[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / eris / hdi8 / sonyeon / vg / vietnam / voros ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 0501c4185e0ed05⋯.jpg (10.33 KB, 275x183, 275:183, g.jpg)

File: 69676a221269a86⋯.jpg (316.56 KB, 1199x1052, 1199:1052, sad.jpg)

d9f172  No.736404

WHY CAN'T THE GREAT SCHISM JUST PLEASE END? I CAN'T DECIDE BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND CATHOLICISM.

I became an Orthodox Catechumen not too long ago, but out of no where I've suddenly have had the strong urge to look back into Roman Catholicism, and now i'm in this predicament where I can't figure out between the two churches what I want to join. I still want to be Orthodox, but the more I look into the future the less it seems likely, and I still have a strong attachment to the west. WHY DID THE DEVIL HAVE TO SEPARATE THE TWO CHURCHES DAMMIT

2195a0  No.736405

File: 3ae1bb937338729⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 116.96 KB, 720x960, 3:4, 22014708_276790399501844_4….jpg)

>>736404

begome wesdern ride ordodox :DDDDDDDDDDDDD


d9f172  No.736406

>>736405

There is hardly any western rite churches though


b8b9a9  No.736409

I've noticed it's a very common tendency for people to lean toward Catholicism because of "it's connection to Western history/culture". I don't really get that. When the apostles first traveled the world preaching the gospel they were essentially bringing something Near Eastern in origin to peoples of various origins. The eariles Christians didn't go "nah, not Western enough, sorry", they accepted this new gosepl gladly as the means of effecting their salvation. I'm not "Western", so maybe I just don't get why that's so critical to people.


b8b9a9  No.736411

>>736409

>eariles

earliest


f78864  No.736417

>>736406

God willing there will be more. Orthodoxy is the fastest growing branch in America (in terms of Catholicism/Protestantism/Orthodoxy).


a0c54d  No.736419

File: 1f1ebdc39da8f2b⋯.jpg (31.15 KB, 400x200, 2:1, ECA.jpg)

>>736404

BEGOME EASDERN GADOLIG :DDDDD


c55b11  No.736432

I don't understand people who say this as if the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism weren't gigantic or their interpretation of history and the Church Fathers and the Bible wasn't dramatically different.

OP, instead of thinking they are nearly the same thing and you can step from one side to the other, actually study both and figure out what is of God and what is of the devil. You can't get baptized if you're not sure about becoming Orthodox anyway, so you don't have a choice but to do more extensive research here.

Two interesting books:

- The Filioque

- The Papacy and the Orthodox

both by A. E. Siecienski.


84857f  No.736442

>>736409

Except Christianity is not of near East, it is of God and everything that is beautiful and perfect represents God. People are attracted to Roman Catholicism because it has beauty, perfection and culture in abundance which reflects God. The patriarchate of Constantinople of the other hand has hand a tendency of discouraging anything that hasn't originated from them, such as enforcing their Rite on the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, almost making extinct the rite of St James and the Syriac rite. The bishop of Glastonbury I know second hand to be anti western rite because he thinks it is too Western and only wants Byzantine rite. Unfortunately the Patriarch of Moscow is right that the Patriarchs of Constantinople have acted throughout history like tyrannical anti popes who pretend that only they have a monopoly on orthodoxy in philosophy, liturgy and religion and immediately distrust and are difficult about anything that does not cone from them. And you see this is why ultimately Roman Catholicism appeals more to people's intuition, because it is the universal religion, whereas there is some truth in Byzantine Churches being ethnic clubs suspicious of outsiders.


84857f  No.736449

>>736404

I was in the same position as you. Ultimately the crux of the schism is: does the Pope hold a divinely appointed leadership Role or a man appointed administrative role? If you think the former then you agree with Rome, if the latter you agree with Constantinople. The entire schism can be solved by looking at Matthew 16 18. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, etc.

Constantinople acknowledges the Pope as the first among equals, yet feel compelled by supposed heresy of the Pope to not obey him or even remain in communion with him. You must realise the schism is entirely one sided. Rome has no excommunication on Constantinople, but Constantinople excommunicates all of the Roman patriarchate including laity. The Apostles tell us not to schism, yet Constantinople does not follow this teaching. If you think the Pope is teaching heresy and immorality then don't obey any commands that would make you believe, teach or do heresy or immorality. But to schism and excommunicate? That's dangerous and is of the spirit of disunity that is Satan. The SSPX show how one can still show true obedience and unity with the Pope whilst rejecting taught heresy. So you should consider the SSPX. Although if you do get baptised and chrismated, you are free and able to receive the sacraments at any Roman Church


142c9b  No.736450

File: 016f8a286f4dc8c⋯.jpg (246.49 KB, 800x850, 16:17, b04f853da1cf171d70b90e0f5b….jpg)

>>736404

You are right when you say it is hard to pick inbetween the two, for both are heretics

Catholics worship Mary and Men

Orthodox worship statues

While one is more conservative than the other, i care not, for it is their spiritual value that maters the most, of which both is bad

If you want to be a part of the greatest christian movement out there, - Become a protestant under A charismatic movement


9273b1  No.736452

>>736405

Is he using a Zucchetto at mass?

What's wrong with him?


1a6d26  No.736459

File: 9a072d78abe073a⋯.jpg (66.84 KB, 690x561, 230:187, GODBREATHED.jpg)

>>736404

If only you had an objective standard by which to judge a denomination?


9273b1  No.736461

>>736459

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.


1a6d26  No.736480

>>736461

All those schizms tho


112956  No.736487

>>736459

If only you had an authority to interpret Scripture instead of thinking up your own interpretation


cc4ec9  No.736506

File: 4f34788234571c6⋯.jpg (38.63 KB, 544x366, 272:183, 4f34788234571c6f88556207ec….jpg)


6bee7d  No.736555

>>736450

>>736506

Yeah, that was funny, especially the tatoo depictions. Don't you know that you are a temple of the Holy Spirit and not a Temple of Doom?

Ok, I made that last bit up, but I thought it was funny.


ad3927  No.736568

Don't become Romist.


0c3b05  No.736570

>>736459

Like the Church Fathers?


08e7dd  No.736571

>>736442

>Except Christianity is not of near East, it is of God

Those aren't mutually exclusive. God works through history. After the tower of Babel he chose one man, Abraham, to be the father of one nation, the Israelites, who would carry on the torch of belief in the true God. Then to that nation, a Near Easter nation, the Messiah was born, one of whose tasks was the ingathering of the other nations.

>everything that is beautiful and perfect represents God

Lots of beautiful things in false religions, as for perfect, there is very little that is perfect in our fallen world.


ab59b9  No.736578

File: 0b640f24cf6aea9⋯.jpg (24.71 KB, 209x294, 209:294, 1510587112213.jpg)

>>736442

>Muh AESTHETICS

>Le ebil Constantinople

>Muh ethnic club


8106f0  No.736585

>>736571

OK, we can agree both our statements were not complete correct. Christianity is not exclusively a near eastern religion, it is also a western religion.

False religions do not have anything beautiful in them. In fact its pretty universal that the art of all false religions looks like trash. Observe Mecca for example.


d799e1  No.736586

>>736578

>Muh ethnic club

In all honesty it's kind of true.

It's not a bad thing per se, but getting into an ethnic church isn't that easy.


4a085b  No.736612

Don't worry about schisms. Just find a nice Orthodox church.


e92cd9  No.736674

>>736404

I feel you, pray and be patient.

don't pick a Church because of theory, see where your spiritual progress is helped and where you stay stagnant.


7cfdbe  No.736713

>>736419

That's what I've been thinking, but there's not Eastern Catholic division in this shithole of a state.

>>736432

Thanks, I'll check those out

>>736450

LOL no


4644b7  No.737118

File: 6ae5d14940eb8aa⋯.jpg (27.38 KB, 300x399, 100:133, bishop lach.jpg)

>>736713

I'm also becoming Eastern Catholic due to my deep love for the Byzantine rite and culture of Eastern Christianity, and I'm in that same situation. I have to drive to Ohio to go to Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Parish. I endure by going to a Roman parish and the Deacon and Priest, thank the Lord, is very supportive of my spiritual journey to the East and the Deacon loves Eastern spirituality too. I go to the chapel at my college and set up an icon for veneration when praying the Byzantine office, and occasionally attend an Orthodox church for Vespers or Liturgy, although still go to Roman Mass. (I think some Eastern Catholics are allowed to attend Orthodox liturgy in place of Roman Mass as to prevent forced Latinization, but they may not receive communion without the Orthodox bishop's permission, which they almost never give. But don't quote me on that.)

I'm biding my time until I can frequently attend Divine Liturgy, and I'm now tailoring my career path so I can work in an area with easily accessible Eastern Catholic parish, and am also in touch with a couple of Byzantine Catholic missionaries who are interested in trying to get a mission off the ground in my home state, and we've recently mailed the Bishop for permission.

Keep us in your prayers, and you'll be in mine, brother. I pray we'll find what we both seek


21c9ea  No.737121


0e2dbe  No.737129

>>736404

They're literally the same church but pretend they aren't. I'm a Catholic but protestantism is starting to look more attractive because it's easier to justify being a super traditionalist through self-interpretation than reading through mountains of autistic scholasticism that no one will understand if I try to use it to justify my views. That's right. I'm unironically starting to think protestantism might be better because it's dumber.


95c43d  No.737133

File: 3df012521739ddf⋯.jpg (553.62 KB, 1150x2048, 575:1024, 412ad9a61697f1cb9d1c3b07ef….jpg)

>>736404

>>736442

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are incomparable, because Orthodoxy is unchanged and Catholicism changes all the time.

>>736450

>Orthodox worship statues

No, we don't.


0e1698  No.737134

The objective decision already was made by Christ, and He recommends Orthodox Protestant churches.


1d8ce6  No.737139

>>737129

Are you a lay member? Why do you care so deeply? Realize as a protestant you'll still have to objectively defend your ideas to your local congregation but now it'll be your word vs their word, with no authority other than feelings.


06746f  No.737141

>>736404

As I said to someone else … have you considered the idea that it's not all about you?


5f1112  No.737167

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>736450

>Become a protestant under A charismatic movement

AMREN BORTHER


1d8ce6  No.737174

>>737167

This is so based holy heck!!!


17833d  No.737224

>>737118

Sounds great man. Like I said, I've been an orthodox catechumen but recently I've had a sudden JOLT to look back into Roman Catholicism out of no where. So far there's only a maronite church here in my state, and I plan on visiting sometime this weekend. I may move to a state that has Byzantine Catholic mass, but I would like to be Catholic to celebrate all rites. I've just mostly grown attached to the near-eastern spirituallity since they have a spiritual depth I haven't found in most western churches. Plus the latin mass is nice, and honestly I've never seen a novus ordo mass that was LA-gay tier, not as spiritually deep it feels though for sure. So even if i'm far I may just practice eastern Catholic spiritual techniques.

Is there a way I could contact Catholic missionaries for an potential interest btw? I always wondered that. God bless you too

>>737134

wtf is orthodox protestant


4644b7  No.737239

>>737224

The way I did it was I found the eparchy that would have jurisdiction over my state, and submitted a public prayer request with my email address, and they found me. Maronite litugry is descended from the Syriac tradition, which has its roots in St. Thomas the Apostle, so don't expect it to be like the Byzantine tradition. It's beautiful in its own way, and you might just find it as efficacious, if not more.

God bless you.


582d06  No.737257


52cdd9  No.737268

>>737133

>orthodoxy is unchanged

Except when it comes to birth control, amirite?


dea237  No.737269

>>736442

The tridentine mass did away with all the native western masses.


0ea9a2  No.737282

>THE TWO CHURCHES

You mean why did the greeks have to split off from The Church.


457188  No.737287

>>737133

>catholicism and orthodoxy are incomparable because catholicism is constantly changing.

You know you're talking to an ortholarp (or less likely but possibly an actual schismatic) when they say catholicism is different to orthodoxy and that catholicism changes. Firstly you deny the creeds (I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church). Secondly, the definition of catholicity as defined by st Vincent is that it must have been held as faith by all the faithful all time. Hence catholicism does not change for the moment faith changes it. Ceases to be catholic and becomes heretic. Thirdly catholicism is orthodoxy, it's the only orthodoxy.


457188  No.737289

>>737269

Except it didn't. The tridentine mass is merely the unchanged mass of St Peter that he promulgated in Rome. All the so called "native rites" in the west like the Gallican were actually just byzantine rite that was adapted to the west. The Roman rite of St Peter is the only rite of the west, unless someone can prove St Paul also promulgated a rite in the west or another apostle. The council of Trent merely removed thousands of bastardised hybrid rite (often byzantine) new abominations that were cropping up and reasserted the original unchanged petrine rite. Imagine basically novus ordo everywhere being repealed and replaced with the old rite, that is what it was like.


f78864  No.737306

>>737282

You mean why did the latins change the Nicene Creed.


0cd589  No.737313

File: 80c55611fb846e0⋯.png (58.28 KB, 645x729, 215:243, 654461CB-3A38-494E-A804-19….png)

>>737306

"The leader of The Church clarifying the Nicene Creed is wrong"


5e51d4  No.737316

>>737268

Which is hilarious because literally 98% of Catholic women use birth control. You also claim your Church is against sodomy when a whopping 1/3 of your clergy is gay.


5e51d4  No.737317

>>737118

If one of our Bishops is giving you Communion, then he's in violation of canonical law. You cannot be given Communion if you're not of our Church, period.


f78864  No.737336

>>737313

"Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future."

>clarification


4644b7  No.737363

>>737317

>one of our bishops

You know Eastern Catholic bishops exist, right?


dea237  No.737371

>>737289

That post was in reply to the claim of EOs being the only ones responsible for doing away with other liturgical rites.

But why would people in the far western Europe adopt a mass from Byzantines? Saying so makes it seem possible that Byzantine masses represent an older style of worship. But such a hefty claim is probably just militant sedevatcantshill bias on your part.


e78b90  No.737375

>>737371

I'm not sedevacantist.

In the early Church the Byzantine rite spread to Gaul and Spain, leading to the Gallican use and Mozarabic. It probably spread because of the dominance of Constantinople and the missions from byzantine rite Priests and Bishops. However the Rite for the Western Patriarchate is the Roman Rite of St Peter not the Constantinople patriarchates rite.

In the Early to Late medieval period, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, back by the byzantine emperors began to pressure and force the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch to drop the rite of st James and the Syriac rite to be replaced by the byzantine rite. This is the reason why those rites are almost extinct now. All rites cone from Apostles and are equally valid and licit. Since each apostle promulgated one that means they come from the same period, so the byzantine rite is not an older rite as that claim denies sacred tradition.


6bee7d  No.737378

File: 2d03277fd5dfd9a⋯.jpg (90.9 KB, 711x516, 237:172, Expected.jpg)

>>736404

As much as Rome calls out with some degree of authority, scholasticism was such a disaster in the long run that it leaves me questioning the benefits. Orthos are equally apostolic.

Especially a concern for me, is that scholasticism tried to use philosophy to penetrate into areas I consider Christ and the prophets didn't openly speak of for the good reason that we are so sinful if we knew everything about heaven we would become the idolaters thereof, and never get there. These are specifically to do with the character of the afterlife, the identities of spiritual beings other than God, etc. Whenever this stuff is brought up, it immediately smells of death to me.

The only thing I do find useful from scholasticism is that there is a complex taxonomy of the heart, soul and so on which is detailed in near-scientific precision; that disturbs me sometimes because I worry that I'm still basically in mortal sin despite having had immense success with the venial. Nevertheless I'm neither, technically Anglo-Catholic/High-Anglican.


dea237  No.737379

>>737375

The earliest rites are objectively eastern. If all the rites established by apostles are valid then why should they be subsumed by a Roman one. Furthermore it's strange that a Byzantine rite would be in Latin but that may be beside the matter.

In reality it was the Franks who wanted to impose everything Roman on the earlier established liturgies of the West and later through a process of standardization by the church. In past times the Roman rite was imposed on proselytized communities of other denominations as well.


e78b90  No.737385

>>737379

Christ taught the Apostles exactly how to say the mass at the Last Supper. Each Apostle transmitted this with their own particular differences in the canons (which is what defines what a different rite is). If one examines the canons of the Gallican, ambrosian and mozarabic rites you will find that are byzantine or mixed with Roman. All the rites were promulgated at the same time because the Apostles all operated at the same time: 33ad up to 100. All the rites are eastern only in the sense they came from Christ in Jerusalem. But the Western Roman Rite came from St Peter so is the same age as the byzantine.

Yes you are right the Franks and the Popes did want to impose the Roman rite on the West because the West was the jurisdiction of the Roman patriarchate, so justice dictated it observed the western rite. It was a temporary aberration of economic that byzantine rite was in use in the west, just like it is an aberration to use the Roman rite in the east.

It is just to impose your rite in your own patriarchate, it is unjust to impose it in another Patriarchate's Apostolic see.


dea237  No.737394

>>737385

>you will find that are byzantine or mixed with Roman.

It could be that earlier versions had a more archaic style including those used in Rome as even the liturgy used there would have had to be translated from a Greek source until later times when they wanted to standardize and bring it up to what was current in Rome.


dea237  No.737397

>>737394

Also how can you prove that unleavened hosts are more authentic?


e78b90  No.737400

>>737394

No, liturgists have examined them and the Roman and byzantine rites are the first. The pre 1955 Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rites are the original unchanged rites promulgated by the Apostles. To deny this is to deny sacred tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit to preserve it. The burden of proof lies on the person denying sacred tradition. Archaicism or the belief that the rites we have now are changed is an error and leads to Judaism and protestantism. St Peter translated his rite from Hebrew to High stylised Latin, probably using Mark the evangelist.


e78b90  No.737401

>>737397

Not really relevant to the discussion, but the passover of the Hebrews used unleavened or azymes bread and the Roman Rite continues this tradition. The mass is the fulfillment of the Passover with Christ as the lamb.


dea237  No.737402

>>737400

> To deny this is to deny sacred tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit to preserve it.

Sounds like presumptuous circular logic.

>St Peter translated his rite from Hebrew to High stylised Latin, probably using Mark the evangelist

The Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans were written in Greek.

>>737401

On the eastern side of the argument there is the claim that Christ is risen. Pretty difficult to make an assertion as to which is more original.


f6075d  No.737405

>>737402

You're going to have to explain why it is presumptuous circular logic.

The preserved versions of the gospel and epistle are Greek but the originals were probably Latin and preserved in the old Latin scriptures which St Jerome used in his Vulgate. But this isn't necessarily relevant either to the point that St Peter translated his rite into Latin for use in Rome. Latin was still the dominant language in the west even if cosmopolitan Hellenist elite Romans liked to use Greek.

As for the bread I would say as the Church says that there is no argument and both uses of bread are valid and important. This is the beauty of different rites, diverse ways of worshipping God.


dea237  No.737410

>>737405

Well you claim that preservation of traditions is a sacred fact yet you proceed to suggest that the preserved versions aren't the originals?

Then you say variation is beautiful despite previous replies suggesting only the one authorized by the central authority in Rome is validated.

This is why it all sounds like willful circular irrationality.


f6075d  No.737431

>>737410

You have completely misconstrued and misunderstood what I am saying, hence your confusion.

I am saying that the preserved versions ARE the originals. The Ronan Rite aka the Rite of St Peter is the original unchanged one. The byzantine rite aka the rite of St Andrew is the original unchanged one. The Gallican, ambrosian and mozarabic are later liturgical innovations of the byzantine rite but in Latin.

Liturgical innovation must be suppressed so that the original rites can be maintained, which is what the Church has done (until 1955). Diversity is good only in received tradition from the apostles, not from the traditions of man. God loves diversity hence why he created so many different creatures and gives people different gifts. He hates it when man tries to replace his creations with man's corruption's. Central authorities in the patriarchs and bishops are good as long as they observe their jurisdiction. Rites should not cross patriarchates because divine revelation instituted specific rites for specific regions.


dea237  No.737447

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>737431

>You have completely misconstrued and misunderstood

Not true

>The preserved versions of the gospel and epistle are Greek but the originals were probably Latin and preserved in the old Latin scriptures which St Jerome used in his Vulgate. But this isn't necessarily relevant either to the point that St Peter translated his rite into Latin for use in Rome. Latin was still the dominant language in the west even if cosmopolitan Hellenist elite Romans liked to use Greek.

Which is factually incorrect since both the old Latin and NT of the Vulgate are believed to have been translated from Greek sources as with translations in other languages.

Your whole argument rests on the unquestioned assumption that the central Roman authority had greater ability to preserve the customs more than other communities.

When one looks at the cultural history you find periods of Frankish influence and greater similarity with eastern customs in pre-Frankish traditions of Rome. Also there is no substantial evidence that all if any of the local western customs were influenced by Byzantines but rather developed that way natively. It's seems more rational to assume the central authority simply sought to do away with variation to promote conformity after many periods of internal turmoil and schisms and disputes with other theologies. All at the expense of traditions that had existed for centuries. The constant threat the traditions went under may have caused them to be even more tenaciously adhered to and preserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rite#Antiquity_of_the_Roman_Mass

In his 1912 book on the Roman Mass, Adrian Fortescue wrote: "Essentially the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the 4th century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all.

"The prejudice that imagines that everything Eastern must be old is a mistake. Eastern rites have been modified later too; some of them quite late. No Eastern Rite now used is as archaic as the Roman Mass."

In the same book, Fortescue acknowledged that the Roman Rite underwent profound changes in the course of its development. His ideas are summarized in the article on the "Liturgy of the Mass" that he wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia (published between 1907 and 1914) in which he pointed out that the earliest form of the Roman Mass, as witnessed in Justin Martyr's 2nd-century account, is of Eastern type, while the Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries, of about the 6th century, "show us what is practically our present Roman Mass". In the interval, there was what Fortescue called "a radical change". He quoted the theory of A. Baumstark that the Hanc Igitur, Quam oblationem, Supra quæ and Supplices, and the list of saints in the Nobis quoque were added to the Roman Canon of the Mass under "a mixed influence of Antioch and Alexandria", and that "St. Leo I began to make these changes; Gregory I finished the process and finally recast the Canon in the form it still has."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_chant


582d06  No.737494

>>736442

>The patriarchate of Constantinople of the other hand has hand a tendency of discouraging anything that hasn't originated from them, such as enforcing their Rite on the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, almost making extinct the rite of St James and the Syriac rite.

That happened on both sides.

The roman rite consumed everything by various decrees, trying to impose their traditions on everything.

Which is why we had latin patriarchs in the East(the first modern Jerusalem one being called "The Butcher" for how much he hated anything orthodox in the Holy Land), and why the Maronites have been pretty much erased into a roman rite+some ancestral habits remaining.

It took Gregory II Youssef's encyclical for the Eastern Catholics to get some respect.

>The bishop of Glastonbury I know second hand to be anti western rite because he thinks it is too Western and only wants Byzantine rite.

Ah, so a mini-bishop Irish.


4216cf  No.737510

>>737447

Who says it is factually incorrect a part from you, with no explanation or contradictory evidence? Even the authors of the Eastern Orthodox Bible acknowledge that the gospel of Mark was probably first written in Latin as attested by some early Fathers but the extant Latin copies were not preserved. Logic would also suggest that an epistle to the Roman community would also be written/translated in Latin for a predominantly Latin community who used a Latin liturgy.

You say it is believed to be Greek, but believed by whom? I know modern scholars like to claim so because the earliest surviving copies of the NT (from the 3rd century) are in Greek, so they make the wild assumption that everything was in Greek, not considering that these copies only were preserved because they were corrupt (missing the johannan comma eg) and thus were not put to liturgical use but archived. To spin theories based on rejected manuscripts whilst denying received tradition is the ludicrisy of modernism. The Latin copies were most likely part of the old Latin versions which were then compiled into and preserved in St Jerome's vulgate.

Another example is that we know St Matthew wrote the first gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic as Papias attests and as St Jerome discovered a surviving manuscripted in the library at caesarea and used it for his Vulgate. However modern scholars deny this because they cannot find copies so they pretend it didn't happen. With the sack of Rome and destruction of the Roman empire in the west and the Greek east remaining largely untouched one can easily see why it would seem there were only Greek manuscripts as the Latin were likely all destroyed and preserved onlynin the vulgate.

My premise rests in faith that the holy spirit preserves the orthodox rites of the Church and that what has been handed down by sacred tradition is what the apostles gave to us and is a higher authority than modernist scholars and wikipedia. It seems you are more interested in discarding this because you either have no faith in received tradition or you just are anti-Roman. If you want to see the evidence of the traditions being preserved by native communities then look at the old monastic missals, which were preserved in isolation and are identical to the pre 1955 missal.


4216cf  No.737513

>>737494

Aye, I agree that the Patriarch of Jerusalem should have been the rite of St James not St Peter. However consider that with the byzantine forced abandonment of that rite centuries earlier and the Muslim occupation, there probably were few people who still observed the rite, and they didn't exactly have the technology to communicate with and find them. A foreign Latin rite is just as equal as a foreign byzantine rite.


dea237  No.737547

>>737510

The rejection of the Johannine is comma based on its absence from all other traditions and in multiple early ones.

No evidence exists to your Latin primicist claims. It is not possible to uphold a theory for which evidence does not exist. The just about all of the scholarship in history would also disagree. Greek primacy is supported by Jerome's own statements and the Latin textual witnesses themselves whose mere existence is a result of the circumstances involving the Greek authorship of their source.

Jerome also didn't believe the Hebrew Gospel was authentic since its Lord's prayer (Panem nostrum crastinum da nobis hodie) contradicted later verses at 6:34. In this case however, the Hebrew Gospel enjoys more scholarly support.

Covering a lie with another lie won't work forever, might as well save the exercises in duplicity for another time.


83beaf  No.737659

>>737316

> 98% of Catholic women use birth control

> 1/3 of your clergy is gay.

lies lies and more lies


632d30  No.737669

File: ae96635b474114d⋯.jpeg (56.9 KB, 760x507, 760:507, 2B551781-4FE5-4F05-B2AE-E….jpeg)

>>737659

But here’s the thing: the worst kind of lie is one that is believable. And the way your church is going, I could believe anything is happening.


40db14  No.737726

File: f5838a198615455⋯.jpg (31.11 KB, 396x382, 198:191, we-have-this-thread-every-….jpg)

>>736404

> I CAN'T DECIDE

why is this such a regular thing?


1d4fad  No.737780

>>737121

neither link supports your claim, other than very sketch numbers allegedly from the greek diocese


3a705a  No.737836

>>737547

You disagree with the Eastern Bishops, Patriarchs, patriarchal text then if you deny the Johannah comma. You also deny the Western Rite Orthodox tradition if you think it is a later addition, and you deny the Eastern Church who see that as the rite of the West not the Byzantine Rite. Moreover you have no faith in the Holy Spirit to preserve sacred tradition in the Church, but you put your faith in modernists and (((scholars))) who in intellectual pride think they know more than the entire clergy of the Church throughout the ages just because they found a few rejected manuscripts in a late period.


dea237  No.737955

>>737836

It's not in their tradition.

You're applying the tactics of KJO false flaggers to the advocation of Latin primacism now. In otherwords a troll.


fe1542  No.738101

File: fd79c78e9ba0f87⋯.gif (40.67 KB, 500x464, 125:116, conrad.gif)

>>737287

>Firstly you deny the creeds (I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church

I too believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, but not th Roman Catholic church. The hallmark of Catholics is to be poorly educated/stupid, you prove it right once more.

>the definition of catholicity as defined by st Vincent is that it must have been held as faith by all the faithful all time. Hence catholicism does not change for the moment faith changes it.

Then the Catholic church hasn't been catholic since the filioque, and no Catholic today is catholic.

>Thirdly catholicism is orthodoxy, it's the only orthodoxy.

You're a bunch of faggots, pedophiles and atheists, that's the only thing you are.


f56fde  No.738157

>>736417

Source for that claim?


ecc5c4  No.738222

>>738101

>catholic church is not catholic

>catholics are not catholic

Anon, I… The first principle of philosophy is something is what it is. To deny this is to literally become delusional and insane. You're going to having to decide whether the catholic church and catholics are catholic or not and either affirm they are and stop saying they aren't or stop calling it the catholic church and them catholics.


a8369c  No.738231

>>738222

>The first principle of philosophy is something is what it is

Incredible that you think this means something is what you call it


9c3bef  No.738254

>>736404

>WHY DID THE DEVIL HAVE TO SEPARATE THE TWO CHURCHES DAMMIT

he didn't, there is only one true church. schism is not a two way street, orthos are schismatics, they schismed from the catholic church, the catholic church did not schism.

eastern orthodoxy is just a meme for fags who want to seem smarter than everyone else without ending up looking completely retarded like a protestant. their only arguments are pure theological autism which no one even understands, but then they throw in the "rome lead the west into decay" bullshit as if the east is some kind of christian utopia. don't get caught up in their autism and fedora tipping


ecc5c4  No.738262

>>738231

Lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi

The law of prayer is the law of belief is the law of living.

If you say something is something then you believe (or will eventually believe) it to be so and live as if it is so. Ridiculous for you to think I would take you at your word and not assume you are bearing false witness. Beware what you say for you will believe it. And if you say delusional contradictions you will become literally insane


7c287c  No.738263

File: c768326bbd032e2⋯.jpg (142.28 KB, 432x559, 432:559, Pope_Leo_IX.jpg)

>>738254

Nice projection, papist. You are as arrogant as the Pope that broke away from the true Church and helped contribute to the rise of Islam in the East.

Be proud, it's what you Romans do best.


9c3bef  No.738268

File: ded4f6520562480⋯.jpg (229.65 KB, 640x960, 2:3, 1524867920704.jpg)


4e6466  No.740439

File: 1e6decc2118f4e5⋯.jpg (3.44 MB, 4032x3024, 4:3, 20180807_082606.jpg)

>>736404

Be like the Melkites who were dual-communion with both Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox for 700 years after the Great Schism and BEGOM BOTH


4b5016  No.740713

>>740439

I need the expanding brain meme for this please.


6aef21  No.740745

>>740439

Catholic here. If I tried to receive at an Eastern Church (say I was on holiday in Greece), what would happen? I have no qualms about doing so as I believe the Churches to be reunited as the excommunications are lifted, but I don't want to get punched by a hothead.


8777b1  No.740772

>>740745

The priest there probably would refuse to give you communion.


6aef21  No.740776

>>740772

How would he know to refuse me though? Because I look western european?


3c8f99  No.740778

>>740776

>western european

So that's what they call Arabs now


ea8a86  No.740781

File: 15d2ad9f6d8ac70⋯.jpg (16.61 KB, 542x540, 271:270, 1518281631366.jpg)


6aef21  No.740784

>>740778

I would probably be able to receive if that were true


4049ad  No.740792

File: 7cf68f48d33fead⋯.jpg (3.23 MB, 2452x2519, 2452:2519, 20180807_082320.jpg)

File: 5f5e943c4049f7e⋯.jpg (1.09 MB, 2497x761, 2497:761, 20180807_091358.jpg)

>>740745

Only the Russian Orthodox Church has fully endorsed Roman Catholics taking communion with them. Eastern Catholics may have a better chance however as they have a long history of taking communion with their Eastern counterparts. Pics related. Book btw is A Voice from the Byzantine East by Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby.


8777b1  No.740795

>>740776

If he didn't know your face, he would probably just ask you. He has a responsibility not to give communion to non-Orthodox and also Orthodox who haven't had a recent confession, and he will answer to God for how he shepherded his flock when he dies.


6aef21  No.740801

>>740795

He would ask at the chalice? In Greek? What if I don't understand?

Also what if I did understand and said I am Orthodox (for I believe I am indeed orthodox)? Would he allow me to receive?


6aef21  No.740802

>>740792

Are you serious? I can go to a Russian Church and receive even if they know I'm Latin?

Beats Novus Ordo


8777b1  No.740860

>>740801

I guess if you lied to him convincingly enough he might indeed give you communion. But he might also choose not to risk it before having an actual conversation with you. In any case, lying to a priest in order to receive communion is a terrible look and probably a sin. You are definitely not Orthodox according to the Orthodox Church.


6aef21  No.740879

>>740860

I am orthodox according to the orthodox church as I profess and live the one orthodox catholic faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church and have all the requisite sacraments and disposition to receive. I would not be lying to the priest.


5f1112  No.740883

>>740879

Lying by omission is still lying.


d799e1  No.740939

>>740745

You should go to the priest before liturgy and ask if you're allowed to partake in communion out of respect.

I know of someone who frequents a Russian Orthodox monastery as a catholic.

They got no problems with him because he's Tridentine Rite, but communion is not allowed.

In the same way he brought a Russian Orthodox subdeacon to our parish twice and he didn't take communion either.

It made for a fun sight and a nice photo with the priests too.


cf4c77  No.741200

>>740883

What's the omission?


cf4c77  No.741202

>>740939

So what are the conditions to receive then? Sacrament of baptism, confirmation and state of grace?


5f1112  No.741268

>>741200

Not telling the priest he isn't Orthodox (meaning Orthodox according to what the priest and his bishop consider to be Orthodox) and he's also trying to essentially 'steal' the Eucharist. He knows full well that if the priest had full knowledge of who he is that he wouldn't be allowed communion but he's trying to do it anyway, and thus disregarding everything else, by that sin alone he should receive.

>>741202

1. You must be an Orthodox Christian (baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church and adhering to all the beliefs of the Church).

2. You must be in good standing with the Church (not excommunicated, regular participation in the life of the Church, etc.).

3. Preparation beforehand through fasting and prayer, and confession if needed.


5f1112  No.741269

>>741268

*shouldn't receive


c55b11  No.741274

>>740776

Not knowing what behavior to have when receiving communion is usually how Catholics are found out. Add to that: being an unfamiliar face, not giving a saint's name when asked what your name is, or simply answering that you're not Orthodox if the priest asks you.

Priests rarely do not catch wandering Catholics, except on very busy days like Easter where being tired can cause them to act without thinking hard enough. I talked with a hieromonk who felt pretty bad that he probably gave communion to a Catholic lady who showed up at our Easter service for whatever reason.


badb62  No.741288

>>741268

I thought the excommunications were lifted. Is it not one Church, with one set of sacraments and one faith? I do recognise the authority priests have to excommunicate lay people but it does seem they are being schismatic if they do so just because that lay person is Roman.

Also I really don't actually know if eastern priests are like this as I only have to go by what strangers say on the internet. I genuinely believe I have the Orthodox Catholic Faith and all the requisite sacraments and conditions to receive and it seems like the only reason to be barred is because of the politics of bishops, which is not a correct reason to deny Christ from laity. How can Roman laity approach the Eastern sacraments if there are these abstract obstacles in the way. Do Eastern priests not seek the salvation of Roman laity? What would a Roman lay person have to do to receive the sacrament?


5f1112  No.741295

>>741288

>I thought the excommunications were lifted.

Excommunications against what/whom? Afaik the anathemas against the papists still stand.

>Is it not one Church, with one set of sacraments and one faith?

No. There is the Church (Orthodox) and there is the Roman Catholic Church (Heterodox).

>I do recognise the authority priests have to excommunicate lay people but it does seem they are being schismatic if they do so just because that lay person is Roman.

You don't get it. They aren't excommunicating you, you're not in the Church to begin with.

>I genuinely believe I have the Orthodox Catholic Faith and all the requisite sacraments and conditions to receive and it seems like the only reason to be barred is because of the politics of bishops, which is not a correct reason to deny Christ from laity.

It doesn't matter if you think you're Orthodox. What matters is if you are recognized by the Orthodox as Orthodox or not. You're also being quite uncharitable to the Orthodox clergy by simply chalking up their refusal to administer sacraments to heterodox as "politics". If you actually believe this to be the case, then I'm not sure why you would want to commune with such people to begin with.

>Do Eastern priests not seek the salvation of Roman laity?

Yes, which is why they pray for them and don't allow them to eat and drink to their death and condemnation (1 Corinthians 11:29).

>What would a Roman lay person have to do to receive the sacrament?

Become Orthodox.


ebe984  No.741296

>>738268

Nice argument.


be9dcb  No.741299

>>741295

2007 Ravenna treaty removed all excommunications between Rome and the Eastern patriarchates.

You just denied the creed: I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. There is only one Church or the creed is wrong.

I am baptised, and in a state of grace therefore I am in the Church. Do you think baptism does not save?

OK how do I get recognised by each individual priest as orthodox and how do I "become orthodox" (even though I already am)


5f1112  No.741303

>>741299

If you think Ravenna mended the Schism you're delusional.

>You just denied the creed: I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. There is only one Church or the creed is wrong.

No, I denied your faulty understanding then I asserted that there is the Church (Orthodox) and there is the Roman Catholic Church (Heterodox). There you go being uncharitable again.

>I am baptised, and in a state of grace therefore I am in the Church. Do you think baptism does not save?

Heretics also hold such beliefs.

>OK how do I get recognised by each individual priest as orthodox and how do I "become orthodox" (even though I already am)

It's starts with humbling yourself by renouncing Roman Catholicism and accepting Orthodoxy as the Truth. Once you've done that then go to an Orthodox church and talk to the priest there and tell him you're interested in becoming Orthodox.


4049ad  No.741304

>>741295

Except Russia lifted the anathemas and excommunications in 1969 and allow Roman Catholics to take communion if they wish though I believe it is left to the bishop's discretion. I linked a book source about it above. Now as for the rest of the Ortho Church you'd definitrly need to ask and see what the bishop says but if he's going to a Russian Church, he should still ask but they shouldn't turn him away.


5f1112  No.741308

>>741304

That decision was an anomaly and caused a lot controversy in the Church. Suffice to say it's not a practice that is accepted by the rest of the Church. Some would say it's not Orthodox, heretical even.


be9dcb  No.741312

>>741303

I said there was one faith, one set of sacraments and one church and you said No, there are two. Which is it, are there one or two churches? The creed says one, you say two. It is not uncharitable to say what you have told me and ask for an explanation.

Are you a practising Christian who attends divine liturgy and frequents the sacraments?

Pardon my so called delusion, what did Ravenna do then?

Heretics holding certain beliefs does not make them wrong. Am I correct in this or not that baptism enters you into the Church?

How can I renounce my Roman rite when the East accepts it? How can I renounce Catholicism when the faith is called the orthodox catholic faith? I do hold orthodoxy as the truth. I am already orthodox, so how could I lie to a priest about becoming orthodox? How do I become recognised as orthodox?


5f1112  No.741319

>>741312

>I said there was one faith, one set of sacraments and one church and you said No, there are two. Which is it, are there one or two churches? The creed says one, you say two. It is not uncharitable to say what you have told me and ask for an explanation.

There is one Church, the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Clear?

>Are you a practising Christian who attends divine liturgy and frequents the sacraments?

Yes.

>Pardon my so called delusion, what did Ravenna do then?

Ravenna did not endorse the Filioque, Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or any other Roman dogma. You believe these things, we do not. Therefore you are not part of the Orthodox Church.

> Am I correct in this or not that baptism enters you into the Church?

Baptism alone? No. Arians and other heretics also believed in baptism.

>How can I renounce my Roman rite when the East accepts it?

It's not a matter of the Rites.

>How can I renounce Catholicism when the faith is called the orthodox catholic faith?

You're just playing word games at this point. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or your church.

>I do hold orthodoxy as the truth. I am already orthodox

You cannot simultaneously believe in Roman dogmas and Eastern anathemas. One is True, the other is not.

>so how could I lie to a priest about becoming orthodox?

You lie to him by saying you are Orthodox but refuse to renounce heresies and accept dogmas which are anathema to the real Orthodox.

>How do I become recognised as orthodox?

I just told you, but you refuse to listen. You're proud and think you know better than the Church.


be9dcb  No.741323

>>741319

There is one holy catholic and apostolic church as we know from the creeds which I presume we both profess to be a part of, with one faith and one set of sacraments.

Where is the ecumenical council anathematising filioque, immaculate conception and papal infallibility? Until there is one these are valid theological positions to hold and not formal heresy.

Baptism alone saving is early church dogma. You cannot be saved outside of the Church and baptism is the only way to enter the Church.

You're not telling me how exactly I "become orthodox", other then advising I go ask a priest. What would the priest require me to do to " become orthodox"?


052128  No.741325

>>736404

Brother OP, there is no "picking sides" here. There is only one church, the church of the body of Christ. Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ brother.

Matthew 16:13-20 King James Version (KJV)

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:15-20 King James Version (KJV)

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

John 3:3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Mark 3:24-26 King James Version (KJV)

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.


5f1112  No.741329

>>741323

>There is one holy catholic and apostolic church as we know from the creeds which I presume we both profess to be a part of, with one faith and one set of sacraments.

This is your claim, but we don't have the same creed, or the same faith, or even the same sacraments.

>Where is the ecumenical council anathematising filioque, immaculate conception and papal infallibility? Until there is one these are valid theological positions to hold and not formal heresy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_(Eastern_Orthodox)

Catholics of course don't accept this one as Ecumenical because the Pope wasn't there, but I don't think heretics need an invite to an Orthodox council.

Now the issue of Immaculate Conception is not necessarily the belief itself, but it's position as Dogma. You make it a REQUIREMENT of faith in order to be a part of the Church. We say that it's just a theological opinion.

>Baptism alone saving is early church dogma.

So Arians are saved? Interesting.

>You're not telling me how exactly I "become orthodox", other then advising I go ask a priest.

It's part of humbling yourself. You go to him and follow his guidance. If you can't do that, then you can't be Orthodox.

>What would the priest require me to do to " become orthodox"?

Not every catechism is the same for every person. That's why I told you to go to the priest and follow his guidance. But it certainly would include things like a renunciation of Roman dogmas and a formal chrismation after a period of catechesis.


5f1112  No.741334

>>741329

*Pope Nicholas I


5f1112  No.741345

>>741325

What translation is that?


052128  No.741353

>>741345

King James Version


8777b1  No.741360

>>741325

>>741353

So you choose to use a Protestant translation to argue in favor of Catholicism?


052128  No.741362

>>741360

Not really arguing anything other than saying we should study bible more rather than argue about denominations. I believe the church isn't a building, the pope is not divine. For example, priests aren't allowed to have children in catholicism, but 1 Timothy 3 disagrees. Denominations that focus on this world, what's happening with it, but 1 John 2:15-17 disagree. We should be focusing on Jesus Christ instead.


052128  No.741363

>>741362

also Acts 7:48-49 King James Version (KJV)

48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?


be9dcb  No.741407

>>741329

OK I see filioque addition to Nicene creed being creed being anathematised but not the belief of the filioque itself. I'm not the one who added it. Just like I don't require people to believe the immaculate conception as I don't have the authority. I believe these positions and believing them is not anathematised so there is nothing to renounce.

Arian's don't have valid baptisms. I don't know why you're arguing such an untenable position in contradiction with the Fathers.


8777b1  No.741424

>>741407

Even the Vatican says that the filioque would be heretical in Greek…


5f1112  No.741430

>>741407

>OK I see filioque addition to Nicene creed being creed being anathematised but not the belief of the filioque itself.

Thank you for admitting that you use an anathematized creed.

>I'm not the one who added it.

Doesn't matter, you believe it's valid.

>Just like I don't require people to believe the immaculate conception as I don't have the authority.

Do you believe that someone is required to believe in the Immaculate Conception in order to be Catholic? Yes or No.

>I believe these positions and believing them is not anathematised so there is nothing to renounce.

Then you're out of line with the consensus of the Orthodox Fathers. You're free to have bad theology, but it does make you less Orthodox.

>Arian's don't have valid baptisms. I don't know why you're arguing such an untenable position in contradiction with the Fathers.

Many Arians baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and were admitted back into the Church without re-baptism. You need to brush up on your history. The point is: baptism by itself does nothing. Do you think an Arian is saved just because his baptism is "valid"? Is he in the Church?


d799e1  No.741468

>>740802

>Beats Novus Ordo

In all seriousness if you're Tridentine Rite and don't feel fulfilled by a NO mass one could go to an orthodox or oriental parish and fulfill their sunday obligation, but this is borderline.


0508f2  No.741508

>>736404

Dude are you me? I've been feeling the same thing lately. I almost started RCIA months ago, but my job got in the way and I started going to an Orthodox church instead awhile ago, but I'm beginning to feel unsure


a83d6e  No.741545

>>736404

You need look at the works of the warmongering Russian Patriarch and his horde and compare them to Rome's charity across the globe.

I say to you brother, that my God is not a God of conquest or of genocide as the demon Kirill would have you believe, but of love.

My priests send food and bandages to the conflict, they do not bless the guns causing it.

They're indistinguishable from Muslims imo, and should be treated as such.


8777b1  No.741550

>>741545

Rome betrayed Europe and is currently facilitating its invasion by anti-Christian muslim hordes. The Russian Patriarch actually stands up for Christians.


44283a  No.741551

File: 526d183d53ea85c⋯.png (188.86 KB, 1786x434, 893:217, 526d183d53ea85cfc65c4ef277….png)

>>741550

So sick of you larpers, the largest damn mosque in Europe is in Russia


71ddf9  No.741553

Op here, I may be interested in joining the Catholic Church after thinking for a while, but i'm still contemplating this. Pray for me brothers.


d49e65  No.741567

>>741545

>You need look at the works of the warmongering Russian Patriarch and his horde and compare them to Rome's charity across the globe.

Bahahaha

C'mon, cathbro, we both know enough history to see that trying to portray one side as good guys that always nindu nuffin is too stupid to work.

Also, your angelic pope is supportive of that "demon".


f79a80  No.741603

>>741567

That still doesn't explain the huge discrepancy between those two groups.

Anyone (including op) who cannot tell the difference between the two, probably would be better served outside the One True Church.

>>741550

And where does Christ command us to "stand up" to the poor and needy? On the contrary we are instructed to wepcone the stranger, and be servants, and stewards.

If you are looking to be a soldier then you may be better served by Islam, slav.


360cfc  No.741604

The devil can't divide Christ's church. People can decide to leave it, how ever.


d49e65  No.741607

>>741603

>That still doesn't explain the huge discrepancy between those two groups.

Looking at it ong-term, it ain't that a big a difference.

We've been screwing each other and conflating religious disputes with politics, ever since we crawled out of the catacombs.

Why do you think Benedict and John Paul II were such big proponents of "purification of memory"?


17fe05  No.742091

>>741607

Tell me how the long term applies to our current predicament.

When Rome blesses the guns used to slaughter other Christians I will condemn it, not go "lol shit world whatever".

The Russians are currently misguided, and many of them will burn in hell for their transgressions.


ca5ef6  No.742095

>>741551

>dat pic

Orthodox completely BTFO. and sadly most of Christianity also


a2bf39  No.742132

>>741551

>that antichristian pic

get behind me satan.


c00931  No.742367

>>736404

I believe the schism will end when a Man who was raised as an Eastern Orthodox will become Pope and reunite the churches.


8777b1  No.742369

>>742367

Mainstream Catholicism has already become indistinguishable from Protestantism. There isn't really a Catholic Church left to "reunite" to the Orthodox Churches. Maybe traditionalists will eventually rejoin the Orthodox Church with the Western Rite.


b4aca8  No.742631

>>742369

Keep daydreaming schismatic




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / eris / hdi8 / sonyeon / vg / vietnam / voros ]