Catholic vs. Orthodox

>Oldest and non=degenerate
>Cathocucks

Yeah sure. Paddy, a majority catholic nation that through popular vote legalized sodomite unions.

Not all catholics agree with this current church.

>5. Catholics define usury as excessive interest, Orthodox define usury as any interest.
kek at this shit

It's the religious equivilant to relativism.

That's right, we're called Orthodox Catholics

You see goy... I mean heretic as long as it helps the cathocuck church nothing is bad.

Yeah I voted NO to that, and this country is slowly de-christianising , as is the whole West. But I'm sure you know nothing of that, seeing as your people have only recently invented the flying carpet. fucking gypsy.

yea, but religion is bullshit. all religions have false origins that their faithful ignore.

if you are going to go with there is an extradimenisonal spirit world or something, might as well go all in and do perennial philosophy or follow eliade or something. then you don't have to be subservient to any religious authority.

Both worship Joseph's wife's son.

Did you know they finananced a tower on the Rouen Cathedral by selling special certificates that, if you bought them, you were allowed to eat butter during for that year's Lent? It's nicknamed "the Butter Tower" in remembrance of that.

What is it paddy are you mad that the nation that is supposedly the shithole of the EU is a better Christian nation than most Cathocucks?

>3. Hell in Orthodoxy is not separation from God. Hell, like heaven, is experiencing the full radiance of God's light and presence, but with a negative relationship so that it is like fire.

That's one expression.

4. The Orthodox reject the idea that our understanding of dogma develops. The idea is to keep the exact same understanding the Apostles have, invented terminology is not meant to develop the understanding, but to PROTECT it from being "developed".

Orthodox certainly do develop and clarify dogma through ecumenical councils.

>This level of Heresy

Did the protestant reformation teach them nothing about "payed exemptions"?

>hurr my invisible skyman is real
>durr what old people sitting in dusty offices reading thousand year old books all day have to say is totally relevant
man maybe if I was an unemployed gypsie I too would turn to religion

>if you're going to talk about the Absolute, you might as well go completely Relative

You know where that leads?
youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs

>supposedly
you act like that's just a superstition. you're forgetting the fact that Irish monks spread christianity all over Europe also.

Oh god the sperg. It's not weapons grade is nuclear warfare grade level sperg.

>5. Catholics define usury as excessive interest, Orthodox define usury as any interest.

For most of history Catholics took a harder line against usury than Orthodox did. Today neither seems to give a shit as long as you aren't blatantly making someone a debt-slave

Ecumenical Councils are only called to shut down new heresies, not to develop doctrine--they're called to stop doctrine from "developing".

>you act like that's just a superstition. you're forgetting the fact that Irish monks spread christianity all over Europe also.

Nah objectively Bulgaria will always be worst.

>you're forgetting the fact that Irish monks spread christianity all over Europe also.

Islands off Europe don't count much paddy. And that was a milenia and a half ago. You haven't done jack shit since then.

>heresy

Canons on fasting have nothing to do with something being heretical or not. Slavic Orthodox churches are traditionally allowed to drink beer during Great Lent while Greek Orthodox are not, that's not heretical and canons concerning fasting are not immutable.

>Not only in Psalm 15:5 is this teaching found. It is a fundamental principle throughout the Word of God. In Exodus (22:25), Leviticus (25:37), and Deuteronomy (23:19) the charging of interest on loans is forbidden. Prophets like Ezekiel (18:13, 22:12) thundered against usury. Charging interest is clearly and strictly forbidden by God.
holytrinity-lansing.org/index.php/news/102/109/The-Sin-We-Stopped-Feeling-Sorry-For/d,betterDetails.htm

>Business expectations in lending, often ghostly, become more profitable than the production of tangible goods. In this regard, it must be remembered about the moral ambiguity of the situation, when money is "make" new money without the application of human labor. Declaring credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real economic sector, comes into conflict with the moral principles, revealed by God condemning usury.
pravoslavie.ru/english/93828.htm

cont

>Debt is usury and usury is enslavement, and enslavement is always a source of evil. Therefore, debt is always to be avoided as far as possible; at best it can only be a temporary necessary evil. Usury was and is forbidden by the Church. Catholicism, which for many centuries kept much of the heritage of the Church from the first millennium, forbade usury until the late 18th century.

events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/tag/usury/

>Dmitri Lubomudrov, the Orthodox Church’s legal adviser told the media at that time, “We realized we couldn’t stay dependent on the Western financial system, but must develop our own. As with the Islamic system, the Orthodox one will be based not just on legislation, but on Orthodox morality as well, and will be an invitation to businessmen seeking security at a time of crisis.” Among its features would be interest-free credit issuance and prohibition of investment in gambling casinos or such activities going against Church moral values.

globalresearch.ca/interest-free-banking-russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/5495331

are you serious? even muslim scum is more tolerant than you
youtube.com/watch?v=AzR_J6Hrrr4

just look at how religious confession of child is both strongly correlated to religious confession of parents + economic standing and you'll soon realize that marx wasnt that far off in calling religion opiates for the masses

Irish and Scottish monks built monasteries in continential Europe during the middle ages, ever heard of the Schottenstift in Vienna?

christianity is a stupid fucking religion that is luddite is its essence. it is anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-future.

those few theologians who has tried to turn christian thought into some sort of progression, like Teilhard, have been roundly condemned.

for christians there is no need to really improve the current world beyond doing so to get you into heaven. it's fucking stupid. millions have died because of the lack of progress we make with christian ideology. all the progress in the west has been when thinkers have thrown off the shackles of this stupid ass meme.

a recent example is mother theresa who was a nasty bitch. the church made her a saint because muh suffering is good. fuck her and fuck all you who believe in this stupid shit.

BUT YOU DON'T PAY MONEY FOR AN EXEMPTION YOU BLOODY HERETIC

If you are a sensible person and can't stop eating for good reasons something for lent you can talk with a priest and figure something out. I mean for fucks sake kids are not even expected to take part in lent till they are like 12.

That's because back in the Middle Ages, they got by on beer instead of water for the most part (as most peasants did, for various reasons, many just having to do with it being a better way to protect against disease). In light of this, they were allowed to drink beer year-round. On the other hand, this wasn't something you'd buy a certificate for, it was something that applied to everyone.

Fake and gay.

None of those people are christians.

>muh Zeitgeist
>muh CURRENT YEAR

>are you serious? even muslim scum is more tolerant than you

God dam it hans with this level of Assburgers you could get double the welfare

>just look at how religious confession of child is both strongly correlated to religious confession of parents + economic standing and you'll soon realize that marx wasnt that far off in calling religion opiates for the masses
>Quoting Marx

Oh poor Assburgers Hans.

They are called to settle disputes. Before the Council of Chalcedon it wasn't obvious that Christ has two united natures. What do you call this if not development?

The Evangelic Lutheran Church of America (the biggest Lutherans in America) have gay marriage and female ordination. So do the Episcopalians (Americans in Communion with the Church of England)

Don't be so sure. So do the Churches of Sweden and Denmark

Also, the Church of England just ordained their first gay, partnered bishop

i would call it consolidation, or ratification, or more likely authoritarian nonsense.

>In April 2012, the election of a young gay man who was living in a registered same-sex partnership to a pastoral council in Vienna was vetoed by the parish priest. After meeting with the couple, Schönborn reinstated him. He later advised in a homily that priests must apply a pastoral approach that is "neither rigorist nor lax" in counselling Catholics who "don't live according to [God's] master plan".[38]

>Schönborn is a member of the Elijah Interfaith Institute Board of World Religious Leaders.[31]

>Elijah Interfaith Institute is a nonprofit, international, interfaith organization which was founded by Rabbi Alon Goshen-Gottstein in 1997.

>In 2014, addressing a question raised on the family, he argued that church doctrine can change over time, and "doesn't depend on the spirit of time but can develop over time." "Saying that the doctrine will never change is a restrictive view of things," Marx later clarified at a Vatican press conference. "The core of the Catholic Church remains the Gospel, but have we discovered everything? This is what I doubt."[12]

>We have to respect the decisions of people. We have to respect also, as I said in the first synod on the family — some were shocked, but I think it’s normal — you cannot say that a relationship between a man and a man, and they are faithful, [that] that is nothing, that has no worth,

>He said it was up to the state “to make regulations for homosexuals so they have equal rights or nearly equal . . . but marriage is another point,” adding that the state “has to regulate these partnerships and to bring them into a just position, and we as church cannot be against it

>The history of homosexuals in our societies is very bad because we’ve done a lot to marginalize [them],” he said, adding that as a Church and as a society “we’ve also to say ‘sorry, sorry.’

It's the same in Catholicism, I'm sure this was just seen as substituting one penance for another.

Besides, Orthodox have done similar things. Look up "absolution certificates".

>Dark Ages
>Byzantium was the center of knolowage
>Millions of books
>Had flamethrowers
>China knew about them yet direct contact was not achived

I hate modern historians.

Yeah it was. Christ was clearly God, but also clearly man (that's what "Son of Man" means in the Bible). If he was just God, how could he die? And if his natures weren't united, he'd be two people, not one.

Fasting isn't penance

Absolution certificates (which were picked up from Catholics) WERE declared heretical, that's why they were shut down. Use of them was grounds for excommunication.

>makes fun of me for quoting influential 19th century philosopher
>quotes a collection of stories from thousands of years ago with uncertain authorship
are you legitimate right now?

>makes fun of me for quoting influential 19th century philosopher
>influential
>Imblying influencing the destruction of Europe is a good thing

>quotes a collection of stories from thousands of years ago with uncertain authorship
>mfw the bible is probably one of the least edited and modified ancient book.

>are you legitimate right now?

Hans how far down the autism spectrum are you?

What are you trying to say? These efforts are commendable, it's not like the Catholic Church is pro-usury.

No, but they no longer say charging interest is a sin

Cunnilingus makes you worse than a dog, but you're already Malaysian so go for it

Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling? The only reason the ancient literature was saved is because of monks storing it in their monasteries. While the Huns and muslims burned everything they could get their hands on monks were spending day after day copying books by candle light and spreading knowledge throughout Christendom.

Then the printing press was invented and monks no longer needed to do that.

If it was so immediately clear an ecumenical council wouldn't have been needed to establish to concretely establish the doctrine.

Fasting can carry a penitential nature with it. With absolution certificates I'm trying to point out that the Orthodox Church has done sketchy things as well.

It can be. I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if most Orthodox clergy thought that charging interest at all was a sin today.

>4. The Orthodox reject the idea that our understanding of dogma develops. The idea is to keep the exact same understanding the Apostles have, invented terminology is not meant to develop the understanding, but to PROTECT it from being "developed".
>5. Catholics define usury as excessive interest, Orthodox define usury as any interest.
I agree with this

>If it was so immediately clear an ecumenical council wouldn't have been needed to establish to concretely establish the doctrine.
It's not only clear, it's overtly stated in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of Man. That's overt.

>Fasting can carry a penitential nature with i
It can, but that aspect can't abrogate Lent fasting, which is tied to Christ's forty days of fasting.

>With absolution certificates I'm trying to point out that the Orthodox Church has done sketchy things as well.
You're pointing out there were heretical things taught by bishops in the Church. The difference is, we say they were heretics.

The majority absolutely do.

The majority of eastern Christians and clergy were Arians until the Catholics sorted them out. Even the Greeks beloved Constantine was rather sympathetic to Arianism.

You're literally no more important or significant than a dog, already.
You stupid, sad, disillusioned, cucked, fuck.
You are a sad excuse for a man; subjugated before gods he's never seen, and if that wasn't enough, the amount of hubris you carry for you to tell someone they are worse than a dog.
The irony.
YOU are a dog. Do what you are told. Listen to your master. You bleed all true life away and you will die in fear for it.

Why is Catholicism so much like Protestantism right now? The pope is a complete faggot. Can someone explain. I'm not even religious but was raised Roman Catholic and I do think religion is part of cultural identity regardless of how serious someone takes it. I don't think I would want to raise a child catholic if the religion is taking this direction.

Vatican II, reject it and find a Church with Latin mass

You're American

So, you're saying the Emperor was an Arian, most of the clergy were Arians, but when the Emperor called a council and the clergy got together to deliberate, Arianism lost? Overwhelmingly?

Vatican II

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

-Nostra aetate

>But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
-Lumen gentium

>your

>seeing as your people have only recently invented the flying carpet.

youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o

Not what I said at all. I'm pointing out that the origins of "orthodoxy" were in heresy, and it took Catholicism under Theodosius to put it right.And I say Catholicism because Theodosius was very clear that it was CATHOLIC Christians that were right, not eastern Arians.

The majority of Eastern Christians and clergy were Arians until the Catholic Church purged them, it's a fact lad.

your argument doesn't counter mine. what is your point? some monks wrote down some memes and preserved them? that knowledge was still shit until the 12-14th centuries when greek and eastern texts were brought into the west via north africa and spain.

ibn sina works restarted thinking in the west and then the west really got going.

youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs

there is no such thing as real orthodoxy in religion. it's all no true scotsman fallacies

This is bullshit. There is wide documentation that water was frequently drunk by peasants and beer was not the go to beverage. There are so many archeological sites with copper drinking cups through all of Europe.

The reason is copper is a natural antibacterial agent.

How can you know if the majority of Eastern were Arians, and how would that have any bearing? The Orthodox-Catholic dispute is one of dogma, not geography. If it were geography, we could just point out that we have Jerusalem, and you were pagan prior to Christianity coming from there.

>Some of you sometimes ask, "What's the difference between Catholics and Orthodox?" Well, here are a few of them

Christian orthodoxy is what Christ taught. Deviating from that is heterodoxy. Pretty simple

>implying it's not the other way round

:^^)

no one has any clue what christ actually taught because he didn't write shit down. there are too many gospels and other early writings. even the canonical ones don't agree and you have to do some pretty impressive acrobatics to get them to.

the most we can say about his teachings is don't be a dick and he had issues with the temple jews at the time. his issues with them caused his death for some reason. but that's not new or interesting.

I love Lutheran Satire's take on this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=WTUGadddOq0

>How can you know

It's a documented fact that the majority of eastern clergy and churches in the 3rd&4th centuries were Arian, it's hardly illogical to assume that the congregation of the Arian churches, which made up the majority of believers, were also Arians.

>how would that have any bearing?

I just think it ought to be known, the Orthodox try and mislead people into believing they were the original Church when in fact they were the original heresy, it took Catholicism to put it right.

>If it were geography, we could just point out that we have Jerusalem, and you were pagan prior to Christianity coming from there.

Arianism isn't geography, it just so happens that the origins of the "orthodox" dispute with the Catholic Church are in the heresy of those same "orthodox" christians.

I don't believe established heretics have any right disputing the Vatican that set them straight.

>Whether one is healthy or infirm, if one is thirsty after sleeping one should drink wine or beer but not water. For water might damage rather than help one’s blood and humours …beer fattens the flesh and … lends a beautiful colour to the face. Water, however, weakens a person.
Hildegard’s Physica Sacra

>pic

FUCKING HERETIC BURN CUNT!

LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT A PRIEST SHOULD BE ON EVERY LEVEL!

I'M FUCKING LIVID AND I'M NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN!

Where do his teachings conflict in the canonical Gospels?

Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would be with his Church, to ensure his teachings were not distorted being passed down.

Okay you're right. I can't hate you serbro.

>It's a documented fact
What? Where?

>I just think it ought to be known, the Orthodox try and mislead people into believing they were the original Church when in fact they were the original heresy, it took Catholicism to put it right.
No, the problem is you are identifying Orthodox with geography. Orthodox is a faith, not a place. The West was formerly Orthodox. The Latinist heresy you're referring to as "Catholicism," mainly started by the Donation of Constantine, and to a lessor extent, the Filioque. It didn't exist prior to then.

The See of Rome might have had a good track record, but they were hardly infallible, Pope Honorius was anathematized for heresy, after all.

...

Orthodox what? Orthodox is an adjective that means extremely traditional to the point of radicalism. By itself it means nothing. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you mean Orthodox Christian? If so, the two have almost nothing in common, so why are you comparing them? You might as well say let's compare peeling a banana to reading a book, which tastes better?

Cognitive Dissonance with psychopathic finesse. Queers, pedos and perverts go both ways. Built on ideas you can't prove with promises you can't verify. Run by guilt and condemnation of your present thoughts and actions for rewards after you die. They LIE to benefit from your good intentions. Exploiting your time, talent and treasure. You are better off taking care of yourself and your own. Stand up against this rape of your souls.

>What? Where?

Socrates of Constantinople, Sozomen, Gibbon. Read some books yo'

>No, the problem is you are identifying Orthodox with geography.

I'm identifying the origins of the disagreements between eastern christians and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The original faith and church was Catholic, the dispute which eventually lead to the schism of the "orthodox" began with the Arian heresy. From Greece to Syria Christians almost had a tradition of trying to break away from the Catholic Church, which has lead to this modern day meme claim that they were the original church, which they objectively were not.

>latinist heresy

Gave me a chuckle lad, you really don't like confronting the origins of your faith do you?

>Socrates of Constantinople, Sozomen, Gibbon. Read some books yo'
What about them? Are you saying those men compromise a documented majority of clerics and laity?

>I'm identifying the origins of the disagreements between eastern christians and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
They are doctrinal, not geographical.

>The original faith and church was Catholic
Which you fell away from with the Donation of Constantine and the Flioque, and continue to move away from at rapid speeds.

We are the original Church, because our doctrine hasn't changed. You can see this when you compare us with the Oriental Orthodox: besides the formula for Christ's natures, we're identical, even after over 1,500 years of separation. Meanwhile the Catholic Church has distanced from us more and more.

So, basically, you don't have any doctrinal argument whatsoever?

Are you trying to say Catholicism was around before Christianity? Am I understanding you correctly?

By the way, Athanasius wrote in Greek, and that the Nicene Creed was written in Greek, and then translated into Latin. Saint Nicholas, also Greek, was there, and supposedly smacked Arius in the face.

Do you know what "Orthodox" literally means?

The buggerers love this stuff. Watch it all dissipate when you try to research their claims. The proof literally disappears before your eyes. Admitting the truth condemns you to eternal punishment and damnation.

How rude >_

Good job believing every single thing your public education told you to believe. You pretend to be smart while parroting a bureaucrat.

Hi

Hello :)

2000+ years of mind boggling horse shite against your 70 odd years of understanding attempts. Walk away from this EVIL. A wolf in sheep's clothing ready to devour your honest and sincere hearts.

We're guided by the Spirit of Truth. Do you think he fell asleep on the job?

All statements that can't be verified or refuted. Even my own thoughts can be called into question and condemned by the slippery logic and claims of their EVIL intentions. so many lulz!

Neither you idiots. Your religion is based on the deceiver, Paul. Try following the son of God, instead. And before you knee-jerk defend Paul, sure 95% of what he says might line up with what you think is okay, but the devil acts as an angel of light and is tricky. Of course, he wouldn't overtly be like, fuck Jesus and the apostles. Anyways, remember, only 12 apostles in Revelations, Jesus only picked 12 on earth. Judas' replacement was not Paul, and Paul wasn't even among the two in the running. Also remember that the church praised in Revelation for not following liars, is the same church that rejected Paul, as written in his Epistles. Look into your hearts and you will find the truth about the usurper, liar, murderer, and deceiver, Saul.

blessyahowah.com/qp/qp.html
jesuswordsonly.com/
false-apostle-paul-archive.blogspot.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=x8PZCA47hS8
youtube.com/watch?v=KC25O5LAKTU

Also interesting to note, Saul in Hebrew, Sha'uwl, is indistinguishable from the word for the grave, or pit, Sheol, She'owl. Remember, no vowels.

Which of Paul's doctrines do you see as conflict with Christ?

No vowels in writing, but there sure where in pronunciation.

Click the links, familia. It's too dense of a topic for a short post, and they are far more eloquent than I am.

But, start with the fact that he was never a legit apostle to begin with, his conversion story has three contradictory versions, and the church who rejected him is later praised in Revelations for rejecting liars. There is much more in the links though.

Exploited by baptism at birth. Indoctrinated daily. Whores for life.

All of these character assassinations of some sort. I'm asking what *doctrines* of his you object to, which is really the core issue here.

youtube.com/watch?v=VNWA8R5aQ9E

Are you a muslim or something?

Surely, you shall not die from eating from the forbidden tree, said Satan.

Surely, the old laws were impossible, unreasonable, and faith alone will save you, you will not die, said Paul.

You also have to understand the difference between the Hebrew Torah, and the later Babylonian traditions of the elders, talmud, and Jewish fables that Jesus hated.

Even the Gospel of Mark says Christ made all foods clean (Mark 7:19, see the gloss right after Christ's speaks)

You're on thin ice

Paul didn't say the old laws were unreasonable. Christ abolished them. Large due to things like pic related

Stuff like this is why God just did away with Mosaic statutes

And this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

Christ's ruler are in fact a lot more demanding, but they also can't be loopholed and fiddled with.

I'm a Christian. I just think the old and new testaments aren't as separate as we have been taught, and that Paul is a load of garbage. Jesus was preaching the true Torah teaching, the stuff of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We aren't a different people. Look at the two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was taken to exile and dispersed. Hint: They are the lost sheep who Jesus specifically came for, who became Christians. This is not an endorsement of Talmudic, traditions of the elders, and Jewish fables, which Jesus came to rebuke.

youtube.com/watch?v=tu3Vdu2ZIsQ

>vs.
I will never understand this.

Isn't believing that Jesus died for your sins the start and end of the Christian faith?

Stop the infighting, please and thank you.

I love how smug and proud you orthodox are with your alleged piety and doctrinal steadfastness.

Almost every catholic considers you guys to be total bros until they actually have some sort of interaction with you,
Because instead of friendship and understanding, the only thing we find is snobbishness and outright hatred.

>7. The Orthodox reject Purgatory.

We do believe in toll houses though.

That is the oral tradition bullshit that I said Jesus hated. Jesus himself never took that insane kind of stance on the laws as evidenced by him "breaking" the sabbath. Nuance, senpai. Jesus said his yolk is light, therefore, the yolk of God is light as well. The convoluted rules and traditions are heavy and lead to death and despair.

Please stick to the script or you cannot be psychologically molested.

Not unless you're a Protestant

We actually are a lot cooler to you than how I generally see Catholics act with Protestants on here

That's a theologoumenon, not a doctrine.

The Torah can't even function without the Oral Tradition.

Jesus didn't hate it, he affirmed it (Matthew 23:2, note this is contrasted with the Sadduccees, whose chief difference with the Pharisees is that they rejected the Oral Law), but he hated the nitpicking and loopholing. "if you make a paste to cure someone's eye on the Sabbath, that's breaking the Law." That sort of thing really peeved him.

pretty much true

most historians of religion would consider christianity to be a religion of paul not of jesus

>The Torah can't even function without the Oral Tradition.

That's where you're wrong. The religion of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Jesus was not the talmudic, oral traditions. Read the links, especially the first book, Questioning Paul, they are far more convincing and intelligent than I am.

Since Paul's writings are the earliest Christian writings, where do historians get their idea of Christ's teachings as contrary to Paul's? Some purer, pre-Paul source?

There are no vowels or wordspaces in ancient Hebrew, there wouldn't even be a denfitive way to read it without the tradition of how to passed on. Imagine writing a massive book, in English shorthand, with no wordspaces or lower case letters.

It's Roman Catholic not Catholic.

You have to understand the Babylonian captivity of the southern tribes, mixing with Edomites and Caananites, to understand the corruption of the old ways with the traditions of the devil, and the usurpation of the religious caste by people who outright hated the real Hebrews.

other writings circa that time and soon thereafter.

the conflict between paul and the other apostles as glossed in acts and elsewhere.

success of paul's churches vs other churches from the other apostles. so, we don't have the textual evidence of what might have been going on.

it just goes on and on.

we don't have any real proof of what jesus may or may not have taught. we have different texts that fit certain literary devices.

matthew is the earliest text we have. 150ish? over a hundred years after jesus died. matthew, mark, and luke are probably based upon an earlier text Q, which we don't have.

Did you read what I said? It would be literally impossible to read the Old Testament without an oral tradition

So basically you just have a massive speculation with only circumstantial evidence, and zero proof?

All four Gospels were written in the first century

The Q text is clearly nonsense, anyone who looks at Mark and Matthew can see they use wildly different syntax and even tense (Mark generally uses present tense, Matthew uses past). The only support for the Q theory is that they cover mostly the same events. And of course if they didn't, then it would be used an excuse to say one or the other was faulty.

Jesus Christ was not a Christian.

Cred Forums falls for this bait EVERY SINGLE TIME! Catholics and Protestants are both Christians but yet you keep fighting with each other.

t. Ahmed

wiki has an okay article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

All four gospels might have been written in the first century. We lack textual evidence from that period. Hard to saw what if anything was changed from when they were first written to when we have actual textual fragments.

The Q text is widely accepted among historians.

The basic point I'm trying to make is that Christianity has little to do with Jesus. He was a founding 'figure' but got himself killed too early to actually form and mold a church and community. That was left to those that used whatever he taught plus whatever myths were going around about him.

That's the only thing we have proof for. Anything else is muh faith.

Sorry if the formatting is messed up. It copied weird.

>Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is valid, so is Christianity. But if it is invalid, the world’s most popular religion is brought down with it.
>This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Paul’s
other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting
the Torah and its Covenant. So, without Galatians, there is no way to justify
Christianity’s violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in stone—as
they would still stand. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is God’s only name, that Yahowah, Himself, is our Savior, and that the Sabbath remains set apart. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianity’s opposition to Yahowah’s seven Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God – as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation, adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with God as His children. >Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be no room for a “New Testament,” a “Gospel of Grace,” or a faith-based religion.

>Without Galatians, Yahowah’s Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankind’s greatest foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation.

My Coptic brother

Giv some Coptic cuties

From what I read in on /r/Catholicism anal sex or anything kinky can be licit as long as you ejaculate in the womans vagina

Shame the Greeks were too lazy to study their Latin

>Without Galatians, the “Gospel of Grace” would be stillborn, invalidated by the promise of the Torah with its entirely different healing and beneficial message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Torah’s everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon God’s Guidance, not Paul’s. Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet with Him as this seven-step path is articulated in the Torah and affirmed by Yahowsha’. Without Galatians, “faith” becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because the God who authored the Torah can be known.

>In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of information and reason.

>Could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the Torah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness through prophecy, have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent and impotent?

>And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of the paradigm Paulos first proposed in his epistle to the Galatians. As a result of this book, Yahowsha’ would be renamed and then recast from someone who could be known into an object of faith – reduced to a caricature that would become exceedingly easy to manipulate. As a result, the Pauline “Jesus Christ” was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and loving, version of the jealous and wrathful God of the old-fashioned Law, a God out of touch with modern sensibilities. The perception of Yahowsha’ as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from God, would be lost in the fog of myth.

You sound cute...wanna have my seed in your pucci for the future of Catholicism?

That sound great , have gay sex with a man , just have a women near and cum in the vagina

the differences you listed are like the differences between an American cockroach and an Australian cockroach

>To be saved, at least according to the Towrah, we must first come to know Yahowah, to understand the terms and conditions of the Covenant, and then act upon them. Its provisions then save us. And while that is simple enough, since we are many chapters removed from knowing for certain if Sha’uwl intended to convey something contrary to this, let’s be patient as we turn over every card in his hand one after another.

>Second, the Christian perspective of God and His plan are backwards and upside down. It is from the end, rather than from the beginning. It is salvation before relationship. But to properly appreciate a set of plans, and the home built by way of those plans, you have to start with a firm foundation, not with the roof. The Torah is the beginning and the foundation, while Revelation is the cupola set upon the roof of His Tabernacle.

>Third, Christians confuse “observing the Torah” with Judaism, as if these things were related. But they are not. Religious Jews manage their lives in accordance with the Talmud, which is based upon their oral traditions. The Talmud, in fact, is written very similarly to Paul’s letters, in that the Talmud is comprised of rabbinic arguments which seek to twist the Torah in order to elevate man’s opinions above God’s. The religion of Judaism, therefore, is in conflict with the Torah which is why it was exposed and condemned by Yahowsha’. Also, rabbis, who have no Scriptural authority or legitimacy, don’t understand that “observing the Torah” doesn’t mean to “do it,” but instead “to closely examine and carefully consider” what it says so that those who are observant comprehend its message.

>The Q text is widely accepted among historians.
That's because it's the only viable alternative to the Gospels just being multiple accounts of actual events. But the massive differences in writing style of the Gospels, make this really unlikely.

Most "catholics" in the US are dumpster tier and have not been to mass since last Christmas. They don't even know why the church opposes gay marriage

matthew, mark, and luke are very similar. get the greek correspondence text that lays all four gospels out side by side. there multiple exact word for word phrases that are used. even unusual greek phrases are repeated verbatim. that is highly unlikely unless the authors drew from the same foundational text. John is the one that stands apart, although, again there are multiple instances of the exact same greek.

learn to textual criticism

>Fourth, the essence of the Torah isn’t a set of laws to be followed, but instead the Towrah is a word picture of Yahowah’s purpose, His teaching and guidance, so that we come to know Him and understand what He is offering. It is a portrait of Yah’s Covenant. And it serves to convey His plan of salvation. The Torah’s every story and example represent facets on a marvelous jewel, providing a perspective from which to observe, enjoy, and benefit from Yahowah’s brilliant Light. The Torah is overwhelmingly metaphorical and symbolic, painting word pictures to help us know Yahowah, understand His plan of reconciliation, and rely on His provision. In this light, it is better to understand the relevance of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and to capitalize upon these gifts, than it is to simply do what is delineated on the right date. understanding leads to trust, trust leads to reliance, and reliance leads to salvation.

>Fifth, the Torah and Yahowsha’ are inseparable. According to Yahowah, the Torah is the Word of God and Yahowsha’ is the Word made flesh—the living embodiment of the Torah. So the very notion that we must choose between the Torah or God’s favor is an attempt to divide the indivisible.

>7th, perhaps the biggest issue of all is reflected in a discussion Yahowsha’ had with His disciples. When they failed to understand that the yeast which was being removed from our souls on Unleavened Bread was none other than religious and political pontifications, teachings, and doctrines, Yahowsha’ said: “How is it that you did not think so as to understand (noeo – use your mind to comprehend) that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread when I said ‘Be alerted to and turn away from (prosecho apo – beware of, guard against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme – leavening fungus) of the Pharisees (the overtly religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded, liberal political leaders)?

For the sake of God, we discussed it like ten times only in past three months. And we always concluded one fucking thing - IT IS ALL A NON-FUCKING-ISSUE. For the love of God, when will you finnally admit, that all of this is created by Orthodoxs only to somewhat justified that they are not in communion with Rome while the sole and only reason is that you were subvertet by civil powers, turks and protestanst. Christo Dominne, why?

How many other books from the new testament do the neocon evangelicals propose removing ?

If only people would fucking stop being religious. If only

Gay sex is always a sin, so nope.

In fact every sex outside marriage is sin, it doesn't even have to be gay sex.

orthadox run by fsb/kgb

fuck off russkie

I support Catholics on the issue of the Filioque controversy, original and inherited sin, and the Satisfaction theory of atonement. I agree with Orthodoxy on the permissability of married clergy, Rome as Primus inter pares, hell, purgatory (albeit not entirely), and others.

Both are wrong by considering extrascriptural doctrine as necessary for salvation, viewing early church writings as equally inspired as scripture, and excessive monasticism, and faith+works.

All dogma is a non-issue to Catholics, except fealty to the Pope. They probably eventually wouldn't even care if you worship Baal, just so long as you call the Pope boss

o look a consequence of cold war marxist subversion.

Die, you heretic. Orthodox Christians may be wrong sometimes, but the filthy protestants should all burn on stakes.

t. Soros

How the hell can you support the Catholic position on the Filioque?

And you're just another retarded protestant. The Magisterium is the most important thing in the Church, Pope is just a feature.

see catechism
see Roman Catholic encyclopedia

>Catholic vs. Orthodox
>VS

jewish tricks !

>Filioque
The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

Well said user.

Literally doesn't matter to Catholics, they will just embrace anything that conflicts as a "fresh perspective." All they care about is whether or not you accept the Pope as your lord. Orthodox only care if you have the same faith and doctrines, Catholics only care if you accept the Pope.

It doesn't matter at all to Catholics. Eastern Catholics reject Purgatory, but that doesn't matter, they accept the Pope as lord, so they're good to go.

>Actually having this discussion instead of just realizing Islam is the one true faith

Whew lad...

You really know absolutely nothing and your 'religion' is not much more than Anti-Catholic raving.

>Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries
That's because the former one didn't exist. Even Saint Augustine, the main backing for the Filioque, said the Spirit proceeds *principally* from the Father, but also from the Son. The earliest record of the Filioque doctrine as Catholics proclaimed is appears in the Athanasian Creed (which was written in Latin, not Greek, hence probably not by Athanasius).

Dainty clean-shaven priests who are at best effeminate queers or gluttonous eunuchs, versus hairy goat-smelling no-apologies masculinity in a cassock. Orthodoxy wins hands down. Even without the present 'Pope'.

Latin Papists are not the early Church

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
•the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
•the so-called Athanasian Creed;
•several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
•the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
•St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
•Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
•the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
•the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
•the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
•the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
•the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
•the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
•Council of Florence, 1439.

Spain is like literally the epicenter of Catholic history.

Also, how many Crusades has the Orthodox done compared to Catholics?

Russkie member of orthadox state religion run by the fsb detected.

So much knowledge about a fantasy book. Bible fandom is my least favourite

Nope.

>since they present Him as sent by the Son.
Right, but that's quite different from saying the *Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit's existence*. The Filioque itself is only a canonical issue, altering the Creed; the way Latins intend for it to be understood is what is heretical.

Neither is history or learning clearly

You smell of reddit

>Le edgy Chilean socialist has arrived

Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
•First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
•Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
•Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Catholic. However, the Vatican and Constantinople alike have abandoned Catholicity by declaring untruths as dogma.
This is the view of many, albeit not all church fathers. But more importantly, it follows from scripture (see Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, 1 Pt 1:11). Jesus is the intermediary of the Holy Ghost as can be seen from John 15:26, and Acts 2:33. Everything that is of the father can only be known through the Son, including the Holy Spirit.

I should also clarify that I prefer the Roman rite and culture to Orthodoxy. But I did wish we retained the Holy kiss described by the apostles, as Orthodoxy does.

None, Orthodox don't have Crusades in the Catholic sense, since the Church was never a political state like the Catholic Church, and therefore never had her own army.

>Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost
You're going to have actually back this up with quotes

You became a protestant mentally because you live in a protestant country.

>If only people would fucking stop being religious. If only

You may as well say "if only people would fucking stop being human. If only".

Only a tiny, tiny, fraction of people are genuinely capable of living without religious belief - which is why the overwhelming majority of self proclaimed 'atheists' really aren't. Most 'atheists' do not simply lack belief in God/s but actively replace this belief with worship of something else - normally a political ideology or cause - and swap organised church involvement for a political movement or community.

History you say? History may be innacurate of course, and that's taken into consideration when studying it. At least I do. This is nothing like history son

>Jesus is the intermediary of the Holy Ghost
That is not what the Filioque means. The Filioque means, in official Catholic explanation, that the Son together with the Father is ONE PRINCIPLE (that is, beginning or origin) of the Holy Spirit. That is, the Son and Father jointly engender the Holy Spirit.

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.

Faggot.. why do not stick to sucking Ahmed cock, because you push ahead 10 points, all false. You have no idea about the subject, and you're better smelling farts at your Comsomol meeting pretending you're in a mosque.

lel. Seriously thou, what's up with believing what the bible says and shit?

•First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
•Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
•Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

>(((Catholic))) vs. (((Orthodox)))

PICK YOUR JEWISH POISON

The split in the roman catholic church between east and west is not history?

Go home you are out of your league of pseudo marxist atheism here.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this you should post on /his/ instead.

...

See, what I dislike about religion the most is that blind idolatry. I totally agree that idolatry doesn't restrict to religion. I dislike all of them very much.

Also I do realize that human being sort of needs something like this but it is frustrating. Everything would be so much better if we could be less mokeyish. But hey, what you gonna do

>what's up with believing what the bible says and shit?

Learning. Education. Inherited wisdom.

All 'the shit' gibbering socialist atheists don't have

Bible is not history. Not at all. That was my point. You can believe in your god as much as you want to. I just wish you didn't, but hey. But quoting the bible as some sort of "fact" is ridiculous.
And let's leave non formal fallacies out of this, k?

You blindly idolize yourself.

>Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix
This, for instance, says
>Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit.
This is absolutely not suggesting that the Father and the Son are a joint principle the Spirit proceeds from.

Learning form the bible is like learning from Harry Potter. Is not even a philosophy book. It's a made up book, written probably hundreds of years after all that shit even happened, made exclusively to make people obey certain rules. Again, believe in god if you will. But this is all so blue pill mate

I'm not going to go through every one

Look you are ignoring that this is in one sense not a mater of the Bible but the dates and events of debates held in history that shaped it.

Just because you are a backwards atheist troll does not mean history gets deleted to suit your degraded culturally Marxist formed atheist brain.

Yes! Precisely. I deeply believe that that's the only one you should idolize: yourself.
Read some Epicuro or Nietszche

>Spain is like literally the epicenter of Catholic history.
Sure, like the absurd bullshit that Ossias of Cordoba spouted about priestly celibacy. Personally, I get on rather well with our two priests in this town, but one is still a porker and the other an effete homosexual in denial (at least publicly!). Married priests would do so much to restore confidence in the priesthood. Without it, they will always remain a bunch of oddballs on the fringes of human society.

>Russkie member of orthadox state religion run by the fsb detected.
Ta me Saisin, a cara mo chroidh. Ach bha mo sheanmhathair as contae Tiobraid Arann.

Kek, you are so fixated with Marxism. You mean the date when Moses parted the red sea? Which dates and facts are you even talking about?
What is precisely your point?

Fuck off to reddit. You are so far out of your depth it is actually embarrassing. Interpretation of the bible shaped massive events in history. Just because you are too primitive to study history and realize that harry potter has very little relevance does not mean you are right to insert your neck beard atheist ravings in an improper context.

OK your a narcissist.

That explains your lack of awareness that you are being a clown and think you have anything to say on the topic at hand. Off you go to reddit.

Could you give me a quote for that, I have never seen any Catholic apologist teach that.

Despite any of my own opinions, here is the opinion of an important theolhian in my church(Anglican), William Sherlock:

>The Son is united and subordinate to the Father, as begotten by Him; the Holy Ghost is united and subordinate to the Father and the Son, as proceeding both from the Father and from the Son. But if the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father, not from the Son, there would be no union and subordination between the Son and the Spirit, and yet the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, as well as of the Father, and that these Three Persons be one God, it is necessary that there should be a union of persons, as well as One Nature. But then the Greek Church confesses, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son. though not from the Son; and by and from are such niceties when we confess we understand not the manner of this Procession of the Holy Spirit, as ought to have made no dispute, much less a schism, between the two Churches. The Greek Church acknowledges the Distinction of Persons, and their Unity and Subordination… which is all the Creed requires as necessary to salvation. (From A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity)

I never honestly understood what was so schismatic about this issue.

Ok, so I see you have no argument at all. Again, name those dates, places. Of course interpretation of the bible shaped history you dummy! Have you ever heard of the inquisition?

My point is precisely that it shouldn't. It's a made up book written to control silly dummies like you. It most certainly shouldn't have a say in humanity's course

I'm a narcissist because I am the center of my own universe? Who else should it be? God?
That's ridiculous! Topest of kekests

You don't even realize the historical forces that shaped your mind.

You thinking is entirely shaped by the export of atheistic cultural maxism during the cold war for decades as a method to subvert and destroy societies. You are the by product, like some rotting slav army surplus from 1970

Only contemporary source for the Massacre of the Latins is William of Tyre. Contemporary Venetian and Genoese sources just say merchants and creditors were expelled, and talk of property damage

I'm not sure what's wrong with monks writing a letter saying ensure Turks don't bother us

The Turks have killed many Patriarchs for disobeying, they were martyrs

The Partirach in Constantinople is very defiant and critical of the Turkish government. Meanwhile, people like John Paul bend over backward to appease Muslims

The monks being persecuted by Peter is a mark against us somehow?

Stalin never had the power to consecrate hierarchs. The USSR replaced the Orthodox Church with the Living Church, but the clergy wouldn't go along with it so they were imprisoned, but Stalin to turn it back over in WWII because he needed to boost morale and the Russians thought the Bolshevik Church was phony.

There is zero evidence the KGB infiltrated the Church. They might have made it as priests, but it would be virtually impossible for them to get to be a lot of bishops, because they are chosen from people who have been in monasteries for decades.

Ok. Come back to me if you have any arguments to offer, I have offered several. And no, saying "marxist propaganda" like a monkey with mental disabilities does not count as such.
Stay with your fallacies and keep on the blue pill!

You are right. The schism should be ended between Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics. In each instance it was driven by secular interests.

The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.

t. member of the Masonic Church run by Propaganda Due

Kek. Le Church was anti-science meme strikes its dumbass head again.

The Church heavily financed the sciences and technologies. The monks created and preserved a ridiculous amount of knowledge.

> anti-progress

By what standard? Communist, liberal progress? No thanks.

As far as real progress goes, they invented modern Western civilization and created huge pieces of artwork, huge empires, and immense wealth. Much better than the modern definition of progress, caring whether fags can poke each other in the ass in public and other dumb shit like that.

Idiot. Whether you are religious or not history exists and these debates and dates are part of it. The material is alien to you as you are some left over of cold war subversion propaganda and an historical and theological illiterate primarily interested in their own ego

>Could you give me a quote for that, I have never seen any Catholic apologist teach that.
"The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration"

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

This specific explanation was officially made dogma at the Second Council of Lyon

I'm Roman Catholic. Note Freemasons *cannot* be members of the Roman Catholic church as joining the freemasons entails automatic excommunication. You must not know this.

Not exactly, but I did suppress my agnosticism to get my dick sucked.

Those repressed Christians are freaks if you can actually get them in bed.

Agree.

>. In each instance it was driven by secular interests.
Like the Donation of Constantine

The Pope, in fact, strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, even after the See of Rome started embracing the theology of the Filioque. There are transcripts (printed in translation in Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy) of Pope Leo III's conversation with the Carolingian envoy from Charlemagne trying to convince him to accept the change. He starts by saying it's okay for them to sing it, but that he wasn't going to officially add it, but by the end he grows so irritated with their persistence that he forbids them even to sing it that way (despite still subscribing to the theology, albeit not in the way the Filioque was to be intended, with the Son and the Father one origin of the Spirit). The Pope said, on justifying his opposition to altering the Creed, "I shall not say that I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." Pope Leo III later went on to have the original Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on two silver tablets in Rome, to ensure it would never be changed. Of course it was, eventually, when Henry II of German pressured Pope Benedict VIII into changing the Creed anyway.

That commie even has the idiocy to talk about how many died. Considering how all Western nations were Christian up until 70 years ago, we made a decent bit of technological progress, wouldn't you think.

As far as people dying, perhaps he should look in a mirror and see how many have died in the name of atheism. For ever man that has died because of Christianity, atheism has a pile.

You must not know about Propaganda Due, a Masonic Lodge the Vatican entrusted her banking to

Well, that is different to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the principle shared by Father and Son, than to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as an independent person. This is not not untrue, and the former is what Orthodoxy believes?

The Orthodox believe the Father and the Father alone is bedrock of the Trinity. That the Son's existence is engendered by the Father alone, and that the Spirit's existence is engendered by the Father alone. But the Spirit always acts from the Father and through the Son. But the Son is not part of the principle of the Spirit, the Spirit's principle is the Father alone. The Father is the source of the Trinity's will and being.

so is the only orthodox way or procreation missionary position with the lights off

Because you are cunts.

For nearly a milenia you went on and on how high and mighty you are. And now you are facing the consequences of your actions and somehow expect those whom you have either betrayed or oppressed to give a flying fuck about you.

I can't believe people actually spend their lives arguing about this sort of babble.

I haz deplorable

It's a pretty big deal, it's a question of whether the Trinity is existentialist. The Trinity is one essence with three existences. From a Catholic perspective, each person is not a distinct "existence", just a "relation" of the essence with himself, each stemming from the essence. From an Orthodox perspective, the Father's existence is the source of the other existences. The Father alone furnishes the will of God, which they all share. Every action of the Trinity is one action, the from (Father), by (Son), and in (Spirit); God performs all three functions of an action, being totally self-sufficient, whereas we can only manage one or two at the very most.

Divine Pucci

I haz dog desires

Pretty much this. The atheist progress is literally BLM, gay marriage and cultural marxism.

Constantine was not around for today's "Orthodox" church.
Back then, being Orthodox meant you were "Catholic" (universal)

>>ad hominem
Opinion discarded.

Orthodox do officially refer to themselves as te Catholic Church. Likewise I'm sure the RCC refers to themselves as orthodox

>Orthodox do officially refer to themselves as te Catholic Church
no

cradle of cucks

Bog i Hrvati!

I think they technically call themselves Holy Catholic and Apostolic in the creed or we

As a mental exercise try to look at this objectively. I bet you can't do it. The psyche has been cucked.

This was bretty good

what are the other tiers?

should i get those books? they actually any good dude?

Heh pretty good job there protestants, I guess we can be friends sometimes.

3. Hell in Orthodoxy is not separation from God. Hell, like heaven, is experiencing the full radiance of God's light and presence, but with a negative relationship so that it is like fire.

This directly contradicts the Bible, Jesus talks about sending the damned out of heaven and away from His presence. The separation of the righteous and unrighteous is a constant theme in the New Testament, the idea that people in heaven are going to be worshiping God next to some poor guy screaming in pain is pretty stupid.

And I've read plenty of accounts from Orthodox laity and monastics who claim to have seen hell, so either you don't know your own religion or you guys are not as united as you want everyone to think.

anyone know a good youtube channel or a blog talking about history of religion in an interesting manner ?
(catholicism prefered)

I do get that the Trinity is absolutely vital, but:

1) what difference does it make to the actual practice of the religion, and
2) how can you possibly determine who is right?

Late to the party,

but catholics are thee worst christians on the planet. I would know I live in a building filled with them. They like to light mary candles and make crosses with their hand when time needs it, but they go and have sex with the entire building for money, whoring themselves out. Also there is the whole thing with the catholic priests and child molester, that stain will never go away. Also the whole romanticism with the catholic church is beyond laughable, believing in skeletons and demons and ghosts, what a joke.

The only thing catholics are good at doing is committing sins and raping children, and having the church protect you. I spit on catholics.

There has not been a rivalry. What keeps the separation is innovations by the RC including even the office of the Papacy. Prior to these, the Bishop of Rome was considered "first among equals" rather than have absolute authority over all which is what a Pope does. Orthodox would love to be reconciled with their Petrine brothers but it cannot happen at the cost of Christian doxology (belief) among the most serious of which was the altering of the Creed with the "filioque" that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Christ independently of God

they both worship a kike on a stick

>10. Infants can and do receive Holy Communion.
Awww yeah! You know it! Been getting crunk on the blood of our Lord and Savior since I was a baby!

Not our fault you papist heathens broke away from the true universal Church Of Christ.
>I think they technically call themselves Holy Catholic and Apostolic in the creed or we
Yes. We are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Plus the Catholic heretics ended up butchering the Creed of our faith by claiming the Holy Spirit emanates from Christ.

Stop tempting me you heretical Spanish harlot!

Do you think that dwarf mage could take on a cave troll?

Very controversial revision of history. Popular in Russia. I had a hard time understanding it at first. It is such a different version of history that it is difficult to contemplate. Makes you think. Not saying it is right or wrong, but definitely worth a close look.

I was raised in both churches. I can tell you there is not much difference besides doing the sign of the cross differently and the fact orthodox priest look way cooler and can have wives unlike catholic priest.

Stop being reatard pls.

Catholicism is the best despite the curent cuck pope, i hope the next Pope will call a crusade.

I can tell you if you don't see much of a difference, you weren't raised in either and are not a practicing Christian. Orthodox and RC cannot currently worship together or take each other's sacraments