/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>779699

>>779701

This.

Also it's the only church without any major retarded scandal as of late

>>779703

Wellllllll…..

The Ukrainian schism is a real shitshow if I'm honest here.

>>779707

Its not good but I wouldn't say its a scandal- at least not like the sex/ lavender mafia stuff . Plus it's not a theological dispute, the new church there preaches the exact same faith. I'll take that sort of issue over every other type that other Christians have to suffer through every single day.

OP, listen to >>779701 the Orthodox Church is the true Church. Come and see!

>>779699

Why not read each church's doctrine and decide for yourself?

>>779758

This. The Bible warns us to not follow the traditions of man, and that whoever adds or removes anything from scripture goes to hell. Read the Bible, God will reveal the truth to you through it.

>>779699

don't go to church pal. If you're really one with god, all shall be given to you

>>779699

Please don't convert to a denomination just because people on an imageboard say it's the truth. Read scripture for yourself (Mark is a good place to start).

>>779758

brailet post

>>779778

>Term policeman

You're a spook (nígger)

>>779767

Thank you for pointing out that men are sinful and the Orthodox Church doesn't engage in massive cover-up schemes.

>>779793

>yeah our leaders are degenerates.. so what?

>>779793

>he didn't read 3rd link related and how Bishop Iakovos of Miletoupolis tried to cover up child sex abuse crimes

Wew orthoprot

>>779804

>Although Hemiticism is King

hey memecrusader

"Far in a past time, lost in the space-time, the Children of Light looked down on the world. … Down they descended and created bodies, taking the semblance of men as their own." Emerald Tablets

"And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day." Jude

>>779699

Can you give better bait?

>>779829

>moving the goalposts because he was proven wrong

>didn't even bother to read all the links

Double wew

This thread became garbage very fast. Nice job, Orthodorks.

>>779701

>no original sin

That's wrong. We're not Muslims.

>>779703

Compared to the Catholic Church, maybe. But otherwise there's as much scandal as everywhere else.

>>779699

Different confessions of faith have their own doctrinal statements to be followed beside the Bible. The Catholics have 21 ecumenical councils. The Eastern Orthodox have 7 and have their reasons to reject the 14 others. The Oriental Orthodox have 3 and have their reasons to reject the others. Protestant churches usually have their doctrinal approaches to the scriptures and tradition. And even if all of this is too confusing, you can simply ask a priest/pastor questions and learn from them what each church's claims and defense are.

>>779842

Reported for being a satanic mason

>>779843

tbf nothing he said technically contradicts scripture although he is wrong. he probably knows scripture well enough to word himself so that he stays within its limits when talking to christians.

>>779847

>tbf nothing he said technically contradicts scripture although he is wrong.

Uh yes it does. The word of God doesn't "leave out many crucial parts" and it's not wrong. There's no "home stars." It's completely antithetical to the faith. This is exactly what happens when you start adding manmade sayings to scripture. Next thing you know he'll start talking about the queen of heaven as if it was a good thing and not in Jeremiah 7:18.

>>779855

I agree with you bro, that's why I pointed out he's wording himself carefully – saying scripture leaves information out instead of saying scripture is incorrect.

>>779849

We promptly ask to you leave, for we aren't interested in your heresy.

>>779785

>>>779758

>brailet post

>t.non-brailet

>>779865

you are memecrusader right

> Guys I don't get it. I am a Protestant.

News at 11 :D

>How can three churches claim to be the one original Church?

You haven't witnessed enough fights over inheritances, I gather.

The original church is still one.

>Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

>He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

>>779843

It's a poor LARP. You give them too much credit. No mason, no Gnostic, no Luciferian, no mystery cult refers to the written word as much as this anon does. The whole point of those cults is pass down oral teachings through oaths and secrets. All of the writings are for the low level initiates and meant to confuse them.

>>779865

>I only want to shed light on those who have been purposefully kept in the darkness for reasons unbeknownst to…less faeiere folks.

Thank you, but we aren't interested, sorry.

>You've no reason to be so hostile, friend.

Huh weird. I actually tried to not be hostile..oh well.

>Giving a pantheist (you)s

Could we get Charlie or the 'Muh Thunder' paganposter back? They were at least entertaining. I'd take an unironic Arian at this point.

>inb4 he calls me a leftist

>>779876

>It's a shame really because my supposed "LARP" is what gave rise to your New and Old Testament and farther back than Babylon and even Sumer.

No, you're just reversing the Eden story, and placing Saturn/Enki/Kronos/Baal/etc/etc at the forefront. It's no more older than the Bible, when the serpent said "Surely God didn't say that..."

>>779865

>magicks

get out

>>779876

You're on your own vessel, shouting at other people on vessels with maps and headed toward land, saying, "You're going the wrong way!" and pointing them to certain death.

>>779699

>>779784

This is a good idea. Read the first 4 books of the Bible, and pray on who you should join

>>779793

cope

>>779699

The EOC and OOC agreed they believe the same theology some decades ago, and strove towards reunion.

So, the real question is:

"How much primacy does the protos actually have?"

Which….is a really confusing historical issue

>>779838

>The Oriental Orthodox have 3 and have their reasons to reject the others.

Actually, they officially said they agree with 5-7.

Chalcedon is the tricky thorn.

>>779973

representives from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches held 8 meetings with eachother and agreed that:

>We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition

https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/

the agreement now just needs to be ratified by either or both communions.

Read the church fathers and then ask yourself where is the See of Rome.

>>779973

>>779978

Ecumenism is generally horrible but if this mess can get sorted put and the Oriental Orthodox come back into the fold it would be a great miracle.

>>779923

>Or the Orthodox broke off from the Catholics.

I don't have a problem with people preferring Catholicism for their own reasons, but I don't get why Catholics often feel the need to employ such historical revisionist euphemisms to justify their positions. It's a well known fact that Rome started arbitrarily changing things from the practices of all the other patriarchs long before the schism officially happened. To say that 4/5 patriarchs "broke off" from the 1 patriarch that changed things up, is a bit misleading to say the least. Agree with the filioque? alright cool, you do you. Revise history and ignore the general tend of persecution of the Eastern Orthodox perpetrated by the RCC? I don't see how that's called for. At least Protestants openly acknowledge they only go back ~500yrs (fringe Baptists aside).

>>779995

>>780099

> t's a well known fact that Rome started arbitrarily changing things from the practices of all the other patriarchs long before the schism officially happened

Like? The West did not consist only of Rome and the Seat of St. Peter, you're already misrepresenting the split.

>Revise history and ignore the general tend of persecution of the Eastern Orthodox perpetrated by the RCC?

Like? Photius advanced the Filioque controversy to justify his split with Rome over being promoted from laity to Patriarch in ten days, it took another 200 years for Michael Cerularius to solidify it. The Orthodox made Photius one of their saints to solidify the split, but they never canonized Cerularius because he was a notorious thug.

The split seems less to do with actual belief, practices, and theology, and much more to do with politics.

>>779699

Matthew 16:18. You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church the gates of hell will no prevail against it I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven…

Peter was the first Pope and gave the successor bishops of Rome his petrine ministry

>>780222 (trips)

Based and breadpilled

>>780239

>>779699

Yes, come home to rome

>>780222

Peter also founded the church in Antioch? Under this logic Antioch is also the rock of the church?

>>780241

>Most Holy Monastery

Isn't he a Sede? I am always unsure about this guy…I am Catholic, I am not a big fan of Pope Francis, but Sedes are pretty much trying to be inside and outside the Church, imho.

>>780404

Aren't sedevacanists just protestants but hate protestants so they don't call themselves that (though they do believe in papal supremacy)

>>780241

>le autistic polytheism meme

The Essence/Energy distinction has always been there in the scriptures and the writings of early church fathers themselves, but it was lost in the west due to the misinterpretation by Latin translators of the Greek word "energeia", which originally served to contrast something that one exercised capacity to use (e.g. "energy") compared to something one merely possessed (e.g. "essence"). This term was used to highlight the fact that things were separate from their uses (e.g. 'a drink' vs the act of 'drinking'). It was strictly a relative term that was never intended to be used/interpreted in isolation, but rather in conjunction with some other (possibly implied) proposition that would only entail the presence of something. Yet the Latin translators completely missed this subtle implication, and translated it much like the modern word "energy" that implies no such duality. Thus leading to a bunch of fedoras in the west thinking it's some kind of pagan woo-woo. So whenever autists like the one in that video that make silly arguments about the essence/energy distinction being "heretical", they're just showing their own ignorance of the underlying Greek language and the philosophy that term arose out of.

>>779699

I was just thinking that the corruption in the Catholic Church actually once again proves that God is in charge in the end. When you have some of the highest up people being sodomites, and have been for decades, it's unfathomable they haven't made sodomy legal yet. You know they are literally dying trying to make this happen. Any other institution would have folded, like all the other Protestant Churches. Eastern Orthodox has already folded to divorce and remarriage and contraception, and sodomy is only being restricted because of Putin if you ask me, he's in some way saving you guys from Sodomy. The vatican is filled with sodomites, and for some reason despite their best efforts they still haven't been able to legalize sodomy. It's easy think if it's run by a bunch of sodomy haters why it would be against sodomy but we have some of the top sodomites in the world and they still can't change it. The Divine is working.

>>780442

Confirmation bias

>>780407

No they are not protestants at all. They believe in the Papacy, they don't believe in Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura etc. There literally have been like 30 or so AntiPopes, and we've had canonized Saints who have supported till death an AntiPope. We are living in a very strange time in terms of church teachings. Stuff like Amoris Laetitia is unprecedented in terms of how bad it is and the Pope is clearly not acting in good faith when he hasn't responded to the Dubia. The worst you can call them are Eastern Orthodox but their beliefs are still closer to Catholics since I mean they are Catholics. When you look at the Arian controversy, when Arius was finally excommunicated all his previous excommunications were considered invalid, because since he held the heresy he was no longer considered a Bishop. From what we can tell almost every Bishop and the pope was an Arian at that point. If that happened once before it could easily be happening again.

Now I'm no expert and I'm not saying that I can assess exactly what is going on but I think you have to be blind to think something very crazy is going on in the Church, and we have precedent that some crazy stuff can happen in the church. In fact the final trial of the church has to be worse than the Arian heresy, since it will be the final and hardest. So if God allowed almost all the Bishops including the Pope to be a heretic(material or formal) and Athanasius was even wrongly excommunicated, we have to believe it can get even worse than that.

>>780374

Peter only gave the bishop of Rome his petrine ministry. This is what the church fathers say

>>780444

>and we've had canonized Saints who have supported till death an AntiPope.

because in that crisis, all historians and theologians agree that the claim was actually disputable, and many say that it is a mark of its authenticity that the Catholic Church did not schism over it.

which is completely different to what Sedes and SSPX are doing

>and we have precedent that some crazy stuff can happen in the church. In fact the final trial of the church has to be worse than the Arian heresy, since it will be the final and hardest

Our Lady says it will be over the family, the crisis in the Church seems to be one of authenticity, but does not appear to be the final crisis (i mean, look around you).

>and Athanasius was even wrongly excommunicated

as was St. Joan of Arc.

>>780445

Do you find it challenging that Peter's affiliation to rome is nebulous?

>>780444 (checked)

Oh things definitely will get worse from here. /ourLady/ of Akita even talked about Bishops agianst Bishops as the smoke of satan aka liberalism still perverts the minds of our bishops and our Pope. Maybe Bergoglio will grow a conscience and resign, but a tradcath only dream and pray.

Please pray for them and pray that God helps us clean out the filth from Holy Mother Church.

>>780374

>Peter also founded the church in Antioch? Under this logic Antioch is also the rock of the church?

Orthodox do indeed say something similar, yes (thing is, Antioch as a locale relocated to Damascus long ago). And on top of that, both Antioch and Rome were blessed by the attention of Peter and Paul alike.

>>780212

>>It's a well known fact that Rome started arbitrarily changing things from the practices of all the other patriarchs long before the schism officially happened

>Like?

Like changing how they made the sign of the cross, using unleavened bread instead of normal bread, etc... all relatively minor and pointless stuff, but the point is that Rome was the one making these silly changes, not the East.

>>Revise history and ignore the general tend of persecution of the Eastern Orthodox perpetrated by the RCC?

>Like?

The ransack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade, the persecution of Serbian Orthodox in WWII that made Nazis look good, etc...

There's a whole wiki page deducted to this nonsense:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians

>The split seems less to do with actual belief, practices, and theology, and much more to do with politics.

And how does that even remotely imply that it was the East that "broke off"? No one disputes the fact that it was political, because it was obvious that the Franks influenced the bishop of Rome to enact the changes he did. None of what you brought up implies that the RCC weren't the ones to break off. You're just dodging the issue and moving the goal posts. Furthermore, politics still isn't a very good excuse for justifying the split, nevermind the all the atrocities the RCC committed against the EO.

>>780232

>You're just asserting your perspective as though it's something everyone already agrees with.

No, 1/5 patriarchs changed things compared to 4/5 patriarchs that kept consistent. That is a documented empirical fact. Saying that the Eastern patriarchs were the ones that "broke off" is the baseless subjective perspective being asserted here.

>>780484

Not that guy but the sack of constantinople wasn't the intended target of the crusade, it was perpetraded by individual crusaders and were excommunicated later. therefore you can't blame the church for actively persecuting the orthodox

>>780484

>Like changing how they made the sign of the cross, etc… all relatively minor and pointless stuff, but the point is that Rome was the one making these silly changes, not the East.

The whole thing about this is minor and pointless full stop. It's a manmade superstition, making it minor and pointless to the extreme, and actually dangerous to those who it causes to stumble. If they substitute it for prayer, for instance, that makes it a tool of the devil. Same with confessionals, same with all the other manmade rituals and superstitions. Not a substitute for true godliness.

<Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. — Colossians 2:8

>>780495

That still doesn't excuse why they raped nuns and set up a whore to sit on the Patriarchate's seat. They weren't Christians at all, and I don't think anything to do with the Schism had much to do with it. These crusaders were no better than vikings. Possibly worse.

>>780495

>Bu-but Venice!

Yes, Venice was very much involved, but it's unlikely that Venice refusing to do business with the crusaders would've prevented anything. Venice just provided them with a means of convenient transportation. Solely blaming the greed of Venetians for the actions the Catholic Crusaders ultimately decided to undertake is silly. No one was forcing them to make a deal with Venice.

>>780499

>But to claim the east is a bunch of dindus is disingenuous.

And who was claiming that? Byzantium had problems of its own obviously, but was that really an invitation for Catholics to come in and play grim reaper of all people?

>>780503

>So yes, Venice does take blame for it

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true anon.

>as well as the East for being heretics

Yes, the single bishop that arbitrarily decided to change a bunch of stuff for political gain was clearly the only pure noble one in the church, not all those other heretical patriarchs that dared kept things the same. What blasphemers!

>>780515

>the east kept everything the same

Lol you want to talk about repeating memes. If they kept everything the same they would have never wrote the far eastern practice of yoga into their catechism. If the kept with apostolic tradition they would have stayed in communion with Rome. If they kept with tradition they would never had tried to usurp The See of St. Peter and tried to create a universal bishop in Constantinople. (See St. Gregory's writing agianst it, as well as other early church father's writings defending the need for a Pope)

The keys were given to St. Peter not all of the apostles at the same time. Just like how Moses was the only one worthy of going up Mt. Siani to talk directly with God. The fact of the matter is that the East and the other Patriarchs broke away first when they succumbed to the various heresies that shattered Christendom.

>>780530

Oh wow, you only watched the first couple minutes of it. Congratulations. That still doesn't excuse incorporating demonic yoga in your catechism.

The point I was making is the east changed their traditions for the worse. All before the offical schism as well.

>>780525

Sedes made that video

I’m in the same boat as OP. I want to be with the true Church. I finished RCIA and I can get Confirmed this Easter. However every time I attend mass I have panic attacks. Rarely can I ever stay for a full mass. I tried a Greek Orthodox Church and I felt fine and even met a girl I liked. Keep in mind these panic attacks happened when I tried Protestant churches a couple years back. Only the Greek Orthodox Church felt okay.

I do believe Rome is home but I believe I will grow in love at the Greek Orthodox. Do I suffer and stay in a mass I hate or do I follow love for my neighbors? It’s a drastic difference and I have to make a decision before I get confirmed. Please help.

>>780618

Look at it this way, if it turns out Rome is the True Church (and it is), you would be praised for turning away from a physical love for the spiritual love. One will last for eternity, the other, only for a period.

>>780618

Don't knock Rome just yet. You may be just being affected by the Novus Ordo masses curse you spirit of Vatican 2! which was made to accommodate the prots I know, they literally ruin everything. Try out the Roman rite (aka Tridentine Latin Mass) and I have a feeling you won't get an anxiety attack.

Or

Maybe try an eastern Catholic rite church. They are still in communion with Rome and have a lot of the beauty the Eastern churches have.

But imo, I have a feeling EPat. Bartholomew will end up compromising with Rome and unite Christendom once more. If not EPat. Bartholomew than maybe his successor. So either way you'll end up back in Rome ;)

Also, don't forget to pray your rosary on the daily. It helps a lot when it comes to centering yourself twords God and helping fight anxiety

>>780653

I understand your words, I have thought about this as well. It’s best to sacrifice now for the true Church. Still, it feels detrimental to my being, given how hard I am hit at Mass. Thank you for the reply.

>>780667

Unfortunately TLM is where I am hit the hardest. I’ve been 3 times, and I’ve left early every time. It got me so bad one time I destroyed my rosaries. I have been praying my rosary daily now, as well as some other devotions, and I even did a rosary the last time I went to the TLM, and I still had to leave early. I know this isn’t an easy answer. I can almost feel like I belong with Rome in my heart, it’s just so hard to see. With a journey as long as this one, and so many conflicting opinions, I just don’t know. Even my priest said it is ultimately up to my own conscious, given I am still technically Baptist from my baptism and not being officially initiated into the RCC yet. I see his line of thinking, but I feel as if that is not all there is to the big picture of my dilemma.

Community or sacrifice… neighbor or self… I just don’t know… but thank you for your time and your reply

>>780658

>The kingdom of God isn't a democracy. The father doesn't need the children's permission to make decisions for the family. If there is a head for the Church it is the bishop of Rome. When the king is away the prime minister rules in his stead, and Peter was given the keys.

Interesting. If that's the case, why did Rome agree and participate in any Councils to begin with? Were they just there for kicks? And why agree specifically to both the original form of the Nicene creed as well as agreed to the anathema contained in Ephesus that stated:

"It is unlawful to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the Fathers assembled in Nicæa. [..] those who compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."

Also, why did Rome resist pressure from the Franks for so long, and take these anathemas so seriously, if they could have changed it willy nilly, with no worry, and weren't beholden to anything in the Councils to begin with? And why was it suddenly right to give in to the Franks eventually, but never paid heed to previous Popes or ALL of the other patriarchates? Are the Franks the head of the Church then?

>>780670

you seem to have a aversion to what is holy, possibly demonic influence, try a eastern catholic byzantine rite (its the same as greek orthodox rite) if you don't get a panic attack then its possibly just psychological.

>>780670

This >>780674

Thou it doesn't surprise me that you feel comfortable in an Eastern Church considering your Baptist upbringing. prots gotta stick together amirite?

Read the Bible. The church is used as the body of all believers. Meaning, every believer in the world as a sum is the church. If you believe in Christ as Lord and submit to Him, you are part of the "original" church. If you really wanna get anal about the physical church, then you first need to understand that every church traces its roots back to the original church. The orthodox and catholic churches claim to be the original church based on the fact that they were both part of the first schism. Generally, all other churches who split off from these two, most famously the ones who split off from the Catholic church, known as the Protestant churches, believe that the churches they split from abandoned the tenants of the original church, and they believe they returned back to them. It's a huge cluster Winnie. I tend to lean on the Bible's definition.

>>780733

The body analogy exclusively applies to the local church. Further, every mention of the church firstly means local congregation; and only a couple of times in the whole nt does it even hint at a catholic Church

>>780741

Propaganda

>>780747

Yours either bucko, you just made an assertion

See my previous post for my claim on the doctrine of the church

>>780670

Careful, Catholics are notoriously in favor of punishment because of their doctrine of original sin, so they have a tendency to rationalize anything negative as somehow being good for them. Just think about what >>780653 is implying: that God wants you to suffer in your worship of him. If a world view makes you paint God as some kind of sadist, it's wrong, end of story. Feeding into a negative relationship with him will just make you grow in resentment over time. Why do you think atheism is so prominent in the West? Anyone would grow resentful under that kind of doctrine. Does it make any sense whatsoever that the same God that preached forgiveness here on Earth would then turn around and damn us to the lake of fire for any honest little mistake? Even if Rome were the true home (despite it's many flaws), do you really think the God of forgiveness would find it completely unacceptable that you picked the wrong side of the ancient Christian Church? Now look back at the responses of the Catholics here, and realize that they seem to think this mistake is worthy of damning you to hell. Does that sound like the "good news" Christ came to deliver us? If you decide to put yourself through pain just to feel more virtuous, you're likely just succumbing to the sin of pride (vid related).

Furthermore, to compare the experience of the Eastern liturgy to some drug-like ecstacy like what's peddled by "charismatic" churches or new age yoga studios, is quite disingenuous. Many Protestants could make similar arguments about the Latin Mass being "seductive" with it's ornate furnishings and sacraments. If you buy into the Catholic justification for those things, there's no reason to then turn around and reject the Orthodox for doing more of the same.

>>780698

>The same reason it participated in the next 13 councils.

And what reason would that be? This response just dodged the question by kicking the can down the road.

>The addition of the Filioque signifies a different Faith? Does anyone actually believe this?

If Nestorianism and Arianism are heresies, what would make Filioque-ism exempt? Those were practices for a long time before they were officially deemed heretical too. Besides that, even if the Filioque on its own doesn't make your faith overly different, the addition of "original sin", "immaculate conception", scholasticism, and emphasis on Augustine and Aquinas certainly does. Nevermind the denial of the energy/essence distinction. This Catholic tendency to down play theological differences just makes it look like you guys don't know very much about Orthodoxy.

>You mean that officially adding the Filioque which was already used for hundreds of years prior to the schism, that counts as "willy nilly"?

Yes, because it was still only Rome that added it, along with a lot of other unnecessary changes, like how you guys make the sign of the cross. "Willy nilly" describes those sorts of arbitrary changes pretty adequately.

>>780733

This. The Greek word used for church in the Bible is ekklesia which means "the people". This also lines up with the scripture that says "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them". It doesn't say "where two or three people are gathered, and one of them is a priest who wears robes and makes a bloodless sacrifice, there I am". The people are gathered in Jesus' name, which again lines up with the multitude of scriptures about having salvation by grace through faith. For example: John 3:16, "for God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life". Jesus died once on the cross, and told the disciples to break bread and drink wine in *remembrance* of Him. To have the sacrifice of christ at the mass every week is to say that His death on the cross wasn't enough to wash us of our sins, just as the priests of the old testament had to continually sacrifice animals every day in atonement, because their blood wasn't enough to wash away the sins of men.

>>780831

By that logic gnostics are part of the church because they gather in "christ's name". Because of protestantism the word "christianity" has no meaning because Christ and the doctrines can be whatever a person thinks/ desires

>>780839

strawman

Protestantism is anti-relativist

>>780839

No, there is absolute truth contained in the Bible, and if you don't believe that absolute truth you're not Christian. Hence why gnostics are not Christians, they don't believe the truth of the Bible.

>>780840

You misunderstand..i meant that because of the various sects spawned from protestantism, there were new conceptions of Jesus, some say he was God, some say he wasn't God..not to speak of doctrines which can differ a lot from each other. The word "christianity" can compass all of those sects, without actually meaning something beyond being a vague "religion about jesus".

>>780841

But the problem is, what even is the truth of the bible? As i've said before, most protestants believe in the bible, but they have different conceptions of who he was, what he preached..you may say "but those ( people who don't believe in the trinity for example ) are a minority and are heretics and so on" but the thing is, they all claim to believe in these things on the account of the bible, just like you.

>>780842

btw i'm not doubting the truth of the bible or that it has a true interpretation, i just disagree with the concept of "free examination"

>>780842

okay, so you're just saying sociologically many heretic groups are called christian which muddies the waters, right?

>>780842

If I believe that Jesus died for my sins but claim that I'm Buddhist, am I really what I claim to be? There is a correct interpretation of the Bible, and those groups that get it wrong, as you said, are heretics preaching a false gospel. For example: Catholics follow Jesus, they believe in the Bible, but they add traditions on top of it that aren't scriptural, and are therefore preaching a false gospel.

>>780844

Yes..nowadays the word has lost it's meaning. But another thing that bothers me is the difference in doctrine..which also confuses many people. But that was the inevitable conclusion of the reformation.

>>780846

But that goes back to the beggining: "which interpretation is correct?". How can you say your interpretation is correct when another person also claims that their interpretation is correct and inspired, revealed by the holy ghost? In my opinion, there must be a central authority and interpretation, or will christianity will fall apart into different sects just like it did in real life.

>>780849

The authority is the Bible, and the proper interpretation method, which is the historical-grammatical "literal" hermeneutic

The Bible is the norma normans non normata, The Norm of norms which cannot be normed.

>>780849

You can always judge the trees by their fruit, just as the Bible says. If a church has lost its way, and focuses more on the worldly side of things than on saving people (like Joel Osteen tier televangelists) then their fruit is bad. If they preach that being gay is fine, or that abortion is okay, or that you can get to heaven through ways other than Jesus - just to name a few - then their fruit is bad.

>>780850

>The authority is the Bible, and the proper interpretation method, which is the historical-grammatical "literal" hermeneutic

Sadly, I can imagine one of you affect-less spergs trying to tell the Risen Jesus on the road to Emmaeus that the OT doesn't "literally" point to him.

>>780754

I had one Catholic tell me "what do you expect? the entirety of hell is trying to keep you from the Church" and an Orthodox friend say "why do you think God wants you to be unhappy, especially in His worship?".

I am very afraid that picking against the Chair of Peter will indeed send me to hell. There is too much to be said about this for me to structure it in one post, but I'm sure you are familiar with all the arguments of for/against Rome. It once again becomes a question of "do I do this for myself" or "do I do this for God?"

I will meet with the Greek Orthodox priest to discuss this and compare what he said, my RCC priest said, all my friends on both sides have said, all the videos and reading material I've been sent said, as well as what you lads here said.

Kill me.

>>780872

Trads will get angry at this, but hardly any Catholics believe that either. Not even the Catechism and Vatican. Only the medieval LARPers who think "No man comes to the father except through Rome", rather than Jesus Christ himself. The Catechism itself talks about "seperated brothers" not in Roman Catholic tradition. It speaks of Catholicism in terms of the "fullness" of faith, rather than the totality of it.

This is the uncomfortable truth of modern Catholicism. Such talk is anathema to the trad. Funnily, it's how they inevitably becoming Sedes and the actual apostates in the end.

>>780895

What a bunch of nonsense, 6feeed do not be mislead.

>>781012

Come on anon, post an argument.

>>781012

What part is nonsense? I'll quote the Catechism to illustrate the general tone, if it helps.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

>Wounds to unity

[..]

But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

Blaming both sides is a new one. Hardly what a Tradcat would say.

>However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Say what? People are Christians simply for being baptized into basic Christian tenets? It's not their fault they were raised this way?

That's another new one.

>Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: 'the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.' Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to 'Catholic unity.'

Again, admitting that Grace works outside of them, and it's worthy of being part of some inherent Catholicity.

I rather like this approach. I'm not criticizing it at all. I'm just saying that Tradcats tend to pull their hair out at such statements.. and eventually join the Dimond Brothers.

>>779699

So much infighting and division, just let Christ in to your heart, and all be brothers and sister under his love. Forget Orthodox, forget Protestant, forget Catholic. Just live as Christ wanted you to, better the world around you, drop the labels and dig deep for spiritual serenity within ones self. You can have a relationship with Christ from your closet.

>>781016

Sure. The idea that "hardly any Catholics believe that" is a mistake, any Catholic here knows and believes there is no salvation outside the Church, people who are around actual theological discussions concerning the Church are aware of the tradition.

It really comes down to the fact that the Catholic Church is…close to a billion or so strong, and it's really the fact that we have a Church with a centralized authority (St. Peter's seat, councils, etc) that the entire Religion is able to stand tall. Catholicism is still the fount of Christianity, no matter what the Protestants believe.

>>780895

>Not even the Catechism and Vatican

Again, dead wrong. The official theological definition, is that Heaven is the Church Triumphant, anyone not part of the Church is literally not in Heaven. It's for the sake of evangelization, and for the sake of Christ's judgement that the Church hesitates to pass decrees of damnation on anyone outside the Church while still living, and while damned.

The Church has never actually declared anyone damned, for example.

>The Catechism itself talks about "seperated brothers"

Any authentically baptized Christian is considered part of the Church, this is a valid theological statement.

>>781021

>Blaming both sides is a new one.

No, the Church is pretty consistent is judging that indulgences were being used for corruption and power grabs.

>People are Christians simply for being baptized into basic Christian tenets? It's not their fault they were raised this way?

Yes, baptism by the proscription in Scripture is considered valid. Even ones done by someone like Pastor Anderson. Baptisms that are not valid, are ones that are not done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You should know this.

>Again, admitting that Grace works outside of them

The Church does not have Grace of its own, all Grace is given by God.

> Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church

"whose power derives from…the Catholic Church"

My emphasis.

>I rather like this approach. I'm not criticizing it at all. I'm just saying that Tradcats tend to pull their hair out at such statements.. and eventually join the Dimond Brothers.

Only the confused ones.

>>780831

Then there is no need for a Church, all one needs to do to keep the Sabbath is stay in your family's living room. I'd let the momentous apostasy and faithlessness speak for itself.

>>779728

That's private Interpretation. If people read the Bible and come to different conclusions then imagine reading the patristics which is even more vast.

>>781168

The church (building) is there for teaching, for having a community, and for spreading the gospel. It's a lot easier to fulfill the great commission if you get a group together.

>>781175

See above, we need a place to gather the believers, but that doesn't mean the church is a hierarchical institution with authority, it is the gathering of believers together. We have Jesus to hold our church together, we don't need a fallible man.

>>781175

People seem to forget what the biggest point of the church is: community.

A place of meeting and congregation, a place for the priest to share the eucharist with the people (eg share the supper).

And not only that, its meant to be a place of order and duty, as in the hopes that this sense of order and duty seeps into the people's personal lives, taking in them on their own.

Instead prots seem to only like praising Jesus, filter only those teaching that seem to fit their ways, and carry on closed off in their little selfish world.

>>781186

That's not enough. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there is no need for any church period. The sabbath is automatically satisfied by hanging out at your home with your family.

Your personal interpretation defies the entire history of both Christianity and the Law of Moses (and even the pre-mosaic observances of Adam and Abel and Melchesidek) it's easy to throw out.

>>781248

Well duh, I attend an actual Church every Sunday. However, your proof-reading implies that the 2,000 tradition of Divine Liturgy is incorrect, simply because of the fact that Christ is always among His children.

It means that your interpretation is wrong, you cannot use Christ's own words to disprove the notion of the traditional Church. Christ said He would destroy the Temple, but also, that He would rebuild it.

oh, did you switch IDs?

>>781253

I posted the following itt:

>>779758

>>779855

>>780494

>>781248

>>781256

quit switching ID's

>>781253

The temple He destroyed and rebuilt was His body, not a physical building and not a religious institution. Had He been talking about the latter, He would have rebuilt the church of the old testament, but He didn't.

>>781248

Based

>>781276

Christ nowhere took away the Temple worship, and even the early Apostles did not disdain to preach in the synagogues. We know from history, that the early Church, in the direct tradition of the Apostles, met up in secret, and one sent from the Church read scripture, and administered the Eucharist.

The idea that Christ never meant to institute a physical institution is contradicted by history, and contradicts even His own proclamation. How can a loose gathering "bind and loosen" on what is on Heaven and Earth?

>>781276

The Church is Israel. The "church of the Old Testament" was not destroyed and the "church of the New Testament" did not appear in a void. They are the same Church, they are the same Israel.

>>781282

Synagogues are not temples

>>781287

Doesn't actually matter, I'm not a Mosaic Jew. In any case, the Apostles and Christ never abolished Temple worship, and perpetuated their own Christian understanding of it. Particularly in the Eucharist, the Romans mocked us as cannibals for a few hundred years.

>>781293

What do you mean when you say temple worship?

>>781295

Offering a sacrifice to the LORD. The Eucharist is still a continuation of this, but made absolutely perfect in the re-presentation of Christ on the Cross.

>>781300

So you don't think Christ's one sacrifice on the cross was enough to wash us of our sins? We need to keep sacrificing Him over and over again like the priests of the old testament?

>>781308

>So you don't think Christ's one sacrifice on the cross was enough to wash us of our sins?

Christ's one sacrifice was so good, it's good enough to re-present to God, the Father every Sunday.

>We need to keep sacrificing Him over and over again like the priests of the old testament?

It is a re-presentation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that was given up for us, by the very way He Himself gave it at the Last Supper.

>>781311

Is that a yes

>>781313

you cannot try to resolve all theological matters into a yes or a no, Christ's one sacrifice is good for all time, which is why we re-present for all time.

>>781315

Doublespeak

>>781317

not an argument

>>781319

Ok, let me clarify.

You gave a non-answer. You're dodging a genuine question with serious christological implications. If you view the Eucharist as a resacrifice then you're in conflict with 1 Peter 3:18 "Christ suffered for sins once for all", and so you need to clarify why this contradiction is acceptable.

If no, the Eucharist isn't a sacrifice, what is it? Why is it related to receiving grace?

As far as I understand the official doctrine says it is not a resacrifice.

>>781322

>You gave a non-answer

I did not. You made a claim, that in re-presenting the Eucharist, we denying the Scriptural claim that Christ's sacrifice was good for once and for all. The Eucharist does not deny that claim.

>s. If you view the Eucharist as a resacrifice

I never used the words "re-sacrifice", we use the word "re-presentation". There's a reason why Christ is an eternal priest in the line of Melchesidek, and the Last Supper was an accomplishment of that, that by His own words, we are to do for all time.

>why this contradiction is acceptable.

There is no contradiction, you are either confused or simply misunderstand what we say the Eucharist is.

>the Eucharist isn't a sacrifice, what is it?

re-presentation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as following Christ's own actions at the Last Supper, and in fulfillment of Christ as an eternal Priest in the line of Melchesidek.

>Why is it related to receiving grace?

Our Lord said that those who do not eat of His Body and Blood will not enter Heaven, and He even lost disciples over it, and I believe this is the only time in scripture where the Shepard did not call out to his lost ones. Later on, the full meaning of this is explicated in the Last Supper.

>>781326

I'm not the other guy who asked

He asked "we need to keep sacrificing?"

And you were unable to say "yes" or "no"

I take it the answer is "no"?

>>781329

>He asked "we need to keep sacrificing?"

He didn't ask anything, friend. Our Lord said "This is my Body, which will be given up for you…Do this, in remembrance of me".

There is no question here, rather, a command.

>>781329

Oh, you're referring to the other guy. Well, this is what happens when people butt into conversations :)

In any case, the re-presentation of the Lord on the Cross in the Eucharist is in fulfillment of all sacrifice proscribed in the OT, in fact, more than a fulfillment, also a perfection.

>>781332

Is a fulfillment of sacrifice another sacrifice?

>>781330

Note that He said to do it "in remembrance" of him, as in, "break bread and drink wine to remember my sacrifice". That doesn't sound like "re-sacrifice me", but it sounds a lot like He's telling us to do something symbolic, which is the protestant view of the eucharist.

There is no "original" church but Christ. And in you indwells the Holy Spirit if you are a follower of Christ. The term Christian comes from Antioch and I believe is found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. They were called Christians by the people of Antioch not because they belonged to particular church but because they could see in them a difference. A Christ like character. Hence the term Christian or to be more accurate, follower of Christ. And if I am not mistaken Paul warnes us of this very thing… Whether we are of this house or that is of no consequence. We are children of the Light. And the Light is Jesus Christ. Follow Him in whom was found no gile. And He will lead you into all Truth for He is the Living Truth.

>>779867

Speaking of that, why don't you greet priests by calling them brother? And can you say "God bless you" to a priest?

>>781341

>but it sounds a lot like He's telling us to do something symbolic,

this makes no sense

Jesus lost followers because of this. Why would he lose people to something that's just symbolism? True communion must not be a mere symbol otherwise it has no meaning.

>>780872

>Kill me.

something is very wrong with you

>>779699

>Catholic Church actually broke off from it

I think the Orthodox broke from the Catholics, actually

>>781341

I already made the point several times that it is a "re-presentation" of the sacrifice, not a re-sacrifice over and over. Since you and your ilk keep beating this strawman over and over, I presume the fact that we consider it a re-presentation just destroys whatever point you're trying to make.

>>782160

They did. The Orthodox view the Catholic as heretical, the Catholic consider the Orthodox schismatic. One viewpoint is easier to reconcile than the other.

>>781341

You are re-phrasing Christ's words into a completely different meaning.

Christ did not say "this is like my body" or "this as my body", He said "this is my body, that will be given up for you". There is no figurative or symbolic language here, nor did He ever say "drink wine and bread to remember me", as you put it.

There is zero evidence at all that this was symbolic, or ever interpreted as symbolic. Every single thing we know about the Early Church confirms they did the Eucharist, and believed it was the Body and Blood of Christ. Even the Romans insulted us by calling us cannibals, unless the romans were aware of the epistles of the apostles, it's simply easier to presume they knew of what Christians did every Sunday - the Eucharist.

>>779699

I don't know who to join too, I live in Russia, I don't like Russian orthodox, everybody knows the higher ups are in it for the money.

Also, many people identify as orthodox, but only 3 million go to orthodox church on Easter, which is probably a real number of Russian orthodox who take God seriously, which is comparable to number of Protestants and Catholics here and those guys take their religion seriously.

The only real options I see are Baptists(really common here) or some other branch of Protestantism that doesn't promote degeneracy(so pretty much all protestants here) or Old believers of the Russian orthodox. The old believers are cool, but very isolationist and anti-west, you need to know church Slavonic just to read their approved bible, you need to pray in a specific manner and so on, so a lot of commitment is required. Meanwhile, my Bible was given to my mom by some evangelicals and it's really nice that they bother to spread the word of God, and honestly I hate the Russian state and support separation of church and state.

>>782160

this was already addressed here:

>>780099

>>780484

Saying the East "broke off" from Rome makes no historical sense whatsoever.

>>782161

Yet you say "may the lord accept this sacrifice at your hands…" when offering the communion. Sounds a lot like it's a sacrifice to me.

>>782163

Do you know what a metaphor is? Christ had 7 "I am" statements in the new testament, so how come 6 of those 7 were metaphors but only this one was literal? Is He literally a door for sheep to go through? Is He literally a path you walk on to get to God? Is He literally bread?

>>782163

He didn't rephrase, "in remembrance" is verbatim

"like" or "as" makes a simile, a direct statement that isn't meant literally is a metaphor as in "I am the true vine"

>>782276

>>782280

Good post

>>782276

Why isn't the Bishop of Antioch the "rock of Peter" then? That was another position Peter had.

Also daily reminder if you accept papal supremacy you have to accept Vatican II, clown masses and all. The whole package. (Unless you're SSPX or sede).

>>782280

I agree with your posts, but just a question:

>Such a parallel could not possibly have been planned by men,

Why not?

>>782357

They is no if, they did happen and there is video. Now I don't know what happened afterwards, if the priest was disciplined or anything, but don't try to be vague about whether they happened or not.

Polite sage for butting into the conversation

>>782276

Ok couple things here.

First off, don't add words to scripture like you did in Matthew 16:18. That's not necessary and it sets a bad example.

Second, you used a version that changes hell to "Hades." That doesn't speak well for your ability to parse words accurately in English.

Third, the rock is Christ as seen in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Acts 4:11-12, Matthew 21:42, Luke 20:17, and 1 Peter 2:7. And he's the corner of the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. He is the foundation in 1 Corinthians 3:11. He is also all three in Isaiah 28:16. The declaration "this rock" is referring to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16, specifically "the Christ, the Son of the living God." It is indeed a pun that plays off of Peter's name and what he just confessed to be the Rock of ages, who is the Son of the living God.

Fourth, the ability to bind things was said to be given at a future point in time. This happened in Matthew 18:18 when it was explained what it is and given to all the disciples. It is the authority of church discipline, see Matthew 18:15-17. So you were wrong to presuppose it was referring to John 21:17. It was referring to Matthew 18:18.

Fifth, Luke 22:29 is also addressed to all the disciples. Notice he says I appoint unto you a kingdom. Not unto "thee," which would be the singular.

In the KJV, "you" is plural.

Sixth, nothing you said here establishes that someone took over Peter's role as apostle. The very idea implies that Peter failed in some way as Judas Iscariot did when he died and went to hell (see Acts 1). Nobody would downplay the man in the first place, but rather all those who claim to be a successor are liars, no such thing exists. Nothing you've said here changes that.

7th, Luke 10:16 is addressed to the seventy disciples Jesus sent out. You pretended it was addressed to Simon, while quoting it out of context. Why did you do this?