So how much longer are the English going to insist on being fake Catholics?
>inb4 muh ordinations
How much longer are the Latins going to insist on being fake Orthodox?
>>601327
>invent fake patriarchy
>claims Rome is schismatic
The empire is dead. Get over it.
>>601347
>fake patriarchy
>even though Saint Andrew was the first Patriarch
>get given governmental power and a state by Germanics
>introduce filioque as thanks
>decide the Pope is Roman Emperor now and literally forge a document to try to validate it
>become power-mad and fall to your knees before Satan when he dangles Third Temptation in front of you
>refer to those who say, "Nah, that's not how it works" as schismatics.
>>601391
Which patriarchies have evidence of apostolic succession besides church tradition?
>>601327
Aren't Orthodox fake Jews? I don't know anything about the Orthodox faith to be fair though.
>>601398
None.
>>601391
>three Petrine sees
>oh hey, my personal chaplain here is totes legit
>also Jerusalem because reasons
>>601399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYg5D6gpe98
Here: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
>>601405
Andrew literally founded the See of Constantinople before the city was even there, he was bishop of the settlements there.
Jerusalem isn't even an Apostolic See, the first bishop was James the Just. Unless you want to call Christ the First Bishop of Jerusalem.
>>601327
That reminds me, Constantine. A poster I talked with in a past thread said you had reason to believe the RC no longer has claim to Apostolic Succession. Is this true, and if so, why?
>>601423
We don't consider the Bishop of Rome as a valid successor of Peter ever since the See was used to push the filioque; that is heretical, and you can't call yourself a valid successor when you're propagating heresy. If the Pope repented, of course, and converted to the Orthodox Church, then he'd be the successor to Peter.
>>601432
how can the filioque not be true if
the son is consubstantial to the father?
>>601432
Is it possible then that any Eucharistic miracles found within Catholic sacraments may be demonic? I ask because one of the reasons I am looking into the Christian faith is because of witnessing a photographic miracle during an adoration of the Eucharist at a Catholic retreat.
>>601439
That's like saying, "How can the Father not be begotten of the Son and the Holy Spirit if they're all cosubstantial??"
>>601274
How much longer are Catholics going to insist on being fake monotheists
>>601442
I'm not really interested in speculating on that. Most Catholics are not wicked and many of them are very pious and devoted to God, not Satan.
>>601451
The reason I'm asking your opinion is because I'm trying to determine which faith is closer to the true faith preached by Jesus. I don't want to practice Catholic sacraments if they are not valid.
>>601432
>we
>>601457
The Orthodox Church is the very Church Christ founded, full stop.
I personally do not think Catholics are going to hell, if that is what you're asking, even though they have blatantly practiced invalid Sacraments sometimes (they excommunicated any priest that gave the Blood of Christ to the Communicants for quite some time, and we think the Blood is vital to the Sacrament's validity, but they don't do this anymore). But I do not think that as soon as they Schism'd, all of Western Europe was damned. That's just ridiculous. I do not think the Church of Rome is Christ's Church, but Catholics have an at least impaired communion with Christ, and the idea that they would be damned for not being Orthodox doesn't strike me as feasible.
>>601478
>The Orthodox Church is the very Church Christ founded, full stop.
>>601478
You can rest assured, by the way, we consider their baptisms to be valid, even though we don't approve of how they do it (aspersion).
>>601443
fair enough, you can answer that one too
>>601478
>The Orthodox Church is the very Church Christ founded, full stop.
People literally believe this..just, wow..it's like you enjoy lieing to yourself.
>>601493
Q1: Concerning the Trinity as polytheism, as doctrine of aspects, Sabellianism, is considered heretical.
A1: The Greek terms used here (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις) are generally translated as “being” and “person”, but can also be translated as “essence” and “existence”, so God is one essence with three distinct (though not separate) existences . According to Hebrews 1:3, the Son is not merely an εἰkών (generally translated as “image”) of God, as man is: He is a χαραkτήρ (which means perfect replication) of God’s ὑποστάσεως; so the Son, being a perfect replication of God’s existence, means HE IS (YHWH is archaic Hebrew for “HE IS”); so God the Father begets God the Son, but does not create him, because that would conflict with the Son being a perfect replica of God’s existence, as God’s existence doesn’t begin or end, and is uncreated; the Son also cannot be a distinct being from God, as God’s essence is predicated upon his existence (ὑπόστασις means the underlying support--I AM). So first of all, ask, “Could God furnish (not create, as God is uncreated) a perfect replica of himself?” Then ask what that would entail, and you get the Trinity. Now of course you might ask, “Why would God do that?” Well, even putting aside the divinity of Christ, the Trinity is fundamental to the Christian conception of God as love, and this explains why: http://www.antiochian.org/node/17594 This is all beyond really putting into words except in the vaugest of senses, but it makes more sense when factor out spatial and temporal conceptions, though it nonetheless remains a divine mystery.
>>601499
The See of Jerusalem is Orthodox, it was literally the First See.
>>601521
No, you're clearly under the assumption Jesus existed.
>>601478
>>601490
Thank you for the responses.
You know, I'm worried you're getting the impression that I'm trying to pull a Pharisee on you with these questions. It isn't the first time I've perceived this while talking with you. I want you to know that I'm trying to determine which faith is the one Christ wants me to practice, which I would imagine is the true one. I figure I owe Him that; I don't want to half-ass this. When I asked you about whether the miracle I witnessed might have been demonic, I meant it might have been an effort by Satan to full Catholics into believing they weren't heretical in their beliefs so I wouldn't be fooled by it. I wasn't trying to trick you into antagonizing decent and pious Catholics. Thanks again for your response.
>>601527
Historians widely agree Buddha existed, why is Christ existing so far fetched?
>>601533
>full
I meant "fool" here.
>>601537
Ok, let's play your little game for a quick second, in the time of Christ would he have been more powerful than say...Cesar?
>>601533
I'm not going to accuse Catholics of having demonic miracles, since Catholics generally consider the Holy Fire to be a legitimate miracle.
I don't know enough to comment specifically one way or the other about whatever you witnesses, but I do know that jumping to, "If it's Roman Catholic, it's demonic," is a Protestant thing, not an Orthodox thing.
>>601557
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now, My kingdom is not of this realm." - John 18:36
>>601557
No, not politically. And Christ would have submitted to Caesar as his authority, unless Caesar told him to do something that broke God's commandments.
>>601571
Not really relevant to the thread, but what English translation of scripture do the Orthodox usually use? NKJV?
>>601571
>And Christ would have submitted to Caesar as his authority
Ah so why aren't you being a good Christian and submitting to the Pope?
>>601586
Why would the Eastern Orthodox submit to a bishop whom they believe is teaching error?
>>601586
Because he's patiently waiting for Constantine XI to return and remove the kebab.
>>601583
We have our own NT. We're working on an OT.
We have an NKJV which is modified to accord with the Septuagint, it's called the Orthodox Study Bible. It's not our own translation from scratch, though. There's also the Brenton Septuagint.
If none of these are available, we generally go with the KJV.
>>601586
The Pope is not Caesar and never has been. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery. The Pope followed the Third Temptation of Satan.
>>601610
>The Pope is not Caesar and never has been.
Like I said, you clearly enjoy lieing to yourself. You just proved it.
>>601610
No, you're just all to glad to have the emperor be Pope instead.
Too bad there isn't one anymore.
>>601274
In about 50 years when they're forced to be Islamic.
>>601620
We didn't add a filioque to gratify the emperor in exchange for worldly power. Neither was the emperor ever considered to have the power to make infallible proclamations about faith or morals.
>>601613
The Pope isn't Caesar. There already was a Caesar when the Pope started promulgating the Donation of Constantine. It would be like if Saint Peter started proclaiming he was Emperor of the Roman Empire and all Christians must support him in this, think about how he'd respond if you recommended this idea to him.
>>601606
Thanks.
>>601631
>We didn't add a filioque to gratify the emperor in exchange for worldly power. Neither was the emperor ever considered to have the power to make infallible proclamations about faith or morals.
>what is iconclasm
>>601640
A link to the Orthodox NT is here if you're interested: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
It's not just an Orthodox NKJV, it's a translation from scratch
>>601644
What about it? The people who promoted are heretics and anathematized. Do you recognize the Popes who promoted the filioque are heretics?
>>601644
By the way, the Catholic Church doesn't even have liturgical art anymore. They used to, but dumped it, and the iconoclast movement was basically about dumping liturgical art.
>>601663
...what?
>>601666
You have religious art, but no art you use for Liturgical or Sacramental purposes. Do you use an icon of Christ for confession? Do you kiss the hand of the Blessed Virgin when entering Church? Do you have icons on your rood screen? Do you have icons in your home that you venerate? Do you have a procession of icons?
You don't have icons anymore, as the term was understood during the iconoclast crisis.
>>601674
Some do, certainly not nearly to the extent that EO do, though.
When did iconography start to die out in the west?
>>601674
No, we have sculptures because our artists aren't lacking depth perception.
>>601694
Icons aren't just there to look pretty m8
How the hell did this thread turn into another Orthodox insecurity complex?
Go back to Turkey you nobodies.
>>601694
A lot of icons are actually created in 3D. Also, the reason for use of icons over statues is because they're supposed to look a little strange in order to act as "windows to the other world," they're there to remind you that Heaven is very much real and otherworldly. You don't get the same effect from statues.
>>601706
>Orthodox insecurity complex?
I dunno about you but all the Orthodox I've listened to seem to be very assured of their faith...
Cathortodox shitposting intensifies.
>>601691
Reformation, I think, judging from the restoration St. Teilos Church, which had a lot of iconography until then.
Pic related
It's really too bad that the West stopped being Orthodox, some Western styles of iconography are super dank. If they were still Orthodox today, Roman Catholic walls would be covered with Medieval style artwork.
>>601694
The reason our icons are two-dimension is because word "idol" comes from the Greek word for form. Icons are windows, reflections in a mirror.
Besides, why wouldn't you want lovely Medieval style art? West style is awesome.
>>601782
Pfft.
>>601751
Is that church in use? Also do you have any idea of how Western Rite Orthodoxy is doing in Europe? I only know of parishes in the USA. Do you know to what extent Latin and/or Gregorian chant are used in Western Rite Orthodoxy?
The Latin church has done a lot to damage its own aesthetics, comparing music, art, architecture, etc. even pre and post 1960s-1970s is just depressing.
>>601399
All Christians are fake, lazy Jews. The Orthodox don't stand out in any particular way on that score.
>>601805
>Western Rite Orthodoxy
>>601811
It's Eastern Orthodoxy but in a Western liturgical style, the liturgy resembles the Tridentine Mass only it's in the vernacular.
>>601805
It's not in use because Anglicans have it, and they won't use it. But it is used for consulting in Western Rite Orthodoxy.
As for how it is doing in Europe, it's pretty small, but there are healthy Celtic Orthodox, British Orthodox, French Orthodox and Mozarabic Churches.
>>601751
>>601797
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
- Acts 7:48
>>601827
Get the fuck out of here with that shit.
Go worship in a cellar.
>>601816
No, it resembles pre Tridentine Mass
>>601834
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
- Matthew 10:27
>>601836
I thought it was essentially a Tridentine Mass spoken in the vernacular with some modifications to bring it in line with Orthodoxy like removing the filioque.
>>601842
No, it's more like 13th Century High Mass
>>601858
Oh interesting, I'd love to attend a liturgy someday but unfortunately there are no Western-rite parishes near me (though I'm lucky enough to have an EO parish at all)
>>601858
There are also rites besides Romaneesque. This, for instance, is French Rite (written in the 6th Century): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvjx1102U8
We also don't have "Low Mass".
>>601869
Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
- Ecclesiastes 10:6
>>60151
I dont see how that invalidates the filioque
>>601912
It invalidates it because the Holy Spirit's hypostasis is not furnished by the Son.
>>601921
>arguing about things inherently unknowable
>>601921
> Holy Spirit's hypostasis is not furnished by the Son.
I am really trying to understand how that follow so explain it again
>>601938
It's a matter of preserving Christ's teachings, as opposed to adding to them or modifying them. Not about arguing over a theologoumenon
>>601943
I mean the hypostasis of the Father furnishes the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. The Son didn't help the Father do this, it is furnished solely by the Father.
>>602001
>It's a matter of preserving Christ's teachings, as opposed to adding to them or modifying them. Not about arguing over a theologoumenon
Yeah, that's a crock of shit.
>>602023
Are you a Christian? If not, then it's all a crock to you
