Would the Actus Purus vs. essence-energies conceptions of the Catholics vs. Orthodox, need to be reconciled in order for the Church to be unified? Or does the Catholic Church okay essence-energies now in Eastern Rite?
I'm no Catholic, but essence-energies sound heterodox as fuck, like schismatic-tier for real dawg.
>>1179996
Why? It's Patristic. It simply means God as transcendent vs. God as immanent.
>>1179806
Church needs to be unified in Spirit not in formal manners - that's the Catholic approach.
Dogmatic wise Orthodoxy will never change - even the canons are somewhat fixed but really flexible in the same time.
>>1180119
Doesn't there have to be an agreement on dogma for spiritual unification?
>>1179806
please don't post these images on /his/, my inner /pol/ is tingling and i don't want to shit up this place
>>1182011
Yes you idiot, that's why it's never going to be unified.
>>1182054
Why the hell would the Catholic Church bend it's will to faggots who fucking split from the Church because they got offended that the Pope (who is the first among equals) tried to prove that he's the first among equals. Who died in Rome?
>>1180119
>Dogmatic wise Orthodoxy will never change
So why are contraception and divorce accepted in the Orthodox Church? I am not aware of Church fathers being ok with any of that
>>1182060
The Pope was never "first among equals". It is an expression that first appears in the Orthodox Church centuries after the schism. It was never used by them before, and was never either used nor accepted by the Catholic Church. It is a lie they use to deceive others.
In real life the Pope held the titles "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ, late 300's), "Servus Sevorum Dei" (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400's), and "Head of the Church" (late 400's), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II).
>>1182075
So why should the Catholic Church bend dogma to appease the Orthodox church?
>>1182080
They'll figure out a deal sooner or later.. That is if the Orthodox don't go full Shillantine and refuse to cooperate as usual.
In the past a deal was actually reached, but when the Orthodox patriarchs went back home, the people there revolted and refused to accept the deal, forcing them to change their minds. It is all about politics, not so much about theology, no matter how much the orthodox shills here try to advertise themselves as "pure" and "unchanging".
The Catholic Church does not change dogma to appease others, the Catholic Church simply retains the dogma as it is defined with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that protects the Magisterium.
There are plenty of Eastern Churches that are part of the Catholic Church.
I am confident though that the matter will be resolved with patience and with the help of God.
>>1179806
Didn't I just see the pope giving an imam a hand job?
>>1182060
>Pope (who is the first among equals)
Joseph Stalin? Is that you?
>>1182097
>It is all about politics, not so much about theology, no matter how much the orthodox shills here try to advertise themselves as "pure" and "unchanging".
So why do the shills support lying to the people? Why do they support a liars Church? At least the Catholic Church is open with doing the politic game.
>>1182097
>The Catholic Church does not change dogma to appease others, the Catholic Church simply retains the dogma as it is defined with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that protects the Magisterium.
What an absolute load of horseshit.
>>1182063
Christ never passed on any doctrine about birth control, thus it is impossible for their to be a dogma about it. Dogma is and only ever can be what Christ passed on directly to the Apostles. There is a distinction between contraception and "birth control". The Church does not allow "birth control" (a modern euphemism for abortifacient), which has always been prohibited; the Church also don't allow any device or medication aimed to stop conception, but which could lead to "birth control". Contraception is distinguished from "birth control" in that contraception is exclusively about conception, and has no possibility of interfering with what develops afterward in the event that it fails. The Church, in some cases, does allow the use of condoms in marriage, because they are simply a advanced form of coitus interruptus. Did some Church Fathers condemn coitus interruptus? Virtually none (those quoted by Roman Catholics are generally out of context and talking about abortifacients, lewd practices, or childless marriages), and those validly referenced would also condemn the Roman Catholic practice of "natural family planning": Clement of Alexandria, for instance, explicitly condemned intercourse in particular times with the intent to minimize chance of conception, an "outrage to nature", in the very paragraph he condemns "wasting seed", the latter so commonly cited by Roman Catholics;
cont
>>1182118
Saint Augustine (who was a Nestorain, btw the way, "Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had." [Tractate 8 on the Gospel of John] unlike Saint John Chrysostom, who calls Mary the Mother of God) said intercourse is for procreation, that is its teleos, and any intercourse not toward this teleos is disordered; if that is the teleos of all intercourse, that would rule out natural family planning; to those fathers who were against coitus interruptus (only those two), natural family planning would be likewise repugnant, because it aims to frustrate the teleos of sex, it's not just about being "open" to procreation, it's about actively seeking it; but let's contrast this view with what Saint John Chrysostom says: "If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want." [Quoted from On Marriage and Family Life, a collection of homilies by Saint John Chrysostom]
cont
>>1182121
But how can we affirmatively settle the matter as to whether the Church treated it as a sin? Very simple, we look at the penance manuals for confession for the first thousand years. Only one of them, Poenitentiale Hubertense, lists coitus interruptus as a sin, and we know that is due to a misunderstanding of biology--how do we know? Because it gives the penance time as *ten years*, which is what every manual gives for abortion; compare that to the ten to twenty days typically given for masturbation, or the three years generally prescribed for sodomy. The Orthodox Church expresses the same moral stance as it always has: "The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin. At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: 'Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency' (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances.
cont
>It's a Constantine shills Orthodoxy episode
Where's the tripfag that posts the lamb and shit?
>>1182122
In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family." https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/ Sex is, optimally, a total giving of the self, and should be open to the possibility of procreation, but where more children could greater hamper the lives and future of your present children, then having sex with the possibility of procreation is not an act of giving, it is an act of selfishness, and to practice abstinence for purely economic concerns rather than as a spiritual discipline, is unwise, as Paul cautions, and Christ outright says that not all can be celibate, only those to whom it has been given (Matthew 19:11). Forcing permanent celibacy on couples who can't, in good conscience, have more children, is very harmful. Saint Paul says if you can't control yourself, get married, and the Catholic Church says those who are married need to control themselves.
FINIS
>>1182063
Now, to address divorce
Valid grounds for annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church include, but are not limited to:
*you married for social status but the person did not have the status you expected
*you didn't know marriage was a "permanent relationship"
*you married intending to have the option of divorce open
*you did not know marriage was an "exclusive relationship"
http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm
These are not good reasons for annulment, if you tried to use these reasons to have your marriage annulled in the Orthodox Church, they would be absolutely rejected (and they certainly would not be accepted as valid grounds for divorce). Annulment properly means that the marriage was always invalid (an example, bigamy), but the Catholic Church just uses annulment as a way to sanction divorce, while calling it "annulment". Compare the Catholic grounds for annulment to the Orthodox grounds for divorce Orthodox Church: http://saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce It is in fact much, much more difficult to get a divorce for the Orthodox (and not only do you have to have your local bishop actually issue the ecclesiastical divorce after a hearing, you also need him to issue permission to remarry) than it is for Catholics to get an annulment,
cont
>>1182129
and getting an annulment in the Orthodox Church is not really even possible, since Orthodox Matrimony is not juridical, it's ontological (it's not something that is one and done, there are no vows, it is something continually existing, and if ceases to continue de facto, then it ceases ontologically, just like if you commit apostasy, then you cease to be Christ's Bride; if your marriage has been terminated for a minimum of one year, then you can apply to the Church for formal recognition of its de facto determination, but this is not the Church dissolving your marriage, it is simply the Church recognizing the fact that your marriage has ceased; but if your marriage ends in the Orthodox Church, it is still often something you must do penance for (depending on your bishop: some bishops only require penance for divorcees who remarry), the Church strongly discourages even widowers and widows from remarrying, let alone divorcees. There are numerous Catholic spouses out there who could successfully file for annulment if so inclined, and that would mean that none of their marriages are valid, they are all living in fornication.
cont
>>1182131
Does this really make sense? Some Roman Catholics even mistakenly think that the difference between divorce and annulment is just "one is legal, one is spiritual"--this wrong according to Catholic Church history and theology, which sees spirituality as very legalistic. The fact is that the Catholic Church completely banned divorce (termination of a "valid" marriage), with annulment (recognition that a marriage as never "valid") still being permissible. But when the Church got more liberal over the ages, she broadened the conditions for annulment (which used to require approval of the Pope himself) to the point that they were far wider than annulment in civil law, you can get an annulment in the Catholic Church through pretenses that would be utterly rejected in any civil court, which is why the overwhelming number of Catholics who get annulment through their Church, can only qualify for divorce legally. The difference between an annulment and divorce is that the former means there never was a marriage and any consummation was fornication, the latter means there was a marriage but it was dissolved--both can be either civil or ecclesiastical.
FINIS
>>1182125
Hard to have any respect for a "christian" who cannot even apprehend the trinity, much less attempt to comprehend it.
>Mary is the Mother of God, which makes her God.
>>1182133
You were FINIS before you started.
>>1182134
>Hard to have any respect for a "christian" who cannot even apprehend the trinity, much less attempt to comprehend it.
It just works.
>Mary
>God
>>1182075
We support Papal Primacy perhaps, but that is very distinct from Papal Supremacy, and it is not dogma, it is the position of primus inter pares which the See of Rome is entitled to, under the condition she is in the Orthodox Church--she obviously isn't entitled to it in the event that she leads a schism away from the true Church, in which case the position of primus inter pares passed to Constantinople, but that is not dogma either (see A8 of this FAQ). Now to address why the Catholic theology of Papal Supremacy isn't just heretical it borders on blasphemy, take a look at this: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386119&language=en Do you think Saint Peter would have accepted this?
cont
>>1182140
It just is.
>>1182141
How do you think he would feel if someone said he should declare himself Ceasar of the world and Christ's official and only successor? This idea has zero precedence in the early Church--many of the Church Fathers are taken out of context to support Papal Supremacy, when the Church Fathers did not support Papal Supremacy at all. Let me give you an example from Saint Jerome, as quoted by a Catholic Site (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy): '"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).' Now take a look at the quote in context: first of all, Saint Jerome is responding to Jovian, who says chastity is of no importance, and Jovian argued that if chastity were important, then Saint John, who was a virgin, would have been made the rock, not Peter, who was not a virgin. Saint Jerome is not presenting his own opinion about Peter being the rock, he is actually responding to Jovian voicing that opinion (indeed, if we look as Saint Jerome's commentary on Matthew, he says, on Matthew 16:18, that Christ is referring to HIMSELF when he says "on this rock", see Ephesians 2:20). Now let's remove the ellipsis and see the full quote: "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.
cont
>>1182141
Who gives a flying fuck what you support?
>>1182143
But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We may be sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm) Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it? Here is a more exhaustive coverage of examples such as this: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html Isn't it clear enough there is something wrong with calling the Pope "Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church", when the term "Supreme Pontiff" (High Priest), in the Christian sense, refers exclusively to Christ? Pontiffs aren't even a clerical office in Christianity, presbyters (word is the same in Latin) are. The title "pontiff" is only applied to Christians in the Vulgate when it is talking about Christ, or the universal priesthood of believers.
>>1182080
They've done it to appease modernists, so why not?
>>1182148
>Dogma change
>modernist
Don't kid yourself.
>>1182143
In AD 251, St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage wrote:“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, andone Chairfounded on the Rock [Peter] by the voice of the Lord [et cathedra una super Petrum Domini uoce fundata]. It is not possible to set up another altar or another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.” (Epistle 39 (43))About that same year St. Cyprian wrote:“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He foundeda single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter whereby it is made clear that there is butone Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to thisunity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desertthe chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
>>1182185
Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to St. Cyprian in AD 256 regarding Pope Stephen, saying the following:[H]e who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces thathe holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. … For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace. (Epistle 74)3
>>1182190
St. Athanasius, the famous defender of Nicene orthodoxy, wrote the following around AD 358:Thus from the first they [i.e. the Arians] spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was anApostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania ; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to show their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it, these
impious men reasoned thus with themselves: ‘If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.’
St. Optatus of Milevisu, bishop of Milevis in Africa, in a work begun in AD 367 writes:"...To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and these keys the gates of Hell shall not overcome.How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against theChair of Peter? … For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity; and it has been shown that, through theChair of Peterwhich is ours through it the other Endowments also belong to us. … Will you be able to prove thatthe Chair of Peteris a lie and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion?"
>>1182193
Pope St. Damasus, in the year AD 382, wrote the following:The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: Your are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven. … The most blessed Apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the City of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero — not at a different time, as the heretics prattle, but at one and the same time and on one and the same day: and they equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. Thefirst see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) Writing to Pope Leo III: "Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)
>>1182198
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) - "How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) - "The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
>>1182200
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) - "I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).
"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)
Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649) Writing to Pope Theodore:
"O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed." (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)
>>1182185
>>1182190
>>1182193
>>1182198
>>1182200
>>1182204
Many of those quotes are addressed here: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
The picture in this post
>>1182204
Is really ridiculous. The RCC does the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Membership
The Catholic Church has 24 different churches in its communion, of which Latin is but one
>>1182226
Latin is the only one that actually matters. It's like the 50 states and the US territories.
>>1182226
>Many of those quotes are addressed here
I am sure I can find protestant damage control for those quotes too, that does not prove them wrong ;)
>The RCC does the same thing
all those churches are under one authority which is the Catholic Church. There are many administrative regions in one country, but there is a central authority that above them.
Come home schismatic man
>>1182234
>Latin is the only one that matters
Wasn't the rite used by the early Christians, so I don't think so
>>1182244
It shows the quotes in context and what is actually being talked about. Like with Saint Jerome, you intentionally rip quotes out of context
Your Church is modernist feel-good crypto-Protestantism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o
>>1182266
>Wasn't the rite used by the early Christians, so I don't think so
We aren't talking about rites, were talking about in fucking comparison, the Latin Church is the only one that matters, the big one, the massive fucker that most people go to.
>>1182234
I'll add that this sort of attitude is a major reason why union is repugnant to us
>Novus Ordo is all that matters
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo
>>1182266
>you intentionally rip quotes out of context
whatever makes you sleep at night, schismatic ;)
>>1182277
Well we aren't interested in being a part of your Latin Church that sees all churches in communion with her as not mattering, why should be want to be in union with such arrogance and disregard?
>>1182287
But you do. You take quotes that explictly apply to all bishops, and then present them as if they're just talking about Rome. ALL Apostles were given the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18, ALL of them had those keys. Peter had primacy, but not supremacy, certainly he would have rejected the title of high pontiff (pontiff being the priesthood all believers have, and the high pontiff being a title for CHRIST). These quotes talk about the power of bishops, not just Rome. You need to read some Saint Ignatius of Antioch if you want to see what bishops were in the early Church
>>1182300
>Fine, why should we support people who sided with snakes instead of helping the Christian folks retake the holy land.
You weren't interested in restoring the Holy Land to us, you wanted to place your authority over it. We didn't side against you, we requested your help, but don't make it like you were just being altruistic.
>>1182320
>You weren't interested in restoring the Holy Land to us
Why should the Catholic boys who fought against the heretics, shed blood for Christ for fuck sakes, give back land to people who lost it?
>We didn't side against you
The Third Crusade would like to have a word with you.
>but don't make it like you were just being altruistic.
We were, the west was trying to clean a fucking mess that the east spilled.
>>1182313
The structure is the same as the one in the OT, anon, which makes the "high pontiff" make perfect sense. You speak like a protestant, exactly like them. If you accept that the structure is the same as the Kingdom in Israel, that Mary is the queen next to her Son who is the King, etc. then you have to accept Peter as the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel descrived in Isaiah 22.
It is useless to try and convince you though. You have itchy ears about all of this, and always will.
>>1182330
We're not interested in supporting someone who wants to convert Christians to heresy by force
>>1182348
>>1182348
>The structure is the same as the one in the OT
No, it's not. There are no more pontiffs, except in the sense everyone is a pontiff. There are presbyters and bishops (originally the same office), but that is not the same thing.
The "High Priest" of the Church, is Christ. The Pope doesn't hold that office, Christ does
Peter is a vicar of Christ as all bishops are.
>>1182365
>We're not interested in supporting someone who wants to convert Christians to heresy by force
But you're interested in dealing with snakes who do nothing but shit on Christ?
>>1182365
>There are no more pontiffs, except in the sense everyone is a pontiff.
>there are no more priest, except in the sense everyone is a priest
>The "High Priest" of the Church, is Christ. The Pope doesn't hold that office, Christ does
>The Church is Christ. The Church does not hold that office, Christ does
LITERALLY - A - PROTESTANT
LITERALLY - A - PROTESTANT
LITERALLY - A - PROTESTANT
>>1182378
Better to deal open enemy of Christianity, as opposed to someone who wants to spread false teachings from within. There is a reason even you dealt much more harshly with heretics than heathens
>>1182397
"Priest" as a translation of "presbyter" (literally "elder"), yes, there is a clerical office for that. "Priest" as a translation of "pontiff", no, no there isn't, except as the office of all believers, and the "high priest" as the office of Christ himself.
>>1182420
>Better to deal open enemy of Christianity, as opposed to someone who wants to spread false teachings from within
So you spit on the brothers of Christ who willingly spill blood for the goddamn Holy Land and all you can say is that you want to support Islam?
>>1182420
the structure of ancient Israel is clear. It does not stop existing because you say "now it is different". The structure of the Church in the OT is a foreshadowing of how it is now. You are just as blind as protties on this, sorry shillantine
>>1182441
Yeah.
Jesus is King.
>>1182473
shut up prottie, nobody invited heretics into the conversation
>>1182473
>double spacing whore worshiper
>>1182441
No...its not the same structure. Under the old structure only those who had the right descent were pontiffs, under the new structure, all Christians are pontiffs. This is made very clear that the priesthood is universal in the new testament. Now if you want to use "priest" as an Anglicanization of the Greek word for "elder", as the man who leads the house in prayer, that's something else, but as pontiff, as the office of the priests of Israel, that is not appropriate to have that as an office distinct from all believers, and the office of high priest is immutably Christ's.
>>1182680
>under the new structure, all Christians are pontiffs
Hello Luther.
>>1182054
>Dogma
>Change
"No"
>>1182700
That's simply Scriptural. Presbyters and bishops are distint offices in the Church (originally the same office), but all are pontiffs. Even the RCC assents to the universal priesthood: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-priesthood-is-both-ministerial-and-universal'
Your confusion stems from thinking"presbyter"and "pontiff" are interchangeable offices because they are both generally translated as "priest", but they are distinct terms. The English word "priest" is an Anglicanization of the word "presbyter" which is Greek for "elder", but it is also used generally to translate pontiff; yet these two words translated as one, are not the same, anymore than Sheol (Hades) or Gehenna are the same because they are both translated as "hell"
>>1182760
*distinct offices
>>1182732
"Understanding" changes though, which can be used to justify the same thing
>>1182063
Wat?
Anyway the issues you mentioned are discussed and decided by canons in the spirit of era.
>>1182204
Isn't Pope busy talking about aliens and shit, or bailing out pedophile monks?
Guess there's no time left for church.
Reminder for the new friends
>>1182985
Thank you Bennytoe.
>>1182985
you fucking FASCIST
>>1183071
>bullying second best Fascist
Let's be honest, palamanism is almost nothing.
This thread has shown what the elephant in the room is.
>>1182330
>Why should the Catholic boys who fought against the heretics, shed blood for Christ for fuck sakes, give back land to people who lost it?
Because that was the oath those guys made to Alexios.
>>1183122
>This thread has shown what the elephant in the room is.
yeah? which is it?
>>1183150
How much primacy the protos has.
>>1183122
They didn't make an oath.
>>1183240
They did. That was the guarantee they made in exchange for supplies.
>>1183274
There were no supplies. They gave nothing.
>>1183274
And just in case Bohemund being a sly bastard makes you think it doesn't count, he took another oath after the crusade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
>>1182477
Jesus is still King. Even without your approval.
Go figure.
>>1182482
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, no. I would have thought that quite obvious.
>>1183309
I know he is King. That wasn't the point of the discussion. You are an illiterate heretic so you wouldn't understand.
>>1182760
>Nicoliatans are scriptural.
kek
Yeah, as in "Jesus hates the ways and beliefs of the Nicolaitans".
>>1183311
But you are the whore anon.
>>1183315
The structure of early Israel is that Jesus is King.
Go ahead and deny that.
>>1183317
>And then John had a cup full of body fluids;
>>1183317
I am not the Roman Catholic Church, no. I feel you are very, very, very lost.
>>1183323
Never denied that. Jesus is King. Stop replying to me, you don't understand anything we were discussing and are just talking out of your ass
>>1183326
>I am not the Roman Catholic Church
We aren't talking about the Catholic Church you idiot, I'm talking about YOU. You are the whore of babylon here on 4chan.
>>1183331
>the structure of ancient Israel is clear. It does not stop existing because you say "now it is different". The structure of the Church in the OT is a foreshadowing of how it is now. You are just as blind as protties on this, sorry shillantine
Do I need to remind you of your words, so that you can eat them?
And I'll reiterate.
The structure of early Israel was Jesus is King.
>>1183337
The Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon everywhere, Anon. Not just here. Although she has a strong presence of mind controlled stooges here, it's true.
>>1183350
>the autist doesn't realize that he's the whore of babylon trying to ruin the world
>>1183343
No offence, but I think you are literally retarded
>>1183357
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church, aka the Whore of Babylon, has always been ruining the world.
It's okay.
Vengeance belongs to Jesus; He will repay her and everyone in her.
>>1183365
By attempting to make the same point three times to a fool? Perhaps.
>>1183366
Do you have down syndrome?
>>1183375
I do not, thankfully.
Is there something you would actually like to add to the thread, instead of just a bunch of shit posting?
>>1183381
Wow, you just don't know anything.
The bridegroom is Christ.
The bride is all Christians of all times, and scant few Catholics of any time.
Get a clue, then come back at me.
>>1183382
>Is there something you would actually like to add to the thread, instead of just a bunch of shit posting?
The same could be said to you, you shitposting harlot.
>>1183388
>The bride is all Christians of all times, and scant few Catholics of any time.
Whatever makes you sleep at night, anon
>christfags are actually the most advanced 4chan users
>>1183419
Advanced how?
>>1183419
except the protestants
>>1183423
There is literally no other topic that can get this number of people to give this number of informative, even if extremely vitriolic, posts.
>>1183444
>There is literally no other topic that can get this number of people to give this number of informative, even if extremely vitriolic, posts.
It's all about defending God and the Church for which spreads his word Amen.
Fuck protestants, literal retards who masturbate to heresies.
