism because they believed they had the right theology

They went into schism because the rest of the Church held the position that people can always come back to the Church even if they were traditores or not.

>we don't rebaptise or reordain because the grace is conveyed by Chrismation and vesting

tigga what?

You need to be ordained to become a priest, Chrismation and vesting only won't do it, heck every Anglican and Lutheran would be a valid priest then.

>You don't understand Eastern Orthodox Theology, your priest is not an accurate source for Eastern Orthodox Theology

My priests are not my source of orthodox theology, like I already said, we don't even talk a lot about other denominations in general.

>Ok Show me a modern Saint then who is not in favour of the re baptism of Catholics, And says the sacraments contain grace?

Wait, we anabaptists now?

>>657667

Russian Church accepts Catholic priests by vestment and a confession of faith. That's not re-ordination, right?

>>657668

Re-ordination is giving a priest another ordination to become a priest, which is only necessary if the priest did not get a valid ordination (as with Anglicans).

Vesting is, like the word implies, ceremoniously giving him the priestly cloth and the confession of faith is what every convert needs to do to begin with.

Maybe nowadays catholic convert priests need a new ordination because of the Novus Ordo but I think that even that one is seen as valid because the basis of the ordination is still in there even if the rest has been removed.

The Chrismation is also part of the conversion, but why it's done again I don't know since it's linked to baptism and even in the Novus Ordo the rite is the same.

>>657665

Saints>random bishops, i won't concede to your crypto papism, i am not obliged to follow my bishop into error, especially not on something which the church allows opinion on. I have never said those who believe the roman Catholic sacraments have grace are heretics i have only said they are quite clearly wrong and using our own reason (Beceause we are not papists) we can discern this if we are not deluded by ecumenicism

>>657667

>tigga what?

>You need to be ordained to become a priest, Chrismation and vesting only won't do it, heck every Anglican and Lutheran would be a valid priest then.

You have literally ignored what i said, the ordination is "Completed" by the grace that according to the fathers (Except Augustine) only the Church can bestow. I won't argue any more since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and have presuposistions which will not allow you to think anything other than what the big man in the hat says.

>>657733

>Saints>random bishops, i won't concede to your crypto papism, i am not obliged to follow my bishop into error, especially not on something which the church allows opinion on

Even the greatest of saints have listened to their bishops even when in error, and seeing as how baptism is in general accepted St. Piasios had no reason to disobey unless the one converted had no valid baptism in general.

>>657735

>You have literally ignored what i said, the ordination is "Completed" by the grace that according to the fathers (Except Augustine) only the Church can bestow

If that's the case then the whole ordination should be done anew since ordination is also a sacrament.

>I won't argue any more since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about

>t. mr. I contradicted myself earlier

>>657086

Based

>>656978

Orthodox in America have a long history as well. Today we celebrate the feast of All Saints of North America, with over a dozen canonized saints here now, and several more in line for canonization in the near future.

Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the founder of the Orthodox Church in America, was originally an Eastern Catholic priest who suffered extreme abuse and rejection by the Roman priests in Minnesota, and thus led a mass conversion of himself and the Eastern Catholics of America to holy Orthodoxy.

Orthodox tradition in America is centuries old, and continues to grow to this day.

>>657733

"Obey your bishop" is crypto-papism now? Better tell Ignatius of Antioch.

If you think your bishop is in error, expect his brother bishops to correct or excommunicate him. If not, then listen to your damn bishop, and to your spiritual father most importantly.

I won't concede to your crypto-Protestantism, where the Bible is the writing of the saints instead.