What are your thoughts on the potential healing of the Great Schism, /his/?
>>401830
Protestants on literal suicide watch tbqh
I think it's quite possible, given the flexibility of Pope Francis.
Extensive mutual articles of faith will be written up, and the Pope will be given his special authority over what's covered by his Patriarchate, and First Among Equals with the rest, along with being required to call Ecumenical Councils. The Catholic Church will keep the filioque, but it will be laid out very explicitly that it doesn't mean what it says.
A bunch of people on both sides of the aisle are going to get assblasted, I guarantee you. And many Protestants are going to say it's the Beast...Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, are already predicting it as the great sign of evil.
>>401880
>he Pope will be given his special authority over what's covered by his Patriarchate
That is, far more authority than other Patriarchs have over their jurisdiction, which is in most ways merely equal to that of every other bishop in it.
>>401830
But will the Orthodox accept one man being infallible and having authority over the whole church?
Will the pope be wiling to diminish his authority for the sake of reuniting?
>>401880
Is ANY Protestant denomination going to send representatives to the Third Nicene Council, the one that's being held in 2025?
Obviously the Catholics and the Orthodox will be there. The Copts will probably be there too. So will all the other old, small 'apostolic' denominations, most of whom are in communion with either Rome or Constantinople.
The Anglicans might show up, but I'm not sure any other Proddies will. The Baptists sure as fuck won't.
>>401830
It'll never happen. They are too far gone to come back. Italy probably has a greater chance of reforming the Roman Empire as there is of healing the Schism.
And considering Italy's modern military history...
>>401880
But the problem that the orthodoxs have with the filioque is not its meaning, is it ?
>>401995
Italy's military nowadays is vastly superior to its WWII counterpart.
Of course they're still only a regional power and have no chance of reforming the Roman Empire, but their contemporary military isn't that shitty.
[VULTING Intensifies]
>>401904
Anglicans might send people, but they can't participate, since they have female ordination.
>>401893
No
Yes and no. The Pope's authority will not diminish over Churches under his patriarchate, probably. He will have a lot more power over them then other patriarchates will over their jurisdictions. But the Pope will not have such power over dioceses not under his jurisdiction.
I'd convert to Christianity if the Church reunites
>>402903
>Anglicans might send people, but they can't participate, since they have female ordination.
The entire Anglican communion doesn't have female ordination last time I checked. It was specific to churches within the communion.
Both of them worship Satan but there was a huge schism over whether Satan should be worshiped exclusively (Catholic) or whether you could also worship demons (orthodox). It's now mostly recognized that all demonic being contain the essence of satan so there is no real difference between worshiping a Succubus and worshiping Satan directly. The two house of Satan will eventually reunite in ceremony where they sacrifice 666 Protestant babies an alter and than have a massive orgy.
>>402915
No, they all do. The entire Anglican communion doesn't have gay marriage, though. I think just America and Canada.
The Orthodox Church was very close to communion until they started ordaining women. In fact, the Orthodox Church said that if they did achieve communion, the Anglican bishops would didn't to be ordained again. But then the CoE started ordaining women in the 1970's and that put a stop to it.
However, the Orthodox Church did resume talks with Anglicans who left the communion over the issue (such as the Anglican Church in America--the Episcopal Church being the official American Anglicans who have communion with the CoE). The major obstacle is that Anglicans have trouble accepting dogma, they leave a lot of things up to personal preference. If all were Anglo-Catholic, though, then communion with the Anglican Church in America would probably have been achieved by now.
>>401830
can you post the image without the captcha?
>>402926
kek
>>402904
Hey, we don't want them either
>>401830
>What are your thoughts on the potential healing of the Great Schism, /his/?
the Orthodox dont actually understand what Catholicism teaches, so I think the chance is pretty low.
We have established communion with some of the East, and with some of the West as well.
The reason why we cant achieve communion with the Orthodox is that they dont act under a single head. If one out of a thousand bishops doesnt agree to communion then "Orthodoxy" is still living (that's what happened with Mark of Ephesus, obviously)
Well The Orthodox Church doesn't ordain women,like the Anglican Communion does. However,The Anglo-Catholics view the Anglican,Catholic,and Orthodox Church as being in line with apostolic succession. So I'm not sure the Anglican Church will be able to reunite with us (I'm Catholic) but the reunification with the Orthodox Church might be a possibility. The Protestants are gonna be pissed if that happens
>>402932
Thanks for the correction.
>>402945
Since the Orthodox Church is a mere hair away from full communion with the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox, I think it's certainly a possibility.
>>402945
>If one out of a thousand bishops doesnt agree to communion then "Orthodoxy" is still living (that's what happened with Mark of Ephesus, obviously)
Also, this had more to do with the laypeople and the monks rejecting communion, rather than Marky Mark. The desire for communion (by surrendering to all Catholics demands) was driven by the urgency of the Turks, it was to get the Catholics to help.
>>402941
Speak for yourself.
>>401880
>the beast
The 5 patriarchs of a mended Church will form a pentarchate
>Pentagrams
ITS HAPPENING
I can't see Orthodoxy reconciling itself with a post-Vatican 2 Catholicism.
>>403245
Well than they will just have to get with the times and accept it. It's 2015 and we can't be doing Christianity like we did 2,000 or even 200 years ago.
>>401830
>healing of the Great Schism
Only if the Bishop of Rome, stays the Bishop of Rome and not a high Pontifex ruler over all as he declared himself. In the Orthodox Christianity every nation has its Bishop and its orthodox church, there is a hiearchy through seniority but no Bishop that has the rule over others, everything is decentralized.
>>403275
That would effectivily make the Pope the least powerful bishop EVER. He'd be the bishop of a city with less than 200 people, having zero power outside of Vatacin city. Even local priests would be more influential than him.
This is why the schism will never fucking heal. The Pope isn't going to reduce him to a jurisdiction of less than 200 people and the Orthodox are not going to allow a single Bishop to be able to rule all over them and change whatever doctrine he wants on a whim.
>>403262
It's [the current year] and people are still acting like it's [many years ago]!
Why don't they realize that they have to change what they're doing? Do they not know what year it is? I find it hard to believe that anyone in [the current year] would still hold on to the archaic belief that people still act similar to the way they did back in [many years ago].
[the current generation] is one that will finally tear down [practice that spans known history], and if they can't see that then [the previous generation] is in trouble.
>>402876
It is, yeah. It is written in a way that the meaning is not ambiguous, but Catholics are now saying it is, But they might change it to "through the Son", because that is what they are saying it means, even though it doesn't say that. But they might convince the Orthodox Church it can mean what Catholics want it to mean now.
>>403245
Most of V2 will have to go, yeah. I think Pope Francis might be willing to scrap a lot in the interests of reconciliation, though.
>>403292
The Pope would still be the Patriarch of the Latin Church. If they still want to keep their autocratic structure, there's technically no reason why they can't.
>>401830
I know Serbian Orthodox Church as of now is still not open to reuniting the Churches considering Vatican wants to canonize a pretty controversial Croatian cardinal as saint.
>>403007
>this had more to do with the laypeople and the monks rejecting communion
Mark obviously had something to do with the rejection, and the idea that a Council had to be accepted by all the laity and monks to be ecumenical is a modern one.
>by surrendering to all Catholics demands
there wasnt any "surrendering", Mark couldnt refute any of the Latin Father's writing supporting the Filioque, etc other than claim they were "corrupt and interpolated"
>>403304
Wouldn't it be fucking ironic if Francis, who by all accounts is a faithful servant of Vatican 2, threw it all in the trash because of a chance to heal the schism?
I know so many middle-aged American liberal Catholics who would be furious. But you know what, fuck them. This is too important.
>>405502
Catholic here, nuns are not priests. Nuns will never be priests. They are not part of apostolic succession, they do not receive the unbroken tradition dating back to the Twelve.
If a woman were a priest, if she were invested with apostolic tradition, she could administer the Sacraments. A nun cannot. A nun is quite different from a priest.
>>405517
This. A nun is just a female equivalent to a monk: someone who is not ordained but has taken vows to poverty, chastity, and devotion. They have no special sacramental or religious function to the greater church outside of what is created out of their personal adoration to God.
>>402933
Yes but you have to pay
>>405517
Oh, I'm remembering something now.
Nuns are meant to be like female monks, right? They are to live in poverty and seclusion inside abbeys, yes?
In what other ways are priests different from monks, besides not living apart from the secular world?
>>405566
They have sacramental obligations and authority. They are usually expected to be involved with or head a parish, and they have potential to rise through Church hierarchy (though they are not obligated to).
Monks can't do those things. That being said, not all monks live entirely in seclusion. Many orders today spend a fair amount of time out performing acts of charity out in the world and occasionally proselytizing. It really depends on the Order though, since there's all manner of diversity in that regard.
I'm totally fine with this as long as Catholicism assumes the orthodox dogma.
>>405618
I'm totally fine with this as long as Orthodoxy assumes the catholic dogma.
>>405630
Then it won't happen.
Will they have a baby?
>>405630
>buying the Eastern idea that there is a difference besides the Pope
Could someone explain to me what Vatican 2 was all about?
>>405955
"Just fuck my shit up, family."
- The Catholic Church
>>405955
I thinking hating Vatican II is mostly a meme since no one can say exactly why it's shit other than "muh tradition" and "muh church services in a language no one understands"
>>405992
Changed the doctrine on salvation something fierce, and endorsed secularism.
What would healing the schism actually do?
>>405955
It basically ended a lot of dogma that made Catholism extremly hostile to other religions. Honestly if Catholism hadn't done it than it would be even more despised than it is today, and it's member count would probably never rise.
For instance Protestants are officially no longer heretics. They arn't "right" but they are still saved by Jesus and are legitimate Christians. Jews are now officially God's chosen people and have no responsibility for Christ's death. Members of other religions or atheist can get into heaven although it's unclear exactly how this happens.
Before V2 Catholics were kind of xenophobic. For instance if your friend was a Protestant and was having a wedding at a church you wouldn't be allowed to attend it because you are participating in a ritual of another religion.
The thing most people are upset about is they ended centuaries old traditions, like the old mass. They were replaced by shorter, more modern masses.
>>406259
nothing in today's world
It could have been cool 500 years ago but right now it's a literal /care.
How many Christians nowaday truly care what branch of Christianity someone belongs too as long as there is a cross involved?
>>403300
>making mad libs fill in the blank jokes
>in 2015
Jesus
>>402906
Why?
Or is this one of those, "if X happens, I'll eat my hat" type things?
>>406259
Quite a bit, seeing as how much the Orthodox Church plays a part in politics in Russia When the Coptic gets full communion, Putin, as self-proclaimed protector of the Church, will have a lot more pretense to do things in the Middle East. If the Churches were united, then Putin's political influence would expand enormously, and it would probably be his groundwork for engaging China economically in Africa.
>>406274
Protestants don't really care so long as you're Protestant.
>>406312
so many protestants couldn't even tell you what makes their sect different than another
>>406309
But the V2 endorses secularism to an extent that Orthodoxy doesn't. Wouldn't the Pope oppose that sort of power grab?
>>405441
>Mark obviously had something to do with the rejection, and the idea that a Council had to be accepted by all the laity and monks to be ecumenical is a modern one.
Has to be accepted by most of them for practical reasons, otherwise they just won't follow it (this is why the iconoclast council didn't work). And in this case they wouldn't, because they knew the bishops were not getting together in Christ's name, but in the name of safety from conquest. You have to gather in Christ's name.
>>405441
>there wasnt any "surrendering", Mark couldnt refute any of the Latin Father's writing supporting the Filioque
He doesn't need to. From an Orthodox perspective, the filioque not being there is enough for it to be heretical. We don't believe in adding to dogma through rational discovery, we believe that dogma should strictly preserved, neither added to nor subtracted from. Trying to add dogma that was never there is heretical, no matter how much rational argument you make.
>>406265
Thanks.
>>406368
How would Putin grabbing more land make the church look better?
They have re-branded themselves as peacemakers, tolerant folks and other niceties.
>>406389
Putin might be an imperialistic warmonger, but compared to NATO, he's a saint, and is pretty much the only thing standing in the way of the end of moderate Islam.
>>406265
>Catholism
CatholiCIsm. You missed a C and an I.
>>403245
Actually I've read a few articles by Orthodox where they state certain things that were changed during Vatican II as being closer to "the ancient tradition" and actually were ok with it...
>>407241
Orthodox here
Some things are. The Orthodox, for instance, think it is quite possible for someone to be in Christ's Church, without being visible in it (but there is no criteria to determine who these people are). Universal reconciliation is also considered *possible* in Orthodoxy.
But a lot of V2 doesn't work
>>407252
Well then maybe Vatican III will rectify it.
But unless the Church adresses it in a later council, I won't question her.
>>407261
The number one topic being proposed in V3 is the church will allow polytheism.
>>406312
horse shit. There's a stark divide between magisterial protestants (Lutherans, anglicans) and the rest of the snake handling rabble.
For example, I as a lutheran think the broad majority of other protestants are doing it wrong and drink judgement on themselves everytime they take communion and deny christ in it.
My dirt-protestant associates, likewise, think I'm a child-baptising, wine drinking, idiot who puts ceremony over rough-and-tumble low church garbage.
So no, we don't all agree, and in fact, crossing that dividing line between high church and low church shows you just how much we all hate each other.
>>407261
If the Church doesn't reunite in 2025, Vatican III will reunited it. Gay marriage and/or female ordination will be introduced, and as a result numerous Catholic parishes will go Orthodox, the rest will end up like Anglicanism.
Catholics say that the Pope is the guarding of orthodoxy, but that's obviously not true because the Orthodox Church has been without the Pope for a thousand years and the only thing Catholics can fault them for is not having the Pope. So the Pope obviously was not needed to guard orthodoxy. Meanwhile in the West, Popes have frequently proved to be very dangerous to Church doctrine, but it's always "we will ride it out, we always do." In the East, without the Pope have autocratic power, we haven't had to ride anything out.
Catholics are all saved, certainly, and despite exaggerations, the Roman Catholic faith is pretty orthodox, but I think relying on the Pope will be source of weakness rather than strength.
>>407308
Which Lutheran denomination are you?
>>407326
the really gay ones.
>>407281
Don't see why not. The OT wasn't clear on this. Though they must remain monolatrists, since they should not hold any god before God.
>>407333
Okay, well that is the source of your divide right there. The main issue of division in Protestantism is whether you're
A: Creationist
or
B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
I can tell you right now that the creationist Lutherans get along fine with creationist Baptists.
>>407319
>Gay marriage will be introduced
ha, no.
>>407366
I'm sure it will eventually if the Churches don't reunite in 2025. Don't forget that the Catholic clergy in Ireland was a major part of the push for gay marriage there
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/20/priests-are-bucking-catholic-church-leadership-to-support-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland/
>>407348
Oh god, no...I'm not that far left and retarded.
All of the disagreements I've had with other protestants have more to do with tenants universal to lutheranism, not specific to sub-denomination:
pedobaptism, real presence, wine being used in the sacrament as opposed to grape juice, full liturgical calendar (complained that most of those holidays aren't biblical), regeneration in baptism, vestments, etc etc.
>Creationist
YEC is idiocy, and even the romans recognize that.
>>407389
>Oh god, no...I'm not that far left and retarded.
But your denomination's clergy probably is.
>All of the disagreements I've had with other protestants have more to do with tenants universal to lutheranism, not specific to sub-denomination:
Gay Presbyterian denominations would not get their feathers ruffled over that, I assure you.
>>407376
that's a blog post, not even going to bother.
>>407395
>But your denomination's clergy probably is.
evil men can administer sacraments...
>Gay Presbyterian denominations would not get their feathers ruffled over that, I assure you.
gay presbyterians have too soft a voice to start an argument anyway, so I'm not worried about them.
I'm worried about the baptists who are in error and obstinate and loud about remaining as such.
>>407402
http://theweek.com/articles/557418/why-are-catholics-supportive-gay-marriage
>>407407
Gay baptists, like ABCUSA, wouldn't care much either.
>>407410
>theweek.com
>washingtonpost
just stop.
show me an explicit, accepted theological movement inside the Church that is pro gay marriage, or stop wasting your time linking me to these articles wrote by nobodies that don't support your argument.
>>407419
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Movements
There's also a big one for female ordination
http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
>>401830
>Chalcedonians decide their individual heresies aren't so different after all
It's nice though
>>407410
>That may sound batty, but Fr. Morrissey's argument is twofold. The first has to do with the erosion of credibility on sexual matters in the Irish Catholic hierarchy, after years of revelations about covered-up child sexual abuse and other horrible sins. Because of the sex abuse, especially, he writes, "what the Church teaches about sexuality is rejected almost as a duty."
Never gonna live that down.
Christian Reunification cannot be achieved without a common date for celebrating Easter. This simple change has become way more complicated than necessary.
>Catholic church wants common date for Easter
>Orthodox refuse to abandon Julian calendar because they're weary of Western Christian dominance
>Catholic Church is willing to return to Julian calendar to show all they care about is common date for Easter
>Protestants bolt, since why should the vast majority of Christians be forced to change just to appease 200 million Eastern Europeans?
etc.
>>407440
Greek Orthodox use the Gregorian calendar. Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox consequently celebrate Christmas on different days.
>>407436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvHl53Krxs8
>>407453
In my whole lifetime I think Orthodox and Catholic Easter have coincided once or twice.
>>407453
The disease of theological disagreement has spread faster than I thought.
Constantine must be turning in his grave.
I cant see a reason why the Orthodox would want it and doubt most Catholics even know there was a schism.
>>407469
I'm not sure why that matters.
>>407461
Hey, it's the Irish computer guy.
>>407475
It doesn't matter. It's up to each Church. It's not a matter of dogma. The people who tried to make it about that all got excommunicated ("Brother Nathaniel", for example). Each Autocephalous Church can use whichever calendar is preferred.
>>407490
I'll supplement the point by noting that the Orthodox Church doesn't even think Christ was born on December 25th, we think the Church just celebrates then as a way to supplant the prior pagan holiday.
>>407425
>Rainbow Sash Movement
not a theological movement, just a bunch of leftist activists
>Call to Action
>The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska has placed the group under the ban of excommunication within the diocese, and several other bishops have censured the organization.
heh
>DignityUSA
that's a real one, but I have no reason to believe they'll suceed in changing the church doctrine of marriage. I mean, just look at the name, it has "USA" in it.
>>407533
Well, if you look at the statistics I linked about how many Catholics support gay marriage, you might reconsider that.
>>407533
Oh, and there has been a pro-gay theological movement since the 1970's
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Sexuality-Directions-American-Catholic/dp/0809102234
>>407490
It's just mildly irritating looking like disorganized jackasses who can't agree on even the most basic tenants of what Jesus wanted.
>What Jesus only for Israel or was he for everyone?
>Is the Trinity combined through being of the same substance, or merely similar substance?
>Did Jesus want Rome to be first among equals in the Pentarchy, or Rome to be supreme?
>Do you have to do good works to prove your faith in Christ, or merely have faith?
>Do Purgatory or Limbo exist?
>Can infants be Baptized?
>Should women be priests?
The infighting goes on forever.
>>407510
It's already know they only put Christmas on the date because there was already the birthday of Mithra and the festival of Saturnalia
>>407562
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Theological_Society_of_America
>>407571
>It's just mildly irritating looking like disorganized jackasses who can't agree on even the most basic tenants of what Jesus wanted.
Jesus didn't express any preference on calendars
>What Jesus only for Israel or was he for everyone?
Israel is everyone in the Church, according to the NT
>Is the Trinity combined through being of the same substance, or merely similar substance?
The same, there's no differences on that unless by "substance" you mean something other than ousia.
>Did Jesus want Rome to be first among equals in the Pentarchy, or Rome to be supreme?
Jesus never talked about the Roman Patriarchate. If you mean Peter,
"Petros" means a stone that can be easily moved (generally small enough to throw), whereas "petra" means a stone that cannot be moved (a massive boulder or a cliff). So it's pretty clear Christ was saying, "Moreover to you I say that you are [wavering] stone, I build my Church on this, [probably indicating himself, Matthew 16:16] the [unmovable, mountainous] rock.
Indeed, Peter is a wavering stone, he ends up denying Christ and committing apostasy (though he certainly repents and is a saint and martyr), despite being Christ's most ardent disciple.
> A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
>"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
>This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
>"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church.".
To close, I'm going to quote 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
>Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
>>407571
>Do you have to do good works to prove your faith in Christ, or merely have faith?
I'm not even going to address this since this issue didn't crop up until 1500 after Christ died
>Do Purgatory or Limbo exist?
That depends entirely on how you define those terms. For instance, are looking at hell as synonymous with Hades, or rather the Lake of Fire?
>Can infants be Baptized?
Baptism replaced circumcision, circumsion was practiced on infants. This, again, is an issue that didn't start until 1500 after Christ died, so not worth discussing.
>Should women be priests?
This is an issue that cropped up nearly 2000 years after Christ died, so not worth discussing
>It's already know they only put Christmas on the date because there was already the birthday of Mithra and the festival of Saturnalia
Precisely, so we don't see any point in quibbling over calendars.
>>405496
>liberal Catholics
right, fuck them.
>>406343
>otherwise they just won't follow it
that just means they arent in the Church anymore
>And in this case they wouldn't, because
because anti-Latinism was pretty much hardwired in their heads by that time, just like "Le pagan Mary" is hardwired in most protestants.
>they knew the bishops were not getting together in Christ's name
they were looking for UNION, something that belongs to Christianity.
>He doesn't need to
of course he needed to, dont bs me
>From an Orthodox perspective
the "Orthodox" perspective is a heterodox perspective
>the filioque not being there is enough for it to be heretical.
the Filioque IS in the Apostolic Tradition, that's what you dont get. The Filioque shows a Trinitarian reality that you border on denying by following Photian theology.
>We don't believe in adding to dogma through rational discovery
neither do we, what we believe is that defining and clarifying dogma (that was always there) through rational discovery is essential to maintaining the Faith against heretics. (Such as the Trinity, Christ, etc.)
>>408171
>through rational discovery
You can't "discover" something that was always there.
>>408171
>they were looking for UNION, something that belongs to Christianity.
They were looking to agree to any and all heresies the Catholic Church asked for so long as they'd get some kind of military aid.
There's absolutely no way of justifying the filioque, unless you're saying the First Ecumenical Council was in error.
>>408171
Don't you guys ever wonder sometimes if this is all just a circle-jerk?
>>408238
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWM30-piJlo
Eastern and Oriental Orthodox reunion is far more likely than Eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic union.
Despite Chalcedon, EO and OO have far more in common than with the Roman Catholics.
>>408188
>You can't "discover" something that was always there.
We discovered the planets, yet they were always there
though i think "discovery" wasnt the way to put it, "exposition" works better imo
>They were looking to agree to any and all heresies the Catholic Church asked for so long as they'd get some kind of military aid.
they wanted to agree in order to be in communion with each other. Unlike Mark who wanted to impose schism on the East by pointing out that the Latins shave or the other Mark that called us "Azymite heretics"
>There's absolutely no way of justifying the filioque, unless you're saying the First Ecumenical Council was in error.
no, im saying that Latin allows for a exposition of the Christian faith that in no way contradicts the Greek exposition of the Christian Faith
>>407436
What an absolutely bullshit argument. Augustine blew this line of thinking the fuck out in his teachings on the Sacraments--they remain valid even if the priests that administer them are sinners and heretics. The Church's teachings remain valid even if priests and bishops have sinned.
>>407319
>atholics say that the Pope is the guarding of orthodoxy
and he is
>but that's obviously not true because the Orthodox Church has been without the Pope for a thousand years and the only thing Catholics can fault them for is not having the Pope.
they have been without the Pope for times before the Great Schism, and they were pretty much heretics.
also
>Gay marriage and/or female ordination will be introduced
nice /pol/ thinking, everybody with a slight understanding of Papal Infallibility or the nature of Ecumenical Councils know that we cant create doctrine out of thin air, there has to be an agreement with Sacred Tradition and Scripture
>>407549
the statistics are about a pretty shallow pool of Catholics though, and theyre not even religious
>>408313
>1st Commandment. One God. Only one. EVER.
Why not go straight to worshiping other gods instead of worshiping other gods in the guise of "venerating" the saints? As long as you put fancy words on it, Catholicism has never had a problem with polytheism.
>>408293
The reunion has already happened, really, it's just a matter of processing it.
DEUS VULT
>>408405
>venerating the saints
That's a spiritual version of calling in a favor. Plus anyone who asks for someone to pray for them in this life is doing the same thing as asking St. Anthony to help you find your keys. Plus they're examples of how to live since they made it to heaven.
Anyone who thinks Saints are divine is a heretic and in GRAVE error. And no serious Catholic does.
>>408424
That's nice. I mean, we are not in communion with one another, and there are still stark theological differences that "joint understandings" can not resolve, but that's nice that you say that. At least with EO and OO.
>>408437
It depends on what divine means, to a lot of people divine simply means "of heaven" and saints would be divine, cuz they in heaven.
>>408437
Yeah, sort of like asking Mercury to do me a favor and make my business grow. He seems like a nice chap so I'm sure he'll take some time out of his day to help me out. He's subservient to Saturn, whom the Phonecians call El, and thus is under God, so no big deal if I venerate him as my patron.
>>408441
There are literally no theological differences. The matter of the nature of Christ was agreed upon by both the EO and the OO as purely semantics. The EO thought the OO were adhering to monophysitism, the OO thought the EO was adhering to Nestorianism, both were misunderstandings.
>>408455
You think you're exposing hypocrisy but what you're really doing is trivializing worship.
>>408468
the issue of the wills of Christ are still there and still need to be addressed, not to mention the implications of the hypostatic union compared to miaphysis. just because we said "oh but it's just semantics we understand each other" in an effort of ecumenism and stopped being over the top in our criticisms doesn't mean that the differences aren't there nor does it mean we can take the rainbow railway to ecumenical candy land at random.
>>408492
How so? I don't see any problem putting intermediaries between myself and God, it seems like everyone is doing it. Some Mercury veneration for success in business and safe travel, some Mars veneration for my enemies to be crushed, some Pallas/Minerva veneration when I don't feel like doing the full Mary thing but still want to venerate the divine feminine. You know, nothing serious or out of the ordinary.
I wouldn't want to join with the Catholic Church, they are pretty much protestants now. Have you seen the charismatic catholic movement? Disgusting, and it's endorsed by the pope, it's also one of the fastest growing movements.
I can't see them ever going back to an acceptable place, the right pope would never get the votes, the entire magisterium is compromised.
Russians will veto this heresy.
1204 NEVER FORGET
>>401830
but will they call on a new Crusade?
what good is a church if it is unwilling to call up arms in the defence of it's flok?
>>408437
what's the difference? you're still praying to something that isn't God. you don't see any record in the OT or NT of people praying to Noah, Moses or etc. for advice despite being direct prophets of God when they were alive, some of them even explicitly stated to go to heaven. It seems wrong.
Not going to happen. Western Churches are too under their governments to suddenly give even a nominal right to rule into Pope hands.
>>407440
Many Orthodox Churches already use the Gregorian calendar, it's just the calculation of Easter that's done after the Julian one because the Russians are against it, otherwise it would be fixed.
>>402926
Why are proddies so fucking embarrassing?
Seriously go back to reddit.
>>408405
>i'm a dumbass, look at meeee!!!
Every Protestant ever.
No wonder America is the last bastion of it
What's all this 2025 talk?
>>409230
do you really think they will?
I mean really?
>>408313
>1st Commandment. One God. Only one. EVER.
It's to hold no god before God.
Monolatrism is enforced, monotheism itself isn't.
>>405496
>Wouldn't it be fucking ironic if Francis, who by all accounts is a faithful servant of Vatican 2, threw it all in the trash because of a chance to heal the schism?
I could see it happening. People consistently underestimate Francis when they think he's a "faithful servant" of anything.
He's a forward looking reformer. Yeah, it make sense that he gels a lot with Vatican 2, but he's clearly not vested in the struggles for or against it. He's not going to let a 50 year old document hold him back.
Separate the title of Pope from the Bishop of Rome. Create an Ecumenical Council that is headed by the Pope that rules from Jerusalem and the newly built church on the Temple Mount.
>>401830
D E U S V U L T
E
U
S
V
U
L
T
>>408308
>We discovered the planets, yet they were always there
Their presence certainly weren't always dogma, which is what we're talking about.
>though i think "discovery" wasnt the way to put it, "exposition" works better imo
The idea that the Bishop of Rome on his own is as authoritative as an Ecumenical Council, was certainly not always dogma in the Church.
>they wanted to agree in order to be in communion with each other. Unlike Mark who wanted to impose schism on the East by pointing out that the Latins shave or the other
Azymite Eucharist actually is very improper, just like your aspersion method of baptism. It's still valid though (provided it is of both kinds, which Catholic communion was not only not offering at the time, but which it outright BANNED in the Council of Constance).
But no, it was not about being in communion, per se, it was about getting the West to send military aid in a very urgent situation. That is 100% what accepting it was about.
>no, im saying that Latin allows for a exposition of the Christian faith that in no way contradicts the Greek exposition of the Christian Faith
The filioque is a later addition to the Latin version, it is not merely a product of translation.
>>410631
>Grunwald
>Teuton feeling good
kek
>>410799
>Im a catholic and i think the continued exclusion of women from the clergy is one of the problems in this Church
I know many Catholics think this, but women have never been clergy, so unless you're going to say Christianity was wrong from the beginning, this seems a bit silly.
>>405517
Monks can be priests.
>>405588
>Monks can't do those things.
Wow, really? That's a lot different from Orthodox. We get all our bishops from monks who are priests (generally for other monks).
>>410952
Christianity wasn't wrong, the church was. Just not wrong enough to send people to hell.
>>410952
If we are all equals in the eyes of God, how can the church exclude women from the clergy? Unless we have something from God or Jesus specifically say no women, then its not an issue. It appears to be more of an attitude that came about after Jesus' death
I mean, the idea is cool, but does it matter? Religion is really not such a big deal in modern society, it's not like doing this would stop conflicts or reconcile countries' relations or anything.
>>410985
Clergy isn't a right, a it's a duty. Most people aren't in clergy, that idea that anyone can have a "right" to be a priest is pure modernism.
Jesus had close relationships with many women, but he only chose men for his Apostles.
>>411063
>Religion is really not such a big deal in modern society
What is the Middle East? What happens when the Christians in the Middle East, Russia and Europe are all in the same Church?
>>411258
>Jesus had close relationships with many women, but he only chose men for his Apostles
Is that because men are inherently equipped better to be disciples, or because the social climate was not conductive to producing women capable of fulfilling all the duties of being a disciple?
I don't really give a shit whoever bends over to the other but it's cool as long as church and state are kept separate. Political power linked to such a unified entity would be a thing to fear.
>>407319
Nigga do you even know your own religion's history?
>>410691
>The idea that the Bishop of Rome on his own is as authoritative as an Ecumenical Council, was certainly not always dogma in the Church.
of course it was, what wasnt in the Church was a formal definition of the dogma, and this is something every dogma has gone through, like dogmas concerning Christ, the Trinity, etc.
>Azymite Eucharist actually is very improper
oh boy, youre not going to argue bearded priests too, right?
>but which it outright BANNED in the Council of Constance
the practice of witholding the chalice can be changed though. And we receive the whole sacrament even if we take it under one species, so there isnt a problem with it.
>But no,
yes, it was.
>The filioque is a later addition to the Latin version, it is not merely a product of translation
i didnt say it was a product of translation, I said that Latin allows for an expostion of the Christian faith that in no way contradicts the Greek expression of the Faith, which is why if we express the Filioque into greek it would be heretical. Even Kallistos Ware agrees it's an issue of language rather than a doctrinal difference
>>410985
>If we are all equals in the eyes of God
we are not equals, though, the Church never has denied the differences between male and female.
A woman cant be a priest just like a man cant be a mother. Simple as that
>>401830
It would be a step in the right direction, desu
>>412701
>of course it was
No, it wasn't, or else Ecumenical Councils would be pointless.
>oh boy, youre not going to argue bearded priests too, right?
No, it's a bit more serious, since it's basically using the old covenant form (purely flesh) symbol, instead of that of the new covenant (spirit is added). Regardless, that alone did not stand in the way of communion.
>the practice of witholding the chalice can be changed though.
It already mostly has been...*now*. But back then, it was another story, because a council you recognized as Ecumenical had banned it.
>And we receive the whole sacrament even if we take it under one species
We don't believe that, and we think you came up with that dogma solely to justify denying people the Blood of Christ.
>I said that Latin allows for an expostion of the Christian faith that in no way contradicts the Greek expression of the Faith
You're wrong. The filioque, even in Latin, indicates a "from the Son" formula. The Latin word for "from" strictly means "from", it is a different from "through" or "by" (which would change the grammatical case of the nouns in question).
>Even Kallistos Ware agrees it's an issue of language rather than a doctrinal difference
Not in The Orthodox Church or The Orthodox Way, he doesn't.
>>412711
Just because we're different doesn't mean we are not equal, at least in the Christian sense.
>>405819
there are lots of differences.
From orthodox view:
>there is no purgatory
>filioque - catholics say the Holy Spirit comes from both Son and Father
St. John the Evangelist says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world trough the Son. ( John )
>Pope
>The unleavened bread, Catholics serve it
unleavened like Jews did.
>immaculate Conception
>substantiality - Catholics on receiving the holy gifts do not invoke the Holy Spirit as orthodox do it at the holy epiclesis.
>priests celibacy
>chrismation
and lots more...
>>412839
Priestly celebacy isn't a big deal, since that's only a Latin discipline. Eastern rite Catholics don't have to follow it, they don't have to use unleavened bread either.
BUT. If it were true that the Pope was the only real difference, Catholics would be proven wrong about him being the rock of faith, since the Orthodox Church hasn't lost the orthodox faith a thousand years of separation.
>>412858
Although, it was affirmed originally as required by the whole Catholic Church. First Council of the Lateran (a Council the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as ecumenical) said married priests were absolutely forbidden, full stop.
>>401830
Who cares? I mean, they're still all Pauline heretics anyway.
>>412886
Paul is the earliest Christian writer there is.
>>412767
>No, it wasn't, or else Ecumenical Councils would be pointless.
of course they wouldnt, since the Councils are for discussion in order to define dogma, which the Pope has to approve. No Council was ever declared Ecumenical without the bishop of Rome's approval
>No, it's a bit more serious
leaven has both good and bad metaphorical meanings.
>Regardless, that alone did not stand in the way of communion.
considering the East desecrated the sacrament because of azymes, i'd say it did stand in the way of communion.
>because a council you recognized as Ecumenical had banned it.
it didnt "ban" it, it merely changed the practice in the face of heretics who denied it was the whole Christ under one species, which is what we should do. We've had times where both species are required, and times where only one is required.
>we dont believe that
so you believe Christ is divided in the Eucharist?
>You're wrong.
No im not, the Latin form doesnt imply procesion from a single principle or Cause, unlike the Greek form which DOES imply a single source of the Spirit's procession, and it would be heretical to express the Filioque in the Greek form, which is why the Church doesnt like the Greek form in the Eastern Catholic churches.
>Not in The Orthodox Church or The Orthodox Way, he doesn't.
"The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)
>Just because we're different doesn't mean we are not equal, at least in the Christian sense.
Yes, but this difference isnt to be denied. nor the equality is to be denied.
>>412858
>Catholics would be proven wrong about him being the rock of faith, since the Orthodox Church hasn't lost the orthodox faith a thousand years of separation.
considering some Orthodox have been accepting of divorce and contraception, i dont think we are wrong, in fact, it is a sign on how much you need to be with the Rock
>>401830
Only if Sheev is behind the drum kit.
>>401830
Protestant whores are going to get assblasted and then anally raped by the reformed one true church.
I tell you what
>>413023
>of course they wouldnt, since the Councils are for discussion in order to define dogma, which the Pope has to approve. No Council was ever declared Ecumenical without the bishop of Rome's approval
Why is an Ecumenical Council needed to define dogma when the Pope can do it all on his own?
>leaven has both good and bad metaphorical meanings.
As a word, not as actual leaven, and not in the context of the Eucharist. Leaven in the Eucharist is a sign of the new covenant.
>considering the East desecrated the sacrament because of azymes, i'd say it did stand in the way of communion.
The East desecrated the sacrament? How?
>it didnt "ban" it,
It sure as hell did, it said any priest who gives communion under both species is to be excommunicated.
>so you believe Christ is divided in the Eucharist?
We believe that Christ's blood being shed is what the Eucharist is all about. The blood of the Lamb is what what marked the doors on Passover, that was foreshadowing of Christ, his blood is what saves us. We can't be of the Body of Christ without His Blood, and we can't receive the bless of His Blood without being in His Body.
>e Latin form doesnt imply procesion from a single principle or Cause,
How does that help your case at all? If anything, that makes it worse. If it meant exclusively a single source, then you could say, "and the Son" obviously didn't mean the Spirit proceeded from the Son, but since it can mean more than one source, it's clearly saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
>"The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences."
I don't agree with that.
>>413082
wow, you sure did show him, you must be some kind of badass i tell you what.
>>413032
Christ is okay with divorce under some circumstances. The Orthodox divorce rate is actually probably lower than the Catholic "annulment" (apparently your priests are extremely inept at performing sacraments properly, hopefully you were all at least baptized properly) rate.
There's nothing wrong with contraception, really, so long as it isn't an abortifacient. The Catholic argument that there is something wrong with condoms rests entirely on quoting Church Fathers talking about abortifacients, or Aristotle.
>>413092
Oh, and just think: if those annulments are only discovered because the couples want them, imagine how many void marriages are out there that you don't even know about!
>>413082
>Why is an Ecumenical Council needed to define dogma when the Pope can do it all on his own?
this just shows your caricature understanding of Papal Infallibility, do your homework
>Le leaven
what do you mean "as a word"? words dont have meanings by themselves
>not in the context of the Eucharist.
not in the Greek context that is. Leaven can be used to represent a lot of things, look
>Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
>How?
With Ceralius' anti Latin campaign, whom he called Azymite heretics
>is to be excommunicated
because of the circumstances in which the Eucharist was being attacked, as i said, the practice can change (and it has)
>We believe that Christ's...
and we believe that Christ is fully present under both species, since Christ is not divided (that last part is my addition though).
>then you could say, "and the Son" obviously didn't mean the Spirit proceeded from the Son
what the hell? that exactly the OPPOSITE of what iw would mean, it would mean that the Son is the Single Source or Cause of the Spirit, which is heresy, since that is of the Father alone.
>I don't agree with that.
no one in the East agrees with each other, i already knew that
also, nice "tradition" youre using with your meme images, the Emperor would be very proud of you ;)
>>401904
I don't see why they would. They don't exactly have a head.
>>409208
I have not encountered the charismatic Catholic movement in real life, and I hope I never will. It is a plague that corrupts our Holy Church. I hope that reunification can help bring some new voices to the table to help get ourselves back on the right path.
>>413290
>this just shows your caricature understanding of Papal Infallibility, do your homework
No it doesn't.
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. "
>what do you mean "as a word"? words dont have meanings by themselves
I mean as verbiage rather than physical leavened bread.
>not in the Greek context that is. Leaven can be used to represent a lot of things, look
I mean as something physical, not as verbiage. Christ used leavened bread at the first communion for the new covenant, the leaven being the spirit in the bread. He made a specific distinction between leaven as a negative symbol in verbiage, and leaven as a negative symbol as actual leaven. Christ also administered a proto-Eucharist before the Mystical Supper (there was no blood, so it wasn't a full communion) with Leaven in it, and this he uses as an example of why yeast in bread does not signify anything negative. The word used for the bread he used to feed people at the proto-Eucharist, is the same word used to describe the bread he gave the disciples at the Mystical Supper (which did NOT fall on the First Day of Passover) anymore than the New Sabbath falls on the day of the Old Sabbath).
>>413290
>With Ceralius' anti Latin campaign, whom he called Azymite heretics
It's technically improper. Not heretical, but improper.
>because of the circumstances in which the Eucharist was being attacked
That makes zero sense. Excommunicating priests for administering both species (but saying priests are to have the Blood themselves) doesn't defend the practice of the Eucharist at all.
>as i said, the practice can change (and it has)
Fortunately, the Roman Catholic Church has no qualms about flip-flopping on dogma. But you were talking about the schism from then, not now.
>and we believe that Christ is fully present under both species, since Christ is not divided (that last part is my addition though).
So you believe the bread is Christ's Blood?
>what the hell? that exactly the OPPOSITE of what iw would mean, it would mean that the Son is the Single Source or Cause of the Spirit, which is heresy, since that is of the Father alone.
Then you shouldn't say the Spirit proceeded from both, and then say, "It's okay because Latin grammar doesn't force us to say the Holy Spirit just proceeds from one or the other, it can be both!"
>no one in the East agrees with each other, i already knew that
Don't you have a Pope saying Rabbinical Judaism is the "elder brother" of the Church?
>also, nice "tradition" youre using with your meme images, the Emperor would be very proud of you ;)
The Church butted heads with the Emperor numerous times, so.... Or are you upset that we didn't fall for Satan's Third Temptation, as you did?
Has anyone here ever attended Old Mass? What did you think of it? How does it differ from Vatican II mass?
I think that personally, an all Latin-mass would feel very exclusionary but I'd be interested in hearing about people's experiences with it.
>>413457
>proto-Eucharist
These, by the way, is still a thing in the Orthodox, it's called the antidoron.
>>413547
By "Old", you mean Tridentine, or pre-Tridentine?
>>413551
I'd no idea there was pre-Tridentine, so uh, either I guess.
>>401830
Atheist here:
I don't care, just get a crusade going so I can go retake Constantinople, you lazy fucks.
>>413590
Tridentine Mass started in 1570. I'm sure what it is like, but I'm Orthodox, and our Liturgy very similar to pre-Tridentine High Mass.
It differs quite a bit from Vatican II Mass. The Priest faces the East for starters (except when he's blessing the congregation, reading the Gospels, delivering the sermon, etc.) Incense is also used every time, which in the Catholic Church is reserved for High Mass. Also, the whole Liturgy is chanted, save for the readings and the sermon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYg5D6gpe98
>>413620
The Orthodox Church doesn't have crusades.
>>413646
*not sure what it is like
>>413646
Also, Orthodox Liturgical Music also doesn't use an organ, hymns are all a cappella (though a bell will generally be used to commence Divine Liturgy, if the parish has one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnCO0OlhlE
>>407604
>this language dissection and quibbling over translations and phrasing and obscure points of doctrine
It's like I'm really in the Byzantine empire
>>413689
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkktEf_4irs
Autistic quibbles are needed, without them fedoras could not understand the point of Christianity.
>>413457
>No it doesn't.
yes it does, the Pope cant make an arbitrary decision on what is dogma and what isnt. He must draw from existing Tradition, Scripture, the Fathers, etc. The Councils were doing just that presenting the matter of debate in order to make a definition of dogma that needed to be approved by Rome, it has always been like that.
>Christ used leavened bread at the first communion for the new covenant
nice meme
>It's technically improper. Not heretical, but improper.
I was referring to the actions that happened during his campaign, which is where he desecrated the Eucharist
>doesn't defend the practice of the Eucharist at all.
it does if you deny that Christ is fully present in the Sacraments
>So you believe the bread is Christ's Blood?
read again
>Then you shouldn't say the Spirit proceeded from both...
the problem is that the Orthodox equivocate the terms when dealing with the Filioque. What the Filioque expresses doesnt contradict the fact that the Father is the Single Source of the Spirit.
>Don't you have a Pope saying Rabbinical Judaism is the "elder brother" of the Church?
I've never had any hard feelings against Judaism, though, so I dont know why you bring it up.
>The Church butted heads with the Emperor numerous times, so...
So what? The West has always defended doctrinal orthodoxy in the face of the emperor's injustice, and when the emperor brought the whole East down with it we always tried to hold it up.
>>413689
the Byzantines werent always like that pre-Schism, they were actually pretty reasonable
>>401830
Pretty much every act of the Catholic Magisterium is alienating the Orthodox.
Like how the german government-mandated heretic bishops being the Pope's best friends or how Peter "forcibly de-homogenize Europe" Sutherland was picked as head of the Catholic Migration Mission.
The second any Orthodox denomination's head merges with the Catholics they'll be denounced by the other heads and, more importantly, their own worshippers.
>>413767
>yes it does, the Pope cant make an arbitrary decision on what is dogma and what isnt. He must draw from existing Tradition, Scripture, the Fathers, etc. The Councils were doing just that presenting the matter of debate in order to make a definition of dogma that needed to be approved by Rome, it has always been like that.
Obviously not, since many things were made dogma by Catholic councils without consulting Tradition, Scripture or the Fathers.
>it does if you deny that Christ is fully present in the Sacraments
His Blood is absent from the Bread, and His Body is Absent from the wine.
>What the Filioque expresses doesnt contradict the fact that the Father is the Single Source of the Spirit.
It does, very clearly. It says the Holy Spirit proceeds *from* the Father *and* the Son.
>I've never had any hard feelings against Judaism, though, so I dont know why you bring it up.
You're taking shots for Orthodox disagreement, and here your Pope is saying Rabbinic Judaism, which came from Pharisaic Judaism, is Christianity's elder, and went so far as to say, " Israel is God’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked." Surely most Catholics disagree with this?
>So what? The West has always defended doctrinal orthodoxy in the face of the emperor's injustice, and when the emperor brought the whole East down with it we always tried to hold it up.
Please, don't help us ever again.
How can Catholic and Orthodox reconcile when the Orthodox can't even agree on how to spread their religion in the West without breaking down into fifty different ethnoreligious churches with one OCA being a breakoff of the Russian one? Why can't Orthodox churches overcome phyletism instead of having x church for x ethnic group?
>>413848
>Obviously not, since many things were made dogma by Catholic councils without consulting Tradition, Scripture or the Fathers.
like what, exactly?
>His Blood is absent from the Bread, and His Body is Absent from the wine.
but Christ is fully present in both. I wont make a big deal out of this, but i hold that only taking it under one species is necesary.
>It says the Holy Spirit proceeds *from* the Father *and* the Son.
a lot of ink has been spilt on this, and ive already told you it rests on an equivocation
>Surely most Catholics disagree with this?
on a superficial reading most of them would, but in a contextual reading interpreted in the light of tradition i believe they would agree with it.
>Please, don't help us ever again.
is this how grateful you are after we admitted you to communion several times despite your past heresies and powergrabs? Disappointing
>>413767
>I've never had any hard feelings against Judaism, though, so I dont know why you bring it up.
Literally heretical.
>>414041
The reason they have x church for different groups is because Constantinople was taken, so everyone else appointed their own patriarchs to run things. There's really nothing wrong with that.
>like what, exactly?
Priestly celibacy (though that is now merely a discipline, but it used to be dogma).
>but Christ is fully present in both. I wont make a big deal out of this, but i hold that only taking it under one species is necesary.
This is is the type of thinking that allowed Protestants to say it's just a symbol. Do you not think the wine is literally the blood of Christ? Do you think the bread is literally His Blood as well? Think for a moment. And how would the wine be literally His Body? Do you think that makes any sense? The bread is literally His Body, the wine is literally His Blood, you're supposed to have them together.
>a lot of ink has been spilt on this, and ive already told you it rests on an equivocation
There's nothing equivocal about it. Now the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that's based purely on semantics, now that we understand they aren't monophysites, and they understand we aren't Nestorians (which indeed would have made their schism 100% justified, so it's understandable why they split, being under this impression).
>on a superficial reading most of them would, but in a contextual reading interpreted in the light of tradition i believe they would agree with it.
What of Hebrews 8:13?
>this how grateful you are
After your Pope apologized? Yes, I am grateful, and in fact I completely forgive the Catholic Church. I just don't necessarily think their jiha--I mean, help, was any better than the Turk's.
>>414135
Consider Judaism, as we know it today, is Phariseeism 2.0, it's a bit strange not to object to it vigorously--Christ certainly did, and had a lot of bad things to say about Pharisees. Although there's nothing heretical about not harboring ill will toward Phariseeism, provided you know it's very wrong.
>>401830
>What are your thoughts on the potential healing of the Great Schism, /his/?
Given the current geopolitical situation and the cold, and getting warmish around Turkey, war between NATO and Russia, I doubt it will happen.
Religion is an important part of Putin's grasp on the russian masses, and the us-vs-them mentality is too useful to let go of.
At the same time, considering the very anti-christian values on the rise in the west, I think that the papacy can only lose from letting people get more in contact with the old fashioned and ultra conservative eastern orthodoxy, since many people will decide thats the purer form of their faith and turn coat.
>>414308
>but it used to be dogma
no it wasnt
>This is is the type of thinking that allowed Protestants to say it's just a symbol.
Protestants arent a single movement, there are Protestants who err on one extreme and some that err on the other extreme. The Protestants that thought Christ was "mutilated" under one species are why the discipline was adopted in the first place.
>There's nothing equivocal about it.
of course there is, I already told you why
>that's based purely on semantics
>>408506 disagrees, and i think he's right
>After your Pope apologized?
apologized for what? for declaring the Robber Council as illegitimate? for trying to stop Constantinople's rise to power? I dont see any "apology" for that.
>>>414324
>is Phariseeism 2.0
lol, nice /pol/ thinking, is this why you support Islam against Judaism? Disgusting
>>401880
>Christians reconciling their differences with other Christians
>Clearly the great satan
>>401893
>Will the pope be wiling to diminish his authority for the sake of reuniting?
Considering shit like his absolute refusal to use the fancy house, maybe. This pope seems really big on humility.
>>401904
There's a Nicene Council happening in a decade?
What's the subject?
>>402926
>Protestants
>Real Christians
Pick one.
>>408330
Easy, mang.
The man was offering to explain someone's opinion, not to say why the opinion was right or wrong. So don't take it as an attack.
>>403262
Doing Christianity like we did 2000 years ago is the whole point of Orthodoxy.
>>408313
"Have no other gods *before Me*" is not the same thing as "I am the only god who even exists"
>>407281
>The number one topic being proposed in V3 is the church will allow polytheism.
How the fuck would that be relevant? The only polytheistic religion worth mentioning nowadays is Hinduism, and a lot of them claim to believe in one ultimate god manifesting in many persons anyway.
>>407389
>wine being used in the sacrament as opposed to grape juice
wait, the grape juice thing isn't just a meme?
Jesus Christ, Protestants, get it together.
>>407490
>"Brother Nathaniel", for example
I've seen that guy on youtube ranting about how Jews worship satan. What the fuck is his deal?
