https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnCO0OlhlE
FAQ
Q: How does the Orthodox Church differ from the Catholic Church
A: There are numerous distinctions in dictum, but really the central difference is worldview. The Catholic Church sees things in juridical terms, and contrasts reason and concupiscence. The Orthodox Church does not see sin as a tab that Christ picked up, and doesn't define sin as a lapse in reason, since reason can be used for the purposes of sinning. That doesn't mean we can't worship God with reason, we should worship him with every fiber of ourselves, body, spirit, soul...our reason is a part of that.
To highlight some important issues, though, the Orthodox Church considers the Catholic Church to have violated the Sixth Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, as well as the Second Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council.
cont
>>280347
Q: Why is the filioque so important?
A: There are a lot of reasons, but I'll start with one of the less mentioned ones: many Orthodox theologians believe humans are three parts: body, soul, and spirit (angels have soul and spirit, animals have body and soul, but only humans have all three). In a way, we are made in God's image thus: the soul in the Image of God the Father, the body in the Image of God the Son (but the Son also had a human soul and spirit), and the Spirit in the image of the Holy Spirit; to say the Spirit proceeds from the body would be warping things.
Q: How does the Orthodox Church understand Original Sin?
A: Original sin is a sin committed by Satan in heaven and by man on earth (that's why there must be both a "new heaven and a new earth". We don't believe it is transmitted by conception, every living thing suffers due to it, including cloned animals.
Q: If God has unlimited love, why does he let anyone go to hell?
A: Love has to be voluntary. Hell is a state of not loving God, it is not a place. Those who hate God are in hell in a Church, whereas those who love him are in heaven. Due to this, the idea of apocatastasis (known in the West as "universal reconciliation"), is not considered heretical in the Orthodox Church (though it's not a doctrine either)--it was Dostoevsky's position, in fact.
Q: Does the Orthodox Church think killing is every justified?
A: No. It is "justified" in the theological sense, by Christ cleansing us (that doesn't mean paying off our tab, it means washing away the ontological separation). But killing is always a sin, hence the Orthodox Church doesn't have a "just war theory". War can be understandable at times, certainly, but killing is still a sin, full stop.
cont
>>280352
Q: You say icons aren't idols, but I'm unconvinced.
A: Icons are liturgical art. They were a thing before Christianity, even Jews used them. The ancient synagogue at Dura-Europos was covered in them before ISIS destroyed it.
Q: But you PRAY to saints.
A: That's true, but how is asking people in heaven for help or to pray for you anymore heretical than asking them on earth? If we say it is heretical, then it is saying those in Christ do not have everlasting life. We reserve latria, however, for God.
Q: What is the essence-energies distinction?
A: A helpful analogy is the Catholic distinction between God's reason and God's will.
Q: Does the Orthodox Church proselytize?
A: No. We define proselytizing as actively trying to convert someone by being pushy or putting down their faith. We do, however, evangelize and encourage it, which is testifying Christ through word and deed (the latter part being of primary importance, (because without it the former is empty).
The Way of the Pilgrim, Desert Fathers, the Philokalia, and other Orthodox texts
http://desertfathers.webs
DOT
com/thewayofthepilgrim.htm
>>280371
The Orthodox Church, by Bishop Kallistos
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_INDEX.HTM
Notes from Underground, by Fyodor Dostoevsky
http://serious.freeonsciencelibraryguide.com/view.php?id=1401423
>mfw Constantinople stripped Alexandria of it's honor because of the Emperor and got away with it
the Apostle's weep when you call yourself Orthodox
>>280347
What is the distinction between soul and spirit? How do these interact with the body?
Do angels have free will?
>But killing is always a sin
But isnt death a punishment used throughout the Old Testament?
>>280845
The Catholic Church actually affirms that Constantinople is the second place of honor, they did shortly after taking it.
See the commentary on page 436: http://www.orthodoxchurchbritishisles.com/page12.html
>>280960
The spirit is a spiritual body.
Angels have free will, yes.
>But isnt death a punishment used throughout the Old Testament?
And it is a sin there too. Notice that God doesn't allow David to build his temple because David is polluted by blood, even though the wars were in God's name. He prefers Solomon to build it, even though Solomon is an idolater who worships false gods.
>>280347
The orthodox don't touch kids like the catholics. Touching the kids.
>>281078
>The spirit is a spiritual body.
Can you expand on all of this because I dont understand how that answers the question.
>Angels have free will, yes.
How do we come to such a conclusion? The reason why I ask is that this is a serious issue for me as I see it directly linked to God being all loving. I mean why didnt he create us as angels instead of material beings cursed to suffer the pain and corruption that is an intrinsic part of the material world
>>281143
>Can you expand on all of this because I dont understand how that answers the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous
>How do we come to such a conclusion?
Satan rebelled against God
>>281179
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous
But thats descriptive rather than analytical and from that page it makes it seem like Catholicism is the only group who can justify it through their development of Aristotle. It really just states what the Orthodox believe rather than why
>Satan rebelled against God
Ok, so what impact does this have on the second part of my issue there.
>>281211
>But thats descriptive rather than analytical and from that page it makes it seem like Catholicism is the only group who can justify it through their development of Aristotle. It really just states what the Orthodox believe rather than why
The spirit, in Orthodox, is higher sentience, essentially.
>Ok, so what impact does this have on the second part of my issue there.
It's impossible to love without free will, and that is why we have it. But your question is a good one, and I recommend you read The Grand Inquisitor.
>>281230
>The spirit, in Orthodox, is higher sentience, essentially.
What is meant by higher sentience and how can this interact with the body?
>It's impossible to love without free will, and that is why we have it. But your question is a good one, and I recommend you read The Grand Inquisitor.
The issue was not free will as much as
" why didnt he create us as angels instead of material beings cursed to suffer the pain and corruption that is an intrinsic part of the material world"
>>281143
>pain and corruption that is an intrinsic part of the material world
Oh, and the Orthodox don't believe this. They think the material world is not inherently bad or evil, we just polluted it with sin (as Satan polluted heaven), and that lead to our current condition. Material reality is crusted with sin, but that crust will be abolished.
>>281246
>What is meant by higher sentience and how can this interact with the body?
It means ability to pray, for instance.
>" why didnt he create us as angels instead of material beings cursed to suffer the pain and corruption that is an intrinsic part of the material world"
Pain is not intrinsic, we chose it as an alternative to love. But love would be impossible without the ability to chose not to love.
>>281251
>Oh, and the Orthodox don't believe this. They think the material world is not inherently bad or evil, we just polluted it with sin (as Satan polluted heaven), and that lead to our current condition. Material reality is crusted with sin, but that crust will be abolished.
Does suffering like pic related or all the other horrific diseases and parasites exist for angels? Are the corrupting influences of economic production and survival present for them to?
>>281263
>It means ability to pray, for instance.
Once again you arent providing any analyses, just a conclusion that begs the question by assuming that such an interaction is already possible/understood.
>Pain is not intrinsic, we chose it as an alternative to love. But love would be impossible without the ability to chose not to love.
Is the harelquin baby in my previous post chosing this pain rather than love?
>>281285
>look it up
>it's real
oh fuck god why
>>281285
>Does suffering like pic related or all the other horrific diseases and parasites exist for angels? Are the corrupting influences of economic production and survival present for them to?
No, because that is bodily suffering. But they can and probably do suffer psychologically, albeit in a different way (because none of the ones there fell for the snake). We will get to go to their heaven, if saved, when we die, though that is only a foretaste of the heaven God will usher in later.
>>281311
>Once again you arent providing any analyses, just a conclusion that begs the question by assuming that such an interaction is already possible/understood.
It's not. Actually, inability to full comprehend it is part of its nature.
>Is the harelquin baby in my previous post chosing this pain rather than love?
No, but the fall caused all the suffering, it encrusted everything with sin. That's why even animals suffer.
>>281285
Imagine living in a time where something like this wasn't a known genetic illness.
I'd believe in demons too.
>>281351
>No, because that is bodily suffering. But they can and probably do suffer psychologically, albeit in a different way (because none of the ones there fell for the snake). We will get to go to their heaven, if saved, when we die, though that is only a foretaste of the heaven God will usher in later.
Why create beings that suffer bodily at all, why not make us all angels instead? Do you think it is dishonest to say that pain is purely a choice when you actually meant that only spiritual pain is?
>It's not. Actually, inability to full comprehend it is part of its nature.
It is though when I asked you how they interact you said we know they interact because that is how prayer works. Which given your definition of prayer seems to already include mind spirit interaction as an assumption.
>No, but the fall caused all the suffering, it encrusted everything with sin. That's why even animals suffer.
Spritial or bodily?
>>281354
Genetics is a hell of a ride
>>281354
>>281481
>>281078
>they did shortly after taking it.
taking what?
Constantinople's place of honor wasnt affirmed by the West until much later, just like the Council of Constantinople' being "ecumenical". It was a regional council first.
Pope Damasus
"Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, 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 world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)
>>281465
>Why create beings that suffer bodily at all, why not make us all angels instead? Do you think it is dishonest to say that pain is purely a choice when you actually meant that only spiritual pain is?
No, I don't mean pain for humans in general is a choice, I mean that pain was chosen, both in heaven and on earth, and that polluted the places. I don't mean that people only experience pain as a choice. Spiritual pain isn't anymore of a choice than physical pain is, when we see other suffer it causes us spiritual pain.
>It is though when I asked you how they interact you said we know they interact because that is how prayer works. Which given your definition of prayer seems to already include mind spirit interaction as an assumption.
Prayer in Orthodoxy includes praying with your body. We don't pray lying down or sitting, it's standing or kneeling, and breathing is an important part of prayer. Public worship ceremonies make us of all five senses (the sign of the cross is made over and over for tactile purposes).
>Spritial or bodily?
Both. Our spiritual nature is all fugged up by our physical problems, and there is reason to believe there is a spiritual crusting angels have to deal with as well, since God has to create a new heaven as well as a new earth.
>>281489
Right, and if the Bishop of Rome never affirmed never affirmed the Third Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, then I'd have doubts about my validity myself. But the fact is, the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity today.
As for *Alexandria* being the Second See, it's obviously not, because even the Catholic Church says it isn't. The Pope is clearly wrong here (which he can be even in Catholic Doctrine, as the Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals).
>>281500
>No, I don't mean pain for humans in general is a choice, I mean that pain was chosen, both in heaven and on earth, and that polluted the places. I don't mean that people only experience pain as a choice. Spiritual pain isn't anymore of a choice than physical pain is, when we see other suffer it causes us spiritual pain.
That seems kind of cruel when the option of creating us as angels was present.
>Prayer in Orthodoxy includes praying with your body. We don't pray lying down or sitting, it's standing or kneeling, and breathing is an important part of prayer. Public worship ceremonies make us of all five senses (the sign of the cross is made over and over for tactile purposes).
This literally has nothing to do with explaining how the immaterial spiritual can interact with the material body.
>Both. Our spiritual nature is all fugged up by our physical problems, and there is reason to believe there is a spiritual crusting angels have to deal with as well, since God has to create a new heaven as well as a new earth.
But it seems that angels only have one crusting whilst humans have two. Why create such a being?
>>281078
>The spirit is a spiritual body
Can someone explain what a spiritual body is? "Spiritual body" seems like a contradiction to me, unless I'm misunderstanding your terms.
Q: How does the Orthodox Church differ from the Catholic Church
a. it doesn't -- they're both the work of satan
>>281526
It's roughly equivalent to the intellect in Catholicism. Catholicism thinks the intellect and the soul are the same thing, though, which the Orthodox Church doesn't, since we think all living creatures have immortal souls.
>>281518
>But the fact is, the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity today.
they eventually acknowledged it, sure, but just to appease the Greek's autism
>As for *Alexandria* being the Second See, it is obviously not
it was declared as such at Nicaea, until the Byzantines usurped it because of "muh new rome"
>>281560
>they eventually acknowledged it, sure, but just to appease the Greek's autism
They acknowledged it because they set up a Latin bishop in Constantinople, actually.
>it was declared as such at Nicaea,
This is entirely wrong.
>>281553
What do you mean by "body," then? When Catholics say "body" they mean something that is physical, and the intellect is certainly not physical
And Catholicism thinks that the intellect is a power of the human soul, but not that the intellect and the soul are the same thing. The intellect is unique to the human soul, though, which is why animals can have souls without having intellect.
I'm interested in where the idea that even animals have immortal souls comes from.
>>281593
>>281593
>What do you mean by "body," then? When Catholics say "body" they mean something that is physical, and the intellect is certainly not physical
The Orthodox Church thinks of body in broader terms. The Church, for instance, is Christ's body, but part of it is in heaven (the saints). When we think if body in exclusively physical terms, we generally say the flesh.
>And Catholicism thinks that the intellect is a power of the human soul, but not that the intellect and the soul are the same thing. The intellect is unique to the human soul, though, which is why animals can have souls without having intellect.
Catholics think of animal souls as material though, big difference.
>I'm interested in where the idea that even animals have immortal souls comes from.
God never intended for death, it was a product of the fall. So he obviously didn't intend for animals to die.
>>281578
>This is entirely wrong.
no it isnt, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the OCs, that's why the council mentions them
>>281686
It mentions them, but it doesn't assign Alexandria any official order of rank.
How many fucking threads do you people need?
>>281686
Here are the Canons
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/NICAEA1.HTM
Point out to me what you are indicating
>>280347
Can please deal with my question regarding why a loving God wouldnt just create us as angels?
>>281799
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
>>281805
Because he wanted other gods
>>281818
I'm not seeing how that supports your point. Where does it say Alexandria will have the most honor?
>>280352
>Due to this, the idea of apocatastasis (known in the West as "universal reconciliation"), is not considered heretical in the Orthodox Church (though it's not a doctrine either)--it was Dostoevsky's position, in fact.
Wait, really? Can you tell me more? The idea of eternal punishment for temporal failings was the reason I fell out with the Catholic church in the first place.
>>281805
because we arent angels, we are human. He wanted us to be human to enjoy our material existence.
It would suck to be an angel, actually. They cant be redeemed, and can become so self-absorbed and narcissistic.
>>281821
Are you saying humans can become equal to God according to Orthodoxy?
>>281835
It's a relatively common idea in Orthodoxy. In The Orthodox Way, Bishop Kallistos just says it's possible even Satan will be reconciled, but we really can't know. Dostoevsky explicitly references it in several of his novels, including The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment. St. Isaac the Syrian, a major saint and theologian in the Orthodox Church, taught it as an overt doctrine.
Note, however, that it doesn't mean no one would see hell. It's an idea that people can be saved from hell, *if they choose*. Free will is still integral here.
>>281844
Yes and no. God will clearly be the monarch. But as the same time there will be a certain equality (just as God the Father is the monarch of the trinity, but there is equality of the persons).
"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."
>>281826
not the most honor but second in honor, since it is, with Antioch one of the three original Patriarchs, and is given jurisdiction
>>281839
Technically there is no reason why angels *can't* be redeemed, we just know of a case of it. They might not be able to, but there is zero reason to suppose they can't be.
The major thing angels are limited on is they can't be deified, which humans can be.
>>281880
There is nothing that states that. It might have been the case, but it was never dogma, because it's not there.
>>281893
of course it states that, it is literally giving Alexandria and Antioch a wider jurisdiction that the other bishops.
I never said it was dogma, i said that Constantinople was an asshole for taking this honor
>>281916
Constantinople never took that. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have jurisdiction over there areas.
The Bishop of Rome, however, appropriated jurisdiction of the Pentapolis.
>>281926
of course it did, it literally called itself the "New Rome" and wanted recognition for a "title" given by the emperor.
>"Pentapolis"
made by the Emperor, family, this just shows how Orthodox stick to secular authority
>>281821
Why do you need material beings for their to be other Gods?
Can you expand upon what this actually means, because that sounds really mormon.
>>281839
>because we arent angels, we are human. He wanted us to be human to enjoy our material existence.
See
>>281465
>>281481
>>281486
Material existence physical pain and suffering far outweighs the pleasure of material existence. Indeed its one of the reason why heaven and union with God is so attractive.
>It would suck to be an angel, actually. They cant be redeemed, and can become so self-absorbed and narcissistic.
According the the Orthodox they can. Why could an angel not be redeemed?
>>281939
The Pentapolis isn't the pentarchy, silly.
>>280347
Did the appointment of Bishops under Peter the Great End the Apostolic succession of the Russian Orthodox Church?
>>281945
>Material existence physical pain and suffering far outweighs the pleasure of material existence.
of course it doesnt, that's why the Resurrection is what most Christians look up to. The state in which we are before the Resurrection (a subsistent soul) is an unnatural state for us.
Besides, what do you know about pains and pleasures? How do you know what you said about material existence isnt the same with immaterial existence?
>Indeed its one of the reason why heaven and union with God is so attractive.
it is attractive because it is what we long for. It is in our nature as rational created beings to be in union with God. We will enjoy this union in the Resurrection too.
>According the the Orthodox they can.
theyre wrong (or rather, the guy youre talking to is wrong. An Orthodox could accept that they dont)
>Why could an angel not be redeemed?
because he cant repent, and inorder to repent you must acquire new knowledge, which the angel cant do (because he receives all of his knowledge instantly from God). Just as we cant repent after death, angels cant repent after sin
>>281945
>Why do you need material beings for their to be other Gods?
Gives human a triune form
>Can you expand upon what this actually means, because that sounds really mormon.
John 10:34
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
>Material existence physical pain and suffering far outweighs the pleasure of material existence. Indeed its one of the reason why heaven and union with God is so attractive.
The Orthodox don't believe in "transcending" the material. When we die, we are seperated from our material bodies and get a taste of heaven (not the "new heaven" spoken of in the Bible), but God didn't intend that, it's a product of sin. We will be Resurrected come judgement day in material forms. Though the nature of these is incomprehensible from our current perspective, the entire material universe will be transfigured to how God intended it, the crust of sin will disappear, it can't really be compared to how we understand the material right now.
>>282039
Not anymore than the appointment of Popes under monarchs end it for the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, bishops in general were frequently appointed by secular powers in the West until the Investiture Controversy And just because the bishops were appointed by the Czar doesn't mean the Church didn't need to consecrate them, and that consecration is the source of Apostolic succession. The Church also wasn't necessarily happy with the Czarist policy, and we got rid of the Synod (which was definitely against Church doctrine) as soon as the the Czar was deposed in the Russian Revolution.
>>282040
>of course it doesnt, that's why the Resurrection is what most Christians look up to. The state in which we are before the Resurrection (a subsistent soul) is an unnatural state for us.
Given that it is the sate we have and will spend the majority of our existence in it is certainly our natural state. 60-80 years on average compared to hundreds of billions if not trillions of years seems to show that our current life is an aberation rather than the norm.
>esides, what do you know about pains and pleasures? How do you know what you said about material existence isnt the same with immaterial existence?
Because all the pains and pleasures we experiences are linked to material phenomena. You cannot be a harlequin suffer if you dont have a pyshical body for instance - as there is no vast skin sloughing.
>it is attractive because it is what we long for. It is in our nature as rational created beings to be in union with God. We will enjoy this union in the Resurrection too.
Which futher argues for my point that our material existence is the unnatural one.
>theyre wrong (or rather, the guy youre talking to is wrong. An Orthodox could accept that they dont)
how would you come to this conclusion?
>because he cant repent, and inorder to repent you must acquire new knowledge, which the angel cant do (because he receives all of his knowledge instantly from God). Just as we cant repent after death, angels cant repent after sin
Firslty how do you know that angels are omniscient and secondly one can repent with the same facts/knowledge as a mere reevaluation can suffice.
>Gives human a triune form
God exists currently in a triune form with no material component. Why could we not?
>John 10:34
If I wanted out of context biblical quotes I would go talk to protestants and fedoras. As a someone who is going to become a monk is this genuinely the most reasonable answer you can give?
>>282085
>The Orthodox don't believe in "transcending" the material. When we die, we are seperated from our material bodies and get a taste of heaven (not the "new heaven" spoken of in the Bible),
That is literally transendence even if it is only a temporary state that lasts thousands of years.
>but God didn't intend that, it's a product of sin. We will be Resurrected come judgement day in material forms. Though the nature of these is incomprehensible from our current perspective, the entire material universe will be transfigured to how God intended it, the crust of sin will disappear, it can't really be compared to how we understand the material right now.
But thats post judgement day which we are still waiting on. There is no connection between the material world of that time and the material world of our times.
Why was there a need to even have the horrific material world we experiance now in the first place instead of anglehood or simply that post material world you write of.
>>282068
That seems like an argument for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches no longer having apostolic succession. Once you break that chain it doesnt seem like something that can be restored by imitating post break practices.
>>282103
>That is literally transendence even if it is only a temporary state that lasts thousands of years.
That really depends in what sense you're using the word "transcendence".
>But thats post judgement day which we are still waiting on. There is no connection between the material world of that time and the material world of our times.
There is. They're the same world, so to speak, just with all the ontological pollution cleaned up.
>Why was there a need to even have the horrific material world we experiance now in the first place instead of anglehood or simply that post material world you write of.
The original material world was like the post-material, sort of. Then it got encrusted. The big difference is that in the post-material we'll deification through Christ. Christ would have still come down regardless of original sin, but original sin forced him to suffer tremendously in order to commune with us.
>>282112
How does that break Apostolic succession?
>>282085
>Given that it is the sate we have and will spend the majority of our existence in it is certainly our natural state.
of course not, i just said that we will be resurrected. Our immaterial existence will last until Judgement day, not for eternity.
>Because all the pains and pleasures we experiences are linked to material phenomena.
yes, i already knew a material being's pains and pleasures are linked to material phenomena. That wasnt my question.
>Which futher argues for my point that our material existence is the unnatural one.
you dont need an immaterial existence to be in union with God, nor does immaterial existence guarantee such union.
>how would you come to this conclusion?
because he doesnt know philosophy, he's Orthodox.
>Firslty how do you know that angels are omniscient
i didnt day they were, i just said that all they know, they know it instantly
>one can repent with the same facts/knowledge as a mere reevaluation can suffice.
not really, you reevaluate your knowledge only in light of new acquired knowledge or when you get a better understanding of that knowledge, which is what angels cant do, since they immediately understand things they get from God
>>281945
>Can you expand upon what this actually means, because that sounds really mormon.
Looking at Mormon theology and expanding here: humans are deified through God's energy, not essence. This is a very important distinction.
>>282198
Here's an interesting article on it: http://www.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature
Going to my first Orthodox service tomorrow bros. Wish me luck waking up on time
>>282161
>because he doesnt know philosophy, he's Orthodox.
Is that just the poster or is it because the orthodox dont have a philosophical tradition outside of mysticism?
>>281945
>Material existence physical pain and suffering far outweighs the pleasure of material existence
Listen to this loser! I think the material world is just fucking peachy! Maybe you should try having fun?
>>274216
Never forget the Catholics tried to force a reunification of the churches in exchange for help against the invading Ottoman plague
>>282620
>tried to force a reunification
more like the Greeks tried to force a schism
John Bessarion on the council
"They [the Latins] brought forward passages not only of the western teachers but quite as many of the eastern... to which we had no reply whatsoever to make except that they were corrupt and corrupted by the Latins. They brought forward our own Epiphanius as in many places clearly declaring that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son: corrupt we said they were. They read the text mentioned earlier in Basil's work against Eunomius: in our judgment it was interpolated. They adduced the words of the Saints of the West: the whole of our answer was 'corrupt' and nothing more. We consider and consult among ourselves for several days as to what answer we shall make, but find no other defense at all but that …We had no books that would prove the Latin texts to be corrupt, no Saints who spoke differently from those put forward. We found ourselves deprived of a just case in every direction. So we kept silent ' (P.G. 161, 358CD).
I feel attracted to Orthodoxy but it seems to be teeming with homophobes and creationists, both of whom are very offputting.
>>284234
A couple of emperors tried to force reconciliation in the face of the impending Muslims (most notably the last one), but the Church wouldn't accept it.
>>284258
I seriously doubt there is a single creationist in my parish, The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware is explicitly not creationist. There are probably creationist in the Church because creationism isn't heretical, but "teeming" with them is the last word I'd use to describe it. If they are in your area, it's your area, not the Church in general.
Mr. Constantine, have you read through Dostoyevsky's works?
>>286258
I've read C&P, Brothers Karamazov and Notes from Underground. I plan to read The Idiot and Demons soon.
>>286272
I just finished The Idiot last night, and late in the story Prince Myshkin argues that the catholic church is worse than atheism, because it professes to follow a distorted Christ, rather than being a negation altogether, and that the Pope has "seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword." Do you have any opinions on that sort of critique?
Also, about The Brothers Karamazov, I found it extremely difficult to accept that God exists when there is so much suffering in the world, much like Ivan. At the end of the Grand Inquisitor, Christ kisses the inquisitor and the latter lets him go instead of following through with his idea of executing him, and Alyosha does the same to Ivan, symbolically showing (I think) that God operates on a completely non-rational level, and that we need to plunge in and have faith, otherwise we live tragic and sick lives like Ivan's. I don't actually have any questions here, I'm just wondering if you have any input.
>>286307
I tend to agree that the Donation of Pepin is what fugged the Catholic Church, yeah. And I think that criticism is very well fleshed out in the Grand Inquisitor and the conversation Ivan has with Zosima. I also think the Catholic Church is the mother of atheism, because it revived the Platonic idea of the struggle of good and evil being a struggle of reason vs. passions, and it was only a matter of time before some bright boy identified religion with passion. On the other hand, I don't feel anywhere near as polemical as Dostoevsky does, but he wrote in a time when the anathemas were still in effect and the Catholic Church hadn't apologized yet for the sack, Catholics thought Orthodox were going to hell (notice that in Dante's Inferno, "schimastics" are pretty far down).
Dostoevsky expresses the Orthodox view that Christ has to be found primarily through love, not reason. If you want to believe in Christ, but you can't, living a life of love can make all the difference.
>>286385
>Dostoevsky expresses the Orthodox view that Christ has to be found primarily through love, not reason. If you want to believe in Christ, but you can't, living a life of love can make all the difference.
What kind of difference? Can someone who isn't unable to believe in God for whatever reason not automatically barred from Heaven, or do you just mean that it's better for that atheist to do so for their own benefit while alive?
>>286401
I mean that you are more likely to find the believe from love than from reason. There are some very good rational arguments for Christ and the historicity of the Gospels, but I don't think those on their own can convince people, I think people are more likely to be converted if every Christian they encounter is enormously loving and compassionate.
As for the getting to heaven part, Dostoevsky thought even people in hell could be saved.
>>286416
>I mean that you are more likely to find the believe from love than from reason. There are some very good rational arguments for Christ and the historicity of the Gospels, but I don't think those on their own can convince people, I think people are more likely to be converted if every Christian they encounter is enormously loving and compassionate.
Oh, yes! I agree. I couldn't help but identify most closely with Ivan because he couldn't help but have the problems in the world at the forefront of his mind, and couldn't bring himself to having faith despite being, clearly I think, a very loving person. And the other side of that coin is Zossima, who was aware of exactly the same things, but capable and willing to have faith, and therefore lived a much more fulfilling and happy life than Ivan. I wish I could be more like that, but that same rational mode of living that Ivan has is in me, too, I think, and it's quite an effort to "feel God" through that, if you take my meaning.
>As for the getting to heaven part, Dostoevsky thought even people in hell could be saved.
I love that about his writing, there's really no pettiness at all like I've seen in other places, he just wants the world to be better through Christianity.
What are your own views on whether or not people from Hell can be saved?
>>286401
Theology that says God can only be understood through love, faith, or other non-rational arguments end up going for universal reconciliation: everyone gets to heaven. As far as theology goes if there is no rational, provable way to show one God over no God or another God than the idea of punishing someone for picking the wrong religion makes no sense. This is why Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky both saw it that everyone goes to heaven. The reasoning for going with the religion is no longer about receiving a reward or avoiding a punishment but as a means to personal growth and understanding. Another consequence is that since everyone is saved they don't need to go door to door like like sleazy salesmen.
In this sense Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky's understanding of Christianity is far superior to say Catholicism.
>>286468
>As far as theology goes if there is no rational, provable way to show one God over no God or another God than the idea of punishing someone for picking the wrong religion makes no sense.
Is this a view the Orthodox Church (or wherever you derive your canonical information from) supports, or was it more unique to Dostoyevsky & Kierkegaard?
Also, accepting what you just said about how punishing someone for choosing the wrong God, or no God at all doesn't make sense, how do ultimately land on one specific God to believe in, if it comes down to it being a matter of faith?
>>286447
Ivan lacked on thing: humility. An Orthodox saying is, "humility is the salt of all other virtues". There is also a story about Satan telling a monk he was more pious in every way (he could fast for eternity, even), pride was his only sin. This is the case with Ivan and it is important to keep in mind. The title of this thread in an Orthodox mantra for humility. But of course, Ivan is supposed to be a good secular character, he's not a parody or caricature, his arguments and feelings are real. He's not a fedora (as opposed to, say, that 13 going on 14 freethinker kid).
>What are your own views on whether or not people from Hell can be saved?
I don't know. I do know, as I've previously expressed, that it is extremely unchristian to think anyone is going to hell except yourself. But the idea of people being able to be saved from hell (even Satan) is not heretical in Orthodox Christianity, it's just a matter of speculation, but Orthodox saints have taught it as doctrine before (Saint Isaac the Syrian, Saint Maximus the Confessor, etc.). Scriptural, the doctrine is based on "restitution of all things" from: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Most Protestant Bibles today, however, change this to make "whom" explicitly refer to Christ by translating it as "him", but the actual word means "which" or "whom". The word for the doctrine in the Orthodox Church is the Greek word for "restitution".
>>286490
>Is this a view the Orthodox Church
Pretty much. There's a reason the Orthodox Church loves Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky.
It's not dogma, but the Orthodox Church, unlike the Catholic Church, totally rejects the dogma that God can be proven through rational argument. It doesn't mean he can't, it's just that the Church does not feel there is yet strong enough basis to make is a dogma that he can.
>>284258
Why does someone being a creationist bother you? Do you talk about evolution a lot? Because I feel you could know someone for quite a while and never once learn their view on evolution.
Even if you stumble upon one, does not the Son tell us it is not out place to judge?
>>286561
The Orthodox Church doesn't consider itself a sect or a denomination (which doesn't make denominations non-Christians or their baptisms invalid), just the Church Christ founded, predating all sects within Christianity. All doctrine is merely supposed to be an expression of how Christ wanted His Church to be. The most negative thing people say about the Orthodox Church is that it's clannish and doesn't like outsiders, mostly because the Church is opposed to proselytizing. But the Church is not at all adverse to evangelizing, it's just that it makes a sharp distinction between evangelizing and proselytizing.
Are there any substantial differences between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Churches and offshoots in other parts of the world?
>>286630
>it's just that it makes a sharp distinction between evangelizing and proselytizing.
What's the difference?
>>286631
Russian church uses vodka in their communion.
>>286654
And their baptisms.
>>286631
The Russian Orthodox Church has fine doctrine, all differences are really a matter of national politics...Patriarch Kirill is someone controversial, since he implies just wars, when the Orthodox Church firmly rejects just war theory, but Kirill doesn't speak for the whole Russian Orthodox Church because he's patriarch, he's just first among equals of all Russia bishops (and Kirill brings up a similar point about the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, since they disagree politically); but the Russian Orthodox Church is fully Orthodox.
As for differences Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, the two Churches are virtually identical. The difference between Chaceldonean Christianity and miaphysitism is already agreed between the two to be merely a matter of phrasing, and both recognize each other as the Original Church founded by Christ, it's just a question of finalizing and sorting out the process for them to become fully one Church.
>>286646
Evangelizing is to preach the Gospel of Christ in word and *deed* (the latter part is especially stressed). Proselytizing is being pushy trying to convert people and using invective against other faiths. You might say, "But Christ used invective with the Pharisees," but they weren't different faiths then, not even different denominations, they shared a common temple of worship, so that's more comparable to rebuking other Orthodox Christians.
>>286678
From my understanding the Catholic church is much closer to Orthodox doctrine than the Oriental Orthodox
>Patriarch Kirill is someone controversial, since he implies just wars, when the Orthodox Church firmly rejects just war theory,
This brings up an interesting question. Just what does a Orthodox bishop have to do to be anathema, other than say joining with Rome? Personally I have a hard time imagining the Orthodox church calling out the Patriarch of Russia no matter what he did,. because of the politics involved.
"
>>286646
There isn't one, the Orthodox just want to pretend it's okay for them to ignore Christ and claim to be his Catholic church even when they're just slavs and greeks.
>>286726
>From my understanding the Catholic church is much closer to Orthodox doctrine than the Oriental Orthodox
You're wrong.
You might think that's the case because the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church share more Ecumenical Counsel, but the whole point of an Ecumenical Counsel is to combat heresies; it doesn't matter if Oriental Orthodox shares them if the heresies never arose in their Church to begin with.
>Just what does a Orthodox bishop have to do to be anathema
Just requires another bishop to anathematize him. Of course, then he's only anathematized regarding that See; a whole national Church can do it, but then he's still only anathematized national Church. A Church-wide anathema takes a lot, and it just makes more sense to defrock a bishop if he's a serious issue (Patriarch Irenaios, for instance, was defrocked and placed under house arrest by the Church of Jerusalem, which he was formerly the Patriarch of, but he wasn't anathematized).
>>286730
The Orthodox Church actually covers a lot more when we're talking Oriental Orthodox as well.
Can I be in the Orthodox Church yet still apply myself to Catholic Devotions, such as the Rosary?
Do Orthodox Churches still refuse to grant Christian burials and prayers for victims of suicide? Why would a church based on love and forgiveness do this?
Likewise why did they deny Christian Service + Prayers to people who were in good standing with the church but who wanted to get cremated?
>>286852
The Orthodox tradition is that you must be rebaptized if you suicide. This involves a baptizing the corpse, the entire body must be submerged in water for exactly 7 hours. A similar procedure is done with those that are cremated but rather than baptism they need to take the Eucharist, this involves grinding up the cookie into fine powder and mixing it with the ashes.
>>286842
Yes. It's a practice that can about after the schism, so it was never widespread in the Orthodox Church, but there's nothing heretical about it at all.
>>286852
Yes, and really there is a good reason for this. Suicide used to be a big part of pagan culture, especially in the face of dishonor, and it was advocated by many philosophers. To give suicide victims a Christian burial would be to suggest there is nothing wrong with suicide, when in fact there is. However, exceptions can where things like clinical depression were the cause of suicide.
Essentially because cremation was a big funeral identifier for pagans. In the past, is used to be tantamount to saying someone was a closet pagan. And the Church doesn't really like to change policy unless there is a very good reason to, because then it might end up getting to flip floppy and changing things left and right. But if people started pushing for Christian funeral for the Orthodox who wished to be cremated, there wouldn't really be a big obstacle from it being okayed, it's just not an issue most Orthodox feel strongly about.
Can you get into heaven sola fide in orthodoxy?
>>286894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house
>>286837
Actually it's an incredible minority in the east and spreads just as much. Pro tip the apostles themselves proselytized. Orthodox ethnic enclaves and refusal to spread the word of God is satanic, not pious
What are some of the integral Roman doctrines you reject (Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc.) and why do you reject them? Could you also provide some doctrine backing up the opposing side?
>>286937
>Pro tip the apostles themselves proselytized.
Nah.
>Orthodox ethnic enclaves and refusal to spread the word of God is satanic, not pious
But we don't. My priest even today extorted the parish to use the Orthodox Nativity greeting ("Christ is born", response, "Glorify him") even with those who aren't Christians.
Evangelizing *is* spreading the word of God. And the Orthodox Church says you must be very Christian in your deeds in order for it to be effective, since love is the major tool of converting people.
>>286941
We reject immaculate conception because we don't think original sin is transmitted through conception. We think the product of original is a corrupted state of the material world in general.
We reject Purgatory because
A: It was developed *after* the schism in the West
B: We don't think of sins as something you can pay off, we don't think of Christ as picking up our tab, for instance. We don't have a juridical view of sin. The Greek word for sin means "missing the mark", and it is an important element in Greek tragedy, where it means the "tragic flaw" which causes the downfall of someone great. That's how we look at sin.
>>286988
>We don't think of sins as something you can pay off
But isn't that what is taught about aerial toll-houses, just with demons being the creditors rather than God?
>>286882
Why though? why isnt the same done for all criminals then?
>>286893
>Yes, and really there is a good reason for this. Suicide used to be a big part of pagan culture, especially in the face of dishonor, and it was advocated by many philosophers. To give suicide victims a Christian burial would be to suggest there is nothing wrong with suicide, when in fact there is. However, exceptions can where things like clinical depression were the cause of suicide.
Blessing weapons, Easter and Christmas is far more pagan than suicide which has been an issue that is universial to humanity regardless of their knowledge of Pagan practices.
It is horrifically curel to the family of these people to deny their children and spouses a christian burial because people two thousand years ago who weren't christians did it.
>>287005
No, not really, because it's not a matter of paying off a sin by being punished for it, as with Purgatory. The point is that a Christian has to actually do good things...it's not about getting through by not sinning or by paying the price for your sin.
>>287011
>Why though? why isnt the same done for all criminals then?
He's joking
We don't call it Easter, we call it Pascha. And you're right, Eastern in the West is very pagan, the name even comes from a pagan goddess.
While we acknowledge Christmas as on the day of originally a pagan holiday, and probably not Christ's actual birth, our version of it isn't remotely pagan.
Suicide was a very pagan thing. It was like seppuku to pagans. This is not at all okay with Christianity. Neither is less pagan variants, lie jumping out your window when the market crashes. If you have a clinical issue, then that's different...it's not justifiable, but the person can't be held accountable either. But committing suicide i simply incompatible with Christianity, full stop.
I don't know where you're coming from, I don't know of any Orthodox Christian in good standing who got cremated. You act like this is something common or oppressive...Orthodox Christians don't get cremated precisely because of what it signifies. If Orthodox Christians started feeling like cremation was something really important, then they'd push to change this, you can probably change it just within a diocese. Why exactly would an Orthodox Christian get cremated, anyway?
>>287083
*Easter in the West
>>287083
How does one balance the value of a good deed with the debt of a sin?
>>286988
>Nah.
Please fuck off history revisionist. St. Paul was an evangelist
>>287083
>Suicide was a very pagan thing. It was like seppuku to pagans. This is not at all okay with Christianity. Neither is less pagan variants, lie jumping out your window when the market crashes. If you have a clinical issue, then that's different...it's not justifiable, but the person can't be held accountable either. But committing suicide i simply incompatible with Christianity, full stop.
What makes it uniquely pagan? The Aboriginal peoples of Australia and North and South America didnt have huge suicide aspects of their culture. Likewise murder and almost every other sin played bigger roles in pagan societies but you wouldn't deny a prostitute a christian burial.
You also forgot the part of blessing weapons of murder which the church still does to this day in Russia.
>You act like this is something common or oppressive..
Its just hypocritical, petty and inconsistent with the loving and reasonable description youve described the church with.
If all pagan practices were treated in the same vein I might see your point but this is painfully not the case.
An aboriginal man who converts to Orthodoxy would be unable to have a cermation without loosing a christian burial which would be much more cheaper and carying on his families part all because a select group of European pagans burnt their dead
>>287167
Didnt he spread Christianity to the Pagan greeks though? Hence proselytize?
>>287174
Yes he did
>>287174
But he didn't use invective and he wasn't pushy. Those are the major things that separate proselytism from evangelism in Orthodoxy, regardless of whether or not they are inherent in the definitions.
>>287167
proselytize
/ˈprɒsJlJˌtaJz/
verb
1.
to convert (someone) from one religious faith to another
>>287198
You are bullshitting. Orthodoxy doesn't get to change the definition of words to justify ignoring Christ. Proselytizing isn't "being pushy". It literally just means to convert someone. And verbally spreading the gospel to unbelievers is a tradition that dates back to Christ and the apostles. Orthodox Christians have no interest in doing it.
>>287205
A word may have multiple definitions and the word isn't secondary compared to the meaning behind it. Look I'll explain this. There's a difference between sharing your personal philosopher or your taste in video games and trying to promote it vs outright shoving it down peoples throats. Another compassion would be the difference between how Jehovah's witness promotes his religion vs how a Jew would do it.
>>287210
It's not a matter of changing definitions so much as that distinct definitions are required for Church policy, so we don't have Orthodox priests making invective speech against, say, the Catholic Church à la Martin Luther. We don't want Orthodox Christians standing outside another Church and hassling people about their faith. That's just wrong, and so we have to have separate definitions here to define what is and isn't okay.
There's nothing wrong with spreading the Gospel to unbelievers. The Orthodox Church has missionaries. It's just that is considered evangelism.
>>287225
>We don't want Orthodox Christians standing outside another Church and hassling people about their faith. That's just wrong, and so we have to have separate definitions here to define what is and isn't okay.
Arent you going to far in the opposite direction? by not trying to spread the gospel merely through the hope that people will be inspired by your own happiness?
>>287239
What makes you think Orthodox Christians don't try to spread the Gospel? Just look at this board.
>>287225
What strikes me as worrying about the Orthodox method of converting people is that it seems to be very ineffective and failing at the Catholic part of the true church.
Looking through conversion stories on here as well as that big Orthodox froum shows that most conversions are either marital, reversions or people approaching the orthodox after studying history rather as a result of being inspired by Orthodox piety.
>>287253
1 Orthodox poster pushily spamming threads hardly counts as proof of the Church trying to spread the Gospel and that still doesnt address my point about it going to far in the other direction
>>287256
The best arguement for looking at how a religion performs is to compare the numbers. Catholism has gone DOWN in both American and the European states. Orthodoxy on the other hand has been slowly climbing, and it's state of growth in Russia is very impressive.
>>287256
It's not ineffective at all. Roman Catholicism just looks way more effective because they dominated the West and therefore got to piggyback on colonialism.
There are a ton of converts at my Church, whole families have converted together. 1/3 of the clergy of the Antiochian Orthodox of America are converts, I kid you not.
You can't really get Orthodox growth rate because of their minority status in the West and countries dominated by Western colonialism. Even if the numbers were doubling every twenty years, it would take a while to see it.
Do you mind defining what the Orthodox church sees the Catholic church as having broken in those differences?
>>281285
Read them stories about Job.
>>287266
I'm surprised it survived at all after the USSR. It's numbers did drop off immensely, but yeah, it is not growing very well.
>>287277
The Canons? Undue power conferred on the Bishop of Rome. As for the filioque, kinda self explanatory. The filioque wasn't there when the Ecumenical Council produced the Creed, the Western Church just added it.
>>287294
In theory a correction of the Nicean Creed and the Pope being separate from the Bishop of Rome could mend the schism?
>>287266
>Catholism has gone DOWN in both American and the European states. Orthodoxy on the other hand has been slowly climbing, and it's state of growth in Russia is very impressive.
Actually the statistics online don't really seem to support that, church attendance in both countries has declined substantially. As far as the Pew statistics on america are concerned Orthodoxy is falling in numbers as well rather than climbing
>
It's not ineffective at all. Roman Catholicism just looks way more effective because they dominated the West and therefore got to piggyback on colonialism.
Just like Orthodoxy piggy backed off of Russia and the Byzantines.
>There are a ton of converts at my Church, whole families have converted together. 1/3 of the clergy of the Antiochian Orthodox of America are converts, I kid you not.
Yes but my issue was how they came to Orthodox Church rather than raw numbers- hence my post was about efficacy.
>You can't really get Orthodox growth rate because of their minority status in the West and countries dominated by Western colonialism.
That minority status is only an issue if you think religious expansion is based on demographic change alone.
If I have appendicitis and dont seek treatment, is that suicide in the eyes of the church?
>>287302
Uh, the Pope is a bishop, I don't see how that would work, exactly.
If the Pope is supposed to be above Kings and nation rulers why is that the Bishop is less important than the king in chess?
Check-mate Papists!
>>287332
Bumping for an answer on this
>>287458
To my knowledge that has never happened.
>>287532
Well it might happen this year, so I would be very interested in your answer.
Besides people refusing futher cancer medication and opting for palliative care is not uncommon
>>287579
My answer is pretty irrelevant. I'm not a bishop, and there isn't established precedent on that.
As far as the cancer medication goes, I also don't think there is any established precedent. I imagine it would be mostly flexible.
>>287601
Its a question of principle a person wishes to die - the question is: is inaction that results in death = to action that results in death
You dont need dogma to answer that
>>287618
Which is why you can't really get an absolute answer here. I don't have the answer in this case, but inaction leading to death is surely a case-by-case thing.
>talked to priest today
>gonna be received as catechuman next week
>after about 10 weeks of going to his church
>we talk for an hour about what that entails and some basic theology
>have to have a full-life confession
>fuckingshittingmyself.jpeg
NO ONE TOLD ME THIS!
This is how I fucking felt hearing that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2hhqWzIwU8
Still doing it 'cause I love God more than myself, but fuck that's heavy. Never had to do this as a catholic
Pic related, my Parish
>>287643
Yup. Confession is face-to-face in the Orthodox Church, too. Confession is a major theme in Dostoevsky.
>>287643
Don't forget all the CP and snuff you ever seen on 4chan, and all the Nazi threads you posted on /pol/ (Orthos don't like Hitler very much), those bridget trap pictures you used to fap to, the time you were a fedora and committed blasphemy every day, the fact that you still look at porn and fap every day, that you steel and pirate and torrent shit, the time you blew up a van, told a kid how to do a mass shooting better or encouraged people to commit suicide.
Remember, it's between you and god, don't try to hide shit unless you don't want to go to heaven. God forgives, but you have to confess.
>>287670
>God forgives, but you have to confess*
*via a man instead of to God directly
>>287670
being 15 is like 80% of my sins I committed.
If I could go back and slap the shit out of myself at 14 this would be much easier
>tfw neonazi neopagan survival of the fittest metalhead drug dealer.
I thank God above he slapped my shit for me before it got to out of hand.
Saw an apparition of the Theotokos when I was 16 (and at the time, dying from sever injuries) and that set me straight.
Well, straight as I can be with evil harassing me 24/7
>>287706
>Theotokos
Why did that lead you to the Orthodox and not Catholic Church given that they have a greater respect for Mary?
>>287718
Why do you think the Catholic Church has a greater respect for Mary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6e9T1FpG8
>>287718
it did lead me to the Catholic church, I noted that I was Catholic before (very) recently.
The Orthodox definitely won me over, got attracted by the notion of unchanging, read their theology, lives of saints, etc. Found their theology superior, and their explanation of the Theotokos seems more reverent, not elevating her to near godlike status but recognizing her for her human ability to be above sin, instead of born without it.
I still really like the rosary, I think it's the most powerful tool in our arsenal, and don't care what anyone has to say about that.
>>281530
The Gnosis is strong with this one!
>>280352
>Q: Does the Orthodox Church think killing is every justified?
>A: No. It is "justified" in the theological sense, by Christ cleansing us (that doesn't mean paying off our tab, it means washing away the ontological separation). But killing is always a sin, hence the Orthodox Church doesn't have a "just war theory". War can be understandable at times, certainly, but killing is still a sin, full stop.
Can anyone expound on this. (religious) Russians seem pretty ok with war and the ROC is pretty cosy with the russian military.
The difference is that Orthodoxy is either not as confident in the truth of its faith as Catholicism, or that it doesn't believe that reason leads to the truth. But why would God give us reason if only to mislead us?
>>287940
That's part of what is going to be addressed in the 2016 Pan-Orthodox counsel (there is a lot of tension between the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Churches, particularly regarding Kirill). The other big thing on the agenda is the establishment of the American Orthodox Church.
>>287958
The Orthodox Church doesn't think reason misleads you or that you shouldn't worship God with reason. It's just we think of Christianity as an existential affirmation of love, and no matter how much you value reason, it ultimately depends on you valuing love above all other things, and no amount of reason can get around that.
As for God being beyond reason: well, he's beyond our eyes too, that's like asking why would God give us eyes to mislead us.
>>287940
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Just_war
>>288005
>why would God give us eyes to mislead us?
Well? I'm waiting.
>>288013
Just because eyes aren't powerful enough to encompass God, doesn't mean they mislead us. Just like scientific method doesn't mislead us except with scientism.
>>288037
So basically, you admit that God as a concept is unfalsifiable?
>>288049
Yes. Why? Are you a logical positivist?
Orthodox is good. It is the faith of the Eastern Roman (TRUE ROMAN) Empire.
>>288005
But reason does prove the truth of Christianity.
>>288065
Autism.
>>288100
Reason can provide pretty good evidence when done in a scholarly way, to the extent that being a Christian isn't "unreasonable", but to say reason "proves" Christianity is going a bit far.
>>288120
René Girard did it. Or more precisely, he made a anthropological demonstration of what as it turns out is precisely what the Gospel already revealed (but of course without our modern rationalistic vocabulary).
>>280347
How can one distinguish between what is the true religion and what is not?
>>288158
By using vague terms, ambiguous historical references, words with capital letters that shouldn't, concepts that are poorly defined on purpose and by referring to famous people.
How do the Orthodox refute nihilism?
>>288135
I don't think you can really do it. Certainly reason aids in understanding and weighing choices. But u can't exactly arrive at being Christian by just pure reason alone. It is also by faith for in the end u are taking a leap of faith based on what you got through reason.
>>288328
Might want to check out some Dostoevsky
Help me here, /his/. What exactly is meant by the term mysticism?
What's Christian mysticism? What's Eastern Orthodox mysticism?
>>288328
I don't.
>>289248
It means searching for revelation of the divine through living in love, hesychasm, and constant prayer that transcends subvocalization.
>>289932
Interesting. Have you ever found revelation of the divine through doing these things?
>>290569
Yes, but it's not something you can find at will, it only comes with God's grace.
It should also be noted that the Orthodox don't think God's essence is ever revealed, but rather God's uncreated energies (which are still God).
>>290615
>It should also be noted that the Orthodox don't think God's essence is ever revealed, but rather God's uncreated energies (which are still God).
What does this mean? You feel God's effects, but you don't know the being itself?
>>290615
>revelation of the divine
>God's uncreated energies
What exactly do you mean by these things? Is this God revealing part of himself to you? Or is it God telling you what he wants of you? Or what?
>>290647
Animu and mango fans are also going to hell for producing images.
>>290670
So you feel God's presence/existence?
>>290684
You actually see him...spiritually, I mean. You can't see his essence (anymore than we can see the essence of other people with our eyeballs), but you can behold him.
>>290694
>TFW no gf to be-hold hands with
>>290694
Alright. That sounds awesome. I hope some day God will let me experience His presence in this way.
>>290716
Keep at it and he just might.
>>290670
>Or in Roman Catholic terms, his essence his reason and his energies are his will.
what the hell? I havent heard anything like this in Catholicism.
The Scholastics mantained that God is simple. God's reason and God's will are merely ways to talk about God by analogy.
>>290647
The entire Christian project post-Jerusalem is groups of people deciding which rules they don't actually want to follow and how by breaking those rules they're actually holier than everyone else. We're talking about the guys that invented Trinitarian theology and exact identification of a human being with the One God.
>>290790
I watch a lot of Bishop Fulton Sheen. and I got it from one of his videos, I forget which.
>>290790
OP has done a consistently poor job of explaining the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
This is because without a deep understanding of the Theology of both, it is very easy to fall into assumptions and misconceptions. I only have an understanding of one, and not the other, so I can't speak well for it myself.
>>280347
another tripfag trying to portray himself as authority on religion.
>but I don't portray myself as authority
then stop using trips, who you are do not matter ITT, unless you are some kind of orthodox theologian who really knows his stuff, i.e. an authority (which you are not), fucking athention whore.
but to give credit at least you are not wolfsheim, opening catholic general threads while not knowing what Nicene Creed was.
>>290863
Lets be honest, the people who do this do it out of a sense of smug superiority about their religion, and a desire to prove it as the best.
Which usually involves misinterpreting a lot of things, and then making a lot of shit up. I usually avoid these threads because even after studying theology, I don't have a deep enough understanding to comfortably go about it.
And what's up with the Orthodox/Catholic thing 4chan has going for it? There are always people who represent one shittily, and then fight for it like it's somehow worth the fight. I've not met a single catholic other than a priest who has had opinions on the Orthodox church, let along strong ones.
>>290901
>And what's up with the Orthodox/Catholic thing 4chan has going for it?
I peruse the catholic and orthodox threads purely for the aesthetic. Christian belief is comfy as fuck.
>>290901
>And what's up with the Orthodox/Catholic thing 4chan has going for it?
im just here to see if someone has good book recommendations and get a laugh at the pseudotheologians here
>>290790
http://www.iep.utm.edu/voluntar/
>>290968
again, analogy
>>290670
>It clearly doesn't, since God orders images made in the Bible.
Where?
>>290901
>I usually avoid these threads because even after studying theology, I don't have a deep enough understanding to comfortably go about it.
-those who know some, realize how little their knowledge is and thread carefully
-those who know nothing or little have the arrogance to think they know everything and are the laudest
basically dunnig-kruger
>>291010
Numbers 21:8-9
Other images are rampant, from the interntior to God's own temple, to the Ark of the Covenant
>>290997
>univocity of being
>analogy
>>290789
Dostoyevsky poster from last night here again. Thank you for all the great responses so far. I've got another question relating to this reply here,
What does Orthodoxy have to say about God appearing to atheists (or people who do not follow orthodoxy) that are not searching for him?
>>291043
who's talking univocally?
>>291037
You got me there.
Yahweh sure is inconsistent though.
I think I'll also just quote the bible verse that you just sent me too so that the Christians in this thread (95% of which won't have read the bible) can see it.
>4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea,[c] to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”
>6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.
>8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.
Top kek.
>>291066
He appeared to Paul, didn't he?
But the Orthodox position is that if you are searching for meaning, especially in love, you are searching for God. If you are sincerely searching for truth, you are searching for God. Because God is meaning, truth and love.
>>291079
Such a ridiculous and unnecessary explanation for "there are snakes in the desert".
>>291104
>He appeared to Paul, didn't he?
See, I'm not knowledgeable about any religion in general, so I didn't know this. What's the gist of the story? Was Paul searching for meaning, or did God just decide to appear to him for whatever reason?
>But the Orthodox position is that if you are searching for meaning, especially in love, you are searching for God. If you are sincerely searching for truth, you are searching for God. Because God is meaning, truth and love.
Neat
>>291122
>See, I'm not knowledgeable about any religion in general, so I didn't know this. What's the gist of the story? Was Paul searching for meaning, or did God just decide to appear to him for whatever reason?
Paul was a Pharisee persecuting Christians. Then God appeared to him, and said, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" And Paul went blind for three days until Ananias cured him by laying his hands upon him, and after that Paul become a Christian and started to spread the message everywhere, even though he was whipped and stoned (he survived the stoning) and ultimately beheaded. He refused to take pay even though he was a bishop (though he though bishops in general ought to be paid), and lived off manual labor.
>>291177
Thanks palster
>>291254
No problem, friend.
Orthodox patriarchs in the upcoming council be like
Well, folks, I'm going to sign off for the rest of the Nativity Fast. Really shouldn't be posting on 4chan during Fast Days.
God bless all of you.
LOVE
O
V
E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O28tQG81mf0
>>291424
Weeb you should kill yourself.
>>291720
It's not until the 26th though family
>>291037
Yeah, the ark of the covenant not every church and temple.
>>288570
>Might want to check out some Dostoevsky
He just really seems to straw man it hard and likening it to something that only effects the mentally ill. Rather than actually deal with the issue.
>>292331
Actually, sola Scripturists are even more arrogant than the Pharisees for one is able to unlike those who actually take the effort to do so, read his/her own interpretation into the text and treat it as the one true one over all the others. Orthodox and Catholics on the other hand are more humble, accepting the Bible as a book or books with depth and seek the wisdom of the elders to better comprehend its meaning.
>>292453
Orthodox and Catholics on the other hand are more humble, accepting the Bible as a book or books with depth and seek the wisdom of the elders to better comprehend its meaning.
They dogmatically value the views of prior Christians as many of their decadent actions would be unjustifiable without it. There is no humility in this, likewise there is no humility in placing the church as a barrier between humanity and God.
>>294524
The church isn't a barrier.
It's the door to christ
>>294546
Yeah except when they mandate that you have to confess your sins to a man rather than God. Thats about as serious a barrier as you can get.
>>294524
False. It's because when there are other sects out there, a physical lineage in terms of belief and succession is needed to show how they are more genuine over the others. With sola Scriptura of course, you can't do this since Pastor Calvin's opposing interpretation could just be what the bible says...no wait, it's pastor Jeb's! or no maybe Pastor Kevin...etc The most arrogant thing about this is perhaps how all of them would disregard history
>>294579
You still haven't explained why you need to confess to a man and not God. You just changed the topic to the validity of sola scirptura.
Answer the question why must one confess to a man and not God?
>>294622
I had been discussing the invalidity of sola Scriptura from the start and you should know this. My argument was that it is even more arrogant than the Pharisees who have the decency of respecting their elders unlike the sola Scripturist. Then I went on to in response to your claim about how the Orthodox and Catholic use tradition since their actions would not be justified without it by pointing out how important such tradition and continuity is which is what the Early Christians used against the Gnostics! I further noted how sola Scriptura would in fact make it impossible to know the true meaning of scripture itself whilst noting how each side are so arrogant for ignoring and discounting the other possible interpretations out there for their own. You answered nothing to counter these two points and instead accuse me of shifting the topic when none had been done in the first place
What's the deal with these miraculous icons that stream myrrh?
There are many modern examples. It can't all be humidity, can it? Do most Orthodox believe in this as well? I'm new to this obviously and a skeptic but am trying to understand.
>>294567
>Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
This is a power he is conferring upon the Apostles, it has directly to do with him giving them the Holy Spirit in the prior passage, and he is speaking in very general terms, not the specific terms of you having the power to forgive sins against yourself
This is nothing new, the priests of Israel used to be in charge of absolving people of sins, that's what the blood of the Passover Lamb was used for. Christ is simply giving his Apostles that function
>>294567
I don't know of any Protestants who actually confesses their sins to God. Every one I talk to says, "Oh, no, I don't name each and every sin, God knows them all already." This damages the point of coming face-to-face with one's sins and recognizing them. Oh, and I certainly don't know any who impose penance on themselves...not that Protestants believe in repenting.
Orthodox confession involves coming up with how to repent, but that's for your benefit, not God's. It's a plan of action to steer you away from sin. Without this, sinners might just keep doing the same thing over and over and over without making any serious effort to fix it, or even if they wanted to they might not know how. Instead they just blithely repeat the sin, and then say afterward, "God's forgiveness never runs out, praise Jesus! Otherwise I might actually feel bad."
>>295315
Holy things are for the Holy!
>>294696
Still doesnt answer the question I wasnt that anon you were arguing with I was just the one who brought up the Orth and RCC arent humble. You didnt mention the Gnostics at all in >>294579
> I further noted how sola Scriptura would in fact make it impossible to know the true meaning of scripture itself whilst noting how each side are so arrogant for ignoring and discounting the other possible interpretations out there for their own. You answered nothing to counter these two points and instead accuse me of shifting the topic when none had been done in the first place
The only post I made was >>294524 you are confusing me with someone else.
>>295476
>This is a power he is conferring upon the Apostles, it has directly to do with him giving them the Holy Spirit in the prior passage, and he is speaking in very general terms, not the specific terms of you having the power to forgive sins against yourself
>Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.
Only God can forgive sins, is a central theme of the bible. The passage you refer to has more to do with him imbuing them with the message of the gospels than the actual power to forgive sins personally.
>This is nothing new, the priests of Israel used to be in charge of absolving people of sins, that's what the blood of the Passover Lamb was used for. Christ is simply giving his Apostles that function
He specifically called them out on their ability to absolve sins in the parable where Jesus heals the paralytic
>>295508
Oh wow its totally justified kissing a mans hand and being required to confess your sins to him and not God because in your anecdotal experience you are fairly sure protestants dont do that. Nice reasoning there.
>You will never be at Holy Fire
>>297094
>Only God can forgive sins, is a central theme of the bible
The Orthodox believe that as well. That is why absolution involves a priest asking Christ to absolve you, he doesn't just say, "You're absolved."
There's literally nothing wrong with kissing someone's hand, it's just a sign of reverence that was far more common back in the day. You'd kiss the hands of your parents and elders and so on.
You're required to confess your sins to him because you actually have to have them addressed and a method of repenting prescribed. On top of that, if baptism is a sacrament, then why would future absolving of sins not be a sacrament?
>>297094
>kissing someone's hand is a sin
>mfw Protestants
>>297094
And I used sola Scriptura to show how Protties are the most arrogant which you of course as usual fail to address. I had also responded to your point about how your Attack on Tradition is useless. My mention of "other sects" prior as well would imply the existence of heretical groups that competes or exist alongside the main branches of Christianity. The mention of the Gnostics in the last post I made was simply a solidification of that. Either way you are the one who did not address any of my arguments. I had already demonstrated how sola Scriptura is more arrogant than the Pharisees
>>297094
>I was just the one who brought up the Orth and RCC arent humble.
And my attack on Sola Scriptura is used to show how it is in fact more arrogant than the Orthodox and Catholic position which of course you never bother to refute at all and added in the red herring of "why must one confess to a man and not God?". This and the arrogance of Orthodoxy or Catholicism are two different things. You never even mention of that shit here >>294524 and of course rightfully shouldn't as this is NOT part of the topic of argumentation here which is that whether or not the Orthodox and Catholic position of revering the Bible and using the wisdom of the Church Fathers to understand it is arrogant or not?
I had already responded to this and turned the tables back at the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura which as I note again, YOU NEVER BOTHER ADDRESSING.
In short, you had addressed none of my points and simply ask me to address a red herring which was never in the discussion to begin with.
>>297152
>>kissing someone's hand is a sin
Never said it was, only that it wasnt humble.
>>297238
>And I used sola Scriptura to show how Protties are the most arrogant which you of course as usual fail to address.
The fact that some people might be more arrogant doesn't make you humble in the same way that murdering less people than another murderer doesnt make you a good person.
> I had also responded to your point about how your Attack on Tradition is useless. My mention of "other sects" prior as well would imply the existence of heretical groups that competes or exist alongside the main branches of Christianity. .... Either way you are the one who did not address any of my arguments. I had already demonstrated how sola Scriptura is more arrogant than the Pharisees
See once again you are trying to hide behind relativism like a true modern.
The allies didn't commit any war crimes because the axis committed worse ones is the kind of relativistic reasoning you are throwing at me.
>And my attack on Sola Scriptura is used to show how it is in fact more arrogant than the Orthodox and Catholic position which of course you never bother to refute at all and added in the red herring of "why must one confess to a man and not God?".
See the above, you are hiding in relativsm. I was never said in any post that protestants are less arrogant. Hence its not a red herring for reasons as dealt with above.
>You never even mention of that shit here >>294524 (You) and of course rightfully shouldn't as this is NOT part of the topic of argumentation here which is that whether or not the Orthodox and Catholic position of revering the Bible and using the wisdom of the Church Fathers to understand it is arrogant or not?
Can you reword this?
>YOU NEVER BOTHER ADDRESSING.
Im not here to argue over who is better or worse like a relativist only what is humble and what is not. Hence sola scriptura is literally irrelevant.
>>297459
>Never said it was, only that it wasnt humble.
I'm quite sure it was a practice since the first presbyters. Jews were extremely deferential to both priests and elders, and it wasn't the Pharisees who came up with that.
>>297479
humble yourself before God and not men who act in his name. Just because early christians did something, that doesn't mean it was humble.
>>297488
You're supposed to humble yourself before everyone, but especially your elders and authority figures.
>>297496
>You're supposed to humble yourself before everyone, but especially your elders and authority figures.
It goes both ways. Requiring or expecting people to do things like kiss your hand is not humble on the part of the elder or authority figure.
You cannot be a servant to all when you act in such a way
>>297541
You really should read The Brothers Karamazov.
Christians don't kiss the hands of the clergy because they are compelled to, they do it because they love them and want to do so. It's an expression of love. And it certainly doesn't preclude serving, since monks who live in poverty and dedicate their lives to serving get a great deal of respect. This kind of respect has been part of the religion since before Christ, even.
That Protestants find it demeaning and unpleasant kind of boggles my mind. Are hugs the next thing to get the ax? What about honoring your father and mother, is that wrong as well?
>>297459
As usual the Prottie just ignores the issues with Sola Scriptura and its arrogance that I brought up.
Looking at a video of Ray Comfort or Ken Ham sprouting pseudoscience is akin to the arrogance of Sola Scriptura.
>See once again you are trying to hide behind relativism like a true modern.
Here, just crappy projecting. Anyone who knows Christianity's history knows that there were other heretical groups that existed alongside it. If any, Sola Scriptura breeds relativism since we can't even know what the Bible itself is saying according to it. Even worse perhaps is how despite this very implication of it, Protestants love shoving their own interpretations down each other's throats.
>I was never said in any post that protestants are less arrogant.
Except of course it's already implied by how you claim that the Catholic and Orthodox use of Tradition is not humble. I countered this showing the real reason for their use namely to counteract the heterodox teachings of other sects.
>Im not here to argue over who is better or worse like a relativist only what is humble and what is not.
And we all know that Sola Scriptura is the least humble and is in fact way more arrogant as I had explained before. This shows how Protestants are even more arrogant than the Catholics and Orthodox which you never bother addressing at all, instead hurling in red herrings or projecting shit.
>>297579
>You really should read The Brothers Karamazov.
Is the point in that just the same one you make in the next pargraph?
>Christians don't kiss the hands of the clergy because they are compelled to, they do it because they love them and want to do so. It's an expression of love. And it certainly doesn't preclude serving, since monks who live in poverty and dedicate their lives to serving get a great deal of respect. This kind of respect has been part of the religion since before Christ, even.
Why dont the preists kiss the hands and feet of the parishioners? And do you honestly think young people do this out of love and not because thats what their parents are doing?
>That Protestants find it demeaning and unpleasant kind of boggles my mind.
>throwing labels at me
> Are hugs the next thing to get the ax? What about honoring your father and mother, is that wrong as well?
Hugs are equal and a ubiquitous expression of affection.
In keeping with the above how many children do you see kissing their parents hands and vice versa how many friends kiss each others hands? What you find that hand kissing far from being an expression of love is an contrived an artificial one.
>>297610
>As usual the Prottie just ignores the issues with Sola Scriptura and its arrogance that I brought up.
Where in any of my posts did I say that I was a protestant or supportive of Sola Scriptura?
>Here, just crappy projecting. Anyone who knows Christianity's history knows that there were other heretical groups that existed alongside it. If any, Sola Scriptura breeds relativism since we can't even know what the Bible itself is saying according to it. Even worse perhaps is how despite this very implication of it, Protestants love shoving their own interpretations down each other's throats.
See the above. Here just as before you using the "b b but hes worse therefore Im good" argument.
>Except of course it's already implied by how you claim that the Catholic and Orthodox use of Tradition is not humble. I countered this showing the real reason for their use namely to counteract the heterodox teachings of other sects.
It isnt implied at all. I showed examples of arrogant practices stemming from tradition and you say that these actions cannot be arrogant because traditions purpose is to counteract hetrodox teachings doesnt actually adress the point.
Tradition doesnt automatically ensure humility.
>And we all know that Sola Scriptura is the least humble and is in fact way more arrogant as I had explained before. This shows how Protestants are even more arrogant than the Catholics and Orthodox which you never bother addressing at all, instead hurling in red herrings or projecting shit.
You keep arguing as if Im a protestant making a case for other protestants being more humble.
*I* *am* *not* *a* *protestant*
>>297668
>Is the point in that just the same one you make in the next pargraph?
I'm just suggesting you read it to understand the relationship between the laity and the clergy.
>Why dont the preists kiss the hands and feet of the parishioners?
That would probably embarrass the parishioners.
>And do you honestly think young people do this out of love and not because thats what their parents are doing?
Yes. The priest is the closest confident of everyone in the parish, he's the one you pour yourself out to and turn to to help fix your most shameful qualities.
>In keeping with the above how many children do you see kissing their parents hands and vice versa how many friends kiss each others hands?
They don't anymore. But that's because of modernism, and the Church is not a modernist institution.
>>297701
>Where in any of my posts did I say that I was a protestant or supportive of Sola Scriptura?
Already implied by your rejection of the Catholic and Orthodox supportive use of Tradition.
>See the above. Here just as before you using the "b b but hes worse therefore Im good" argument.
Nope, all I'm saying is that with Sola Scriptura, you can't get the Truth at all which makes it relativistic. In your last crap post your shitty reply primarily projects relativism upon my points without even proving them or showing how such is the case.
>I showed examples of arrogant practices stemming from tradition and you say that these actions cannot be arrogant because traditions purpose is to counteract hetrodox teachings doesnt actually adress the point.
You didn't you dumbass! In fact your point implies that the Orthodox and Catholic use of Tradition is to justify their arrogant actions which I had corrected this bullshit by pointing out the actual purpose of such Tradition in the first place. If any you are sounding like some fucktard Prottie or maybe you are just one of them shitty Bible believing Christians or Evangelicals who don't call themselves Protties eventhough by definition...they are!
>Tradition doesnt automatically ensure humility.
Uhh...never said that smartarse!
>You keep arguing as if Im a protestant making a case for other protestants being more humble.
Because you are. Why would that particular reply about being a stupid Bible Believing Christian be deleted I wonder?
It's probably just you doing it so that you can escape from the main point of the argument. IP counter did not went up the moment you entered the thread dipshit.
>>297719
>I'm just suggesting you read it to understand the relationship between the laity and the clergy.
But does it just do in 600 pages what you did in that paragraph?
>That would probably embarrass the parishioners.
Only because it is unfamiliar to see submission and humility by authority figures. Remember when Jesus chose not to wash the disciples feet for fear of embarrassing them?
>Yes. The priest is the closest confident of everyone in the parish, he's the one you pour yourself out to and turn to to help fix your most shameful qualities. They don't anymore. But that's because of modernism, and the Church is not a modernist institution.
Hand kissing has never been a common (or equal) expression of affection like hugs. This is one thing you cant blame on modernism. The only historical examples outside of clergy have been in feudalism - submission to "nobility" and in romance between a woman and a man and even then it was fairly limited.
>>297766
>Already implied by your rejection of the Catholic and Orthodox supportive use of Tradition.
Ah yes because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones with aposoltic succession and an idea of tradition right?
>Nope, all I'm saying is that with Sola Scriptura, you can't get the Truth at all which makes it relativistic. In your last crap post your shitty reply primarily projects relativism upon my points without even proving them or showing how such is the case.
I dont project any relativism on your points. Whilst you keep trying to debate me as a though I were a protestant. Hence your constant references to them in the paragraph of yours.
>You didn't you dumbass!
I did, you just handwaved them as red herrings and went on debating protestant theology
-Decadence (ie lavish adornment of fine linen and precious metals)>>294524
-the requirement of having an intermediary to conffess sins to instead of God >>294567
-and the hand kissing >>297094
> In fact your point implies that the Orthodox and Catholic use of Tradition is to justify their arrogant actions which I had corrected this bullshit by pointing out the actual purpose of such Tradition in the first place.
All the above are justified by tradition - hence my justification in saying that the RRC and Orthos hide thier decadence behind tradition.
> If any you are sounding like some fucktard Prottie or maybe you are just one of them shitty Bible believing Christians or Evangelicals who don't call themselves Protties eventhough by definition...they are!
Once again >>297701
>*I* *am* *not* *a* *protestant*
>Uhh...never said that smartarse!
For a man obsessed with implicit points this seems a tad silly for you to contest.
>>297766
>Because you are. Why would that particular reply about being a stupid Bible Believing Christian be deleted I wonder?
Not my post to delete not matter how much you would like that to be the case.
>It's probably just you doing it so that you can escape from the main point of the argument. IP counter did not went up the moment you entered the thread dipshit.
Actually its because I was posting earlier in this thread see the picture, I was the anon going on about angels and genetics.
>>297865
>But does it just do in 600 pages what you did in that paragraph?
No, it's a pretty deep philosophical novel.
>Only because it is unfamiliar to see submission and humility by authority figures. Remember when Jesus chose not to wash the disciples feet for fear of embarrassing them?
Our clergy do wash feet though, on Holy Thursday.
I also remember that Jesus thought it was a fine thing for people to honor him, such as kissing his feet or anointing him.
>The only historical examples outside of clergy
It was quite common in familial relationships between parent and child, as well as with a man paying respects to a woman, it didn't have to be romantic.
>>297934
>Ah yes because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones with aposoltic succession and an idea of tradition right?
Yes and they can actually show it unlike the Protestants. The Early Christians since the 1st Century did this too in order to defend against the other heterodox sects that existed which reinforces the point that they are more closer to what Christianity originally is compared to the Protestants.
>I dont project any relativism on your points.
This is utter bullshit. You explicitly mentioned such shit here >>297459
>I did, you just handwaved them as red herrings and went on debating protestant theology
Because I assumed that you are the fucking Prottie anon that posted idiot!
>Decadence (ie lavish adornment of fine linen and precious metals)
Ever seen Solomon's temple or the Ark of the Covenant in the OT idiot?
>the requirement of having an intermediary to conffess sins to instead of God
Fucking idiot, confessions had been done since the beginning of Christianity itself!
"Christians in the early communities of the Church obtained forgiveness for those sins by practising prayer, good deeds, fasting and alms-giving. This early way of penitential discipline received in modern times the name of public penance, mistakenly confused with public announcement of the excommunication because of a public and grave sin. Sometimes sinners did publicly speak about their sins, but testimonies of the early Church show that in most cases offences were known to the priest alone. When a penitent did publicly confess his/her sins, decision to do it was always by the private initiative of the person, a free act of Christian faith for spiritual motives. The public character of early penance should be understood as prayerful participation and support given by the community to a sinner, and not as public humiliation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance_%28Catholic_Church%29
(1)
>>297934
>Hand kissing
Because you know respect for figures of authority is wrong!
Fucking Christ. The whole submission to the clergy shit had been around from the beginning. If this isn't there, Paul's epistles would've been pointless!
Ignatius' and Clement of Rome also advice submission to the clergy as the authority and this is necessary for order in a dangerous time. This submission turned into the fucking hand kissing you see which we see done to Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thelca
(2)
>>297979
>No, it's a pretty deep philosophical novel.
How different is it in the deleivery of its message compared to CP?
>Our clergy do wash feet though, on Holy Thursday.
Isnt that between the clergy and not the parishioners?
>I also remember that Jesus thought it was a fine thing for people to honor him, such as kissing his feet or anointing him.
Because he is God.
>
It was quite common in familial relationships between parent and child, as well as with a man paying respects to a woman, it didn't have to be romantic.
Can you provide proof of this? A cusory wiki-ing seems to argue that the practice as a whole is fairly recent outside of the feudal contract.
>>298073
>How different is it in the deleivery of its message compared to CP?
It explores other themes
>Isnt that between the clergy and not the parishioners?
Pic related
>Because he is God.
They didn't know that.
>Can you provide proof of this? A cusory wiki-ing seems to argue that the practice as a whole is fairly recent outside of the feudal contract.
Have you read the Iliad? Unlike in the movie Troy, in the actual scene in Greek (and Rodney Merrill's translation), Achilles kisses Priam's hand. And Priam said, "I've had my hand kissed by the man who killed my son." Achilles giving Priam the respect due an elder.
>>298073
>Isnt that between the clergy and not the parishioners?
The Apostles *were* the clergy. Notice they were the only ones at the Mystical Supper
>>298049
>Yes and they can actually show it unlike the Protestants. ..... point that they are more closer to what Christianity originally is compared to the Protestants.
Nestorians would disagree as would other Oriental Orthodox. And high Lutherans and Anglicans can also claim apostolic succession with some justification.
>This is utter bullshit. You explicitly mentioned such shit here
Oh I see your confusion, your arguments about the church are without a doubt relativistic in that point in the post I believed you were accusing me of stating that you believed it was I who was being a relativist. My mistake.
>Because I assumed that you are the fucking Prottie anon that posted idiot!
An unfortunate but common problem on an anonymous image board.
>Ever seen Solomon's temple or the Ark of the Covenant in the OT idiot?
Exactly they use that and the perfumed ointment to justify constructing massive cathedrals and monasteries for themselves and wearing golden rings and decadent cruifixes + icons. Only tradition could be used to justify such a massive divergence from the life of Christ and the apostles.
>Fucking idiot, confessions had been done since the beginning of Christianity itself!
That quote of yours seems to indicate that it wasn't a requirement and that one could confess to others rather than only through a priest which agrees with my point.
>>298063
>Because you know respect for figures of authority is wrong!
I didn't say it was wrong, only that it was not humble
>Fucking Christ. The whole submission to the clergy shit had been around from the beginning. If this isn't there, Paul's epistles would've been pointless!
Starting to use the lords name in vain anon. Pauls epistles go far beyond what you would limit them to. The story Paul And Thelcas is of dubious legitimacy and even then she only kisses his bonds not his hands and nowehere in the bible did we see the Apostles expecting people to kiss their hands
>>298094
>It explores other themes
Such as?
>Pic related
Good that is certainly a step in the right direction, though its ashame that humility shown there doesn't spread to other aspects of practice. Has this been a practice that ended with vatican II in the RCC?
>They didn't know that.
Not really relevant when you are talking about "what jesus thought" had people been doing that to the pharisees I doubt he would have thought it a fine thing.
>Have you read the Iliad? Unlike in the movie Troy, in the actual scene in Greek (and Rodney Merrill's translation), Achilles kisses Priam's hand. And Priam said, "I've had my hand kissed by the man who killed my son." Achilles giving Priam the respect due an elder.
They also practiced human sacrifice but that doesn't mean it was a common practice up until modernism came around. Can you provide better evidence for it being as common and widespread as you claim
