What would it take to mend the east-west schism?
>>711258
Electing an Orthodox as pope.
>Vatican controls the military
>Jews control the money
>Muslim control the minerals
>they all control sex, drugs, rock n roll
>>711267
This probably would've worked about 14 centuries ago, but not now. Too much of a split between the two.
Really at this point, it's not a matter of ending the schism but rather absorbing the few remaining Orthodox back into the western church.
>>711279
Who controls the spice?
>>711300
Are you from the future?
One side would have to admit that they have been doing it wrong for the past millenium. Either that or if they found themselves back to back fighting against Mohammedanism for dear life. At this rate the second scenario is looking more likely than the first
>>711258
a mutual statement recognizing each others validity.
it would be best to brush over the doctrinal differences with fancy word games
>>711258
Marian apparition.
Plumber's goop desu, anything else is gonna crack the minute any real pressure is applied
Nothing, you can't turn thousand year old hate into love.
>>711313
The universe?
>Post the Greek-Orthodox cuck patriarch
>Not the Russian-Orthodoxone, who actually has influence
>>711444
You mean the Miracle of Damascus? It hasn't worked so far.
>>712435
>influence
>in that he has the most followers but all the others hate his faggot ass
Orthodox Patriarchs are an unruly bunch
>>711300
This 2bh, we should introduce Uniatism again as a legitimate method of reunion, it works pretty well. Probably the first to join the Church would be the next Patriarch of Istanbul
>>711258
It can't. It's mostly a matter of cultural identity and historical importance.
>>711420
Secularism is a greater threat
>For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
-882, Catechism of the Catholic Church
If they changed that, it would do wonders.
pope would have to deign to being another bishop among equals. i know the armenians would sign on in a heartbeat if it didn't mean becoming papists; i assume my EO brethren would do the same.
>>712734
in the future, the patriarch will be Patriarch of Constantinople again.
>>712787
>i assume my EO brethren would do the same.
You assume way too much. The Catholic Church has objectionable theology, they don't fast, they have modernist services, and they amended the Nicene Creed in an heretical way. The Pope's power is a major thing, but hardly the only thing.
Beautiful Byzantine monk chants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX7Vl5swy3k
>>711258
-Filoque removal in all sectors.
-'Ex Cathedra'/Papal infallibility = must be null. Prima pars pares, nothing else
.
Beyond this, the Roman Church would still probably be allowed to maintain its' orders, style of liturgy, and nonessential theology.
>>711313
The Maud'Dib will be elected ruler of all religions.
>>712850
>the Roman Catholic Church would be allowed to maintain what the Orthodox Church sees as not much better than a Christian rock liturgy
Nah
And no, they would not be allowed to maintain "minor heresies" either.
>>712860
The standard Catholic liturgy isn't rock. That's only in the southern US. The Latin Mass is still practiced.
Minor heresies aren't what I'm referring to. I'm referring to scholasticism and Aquinian/Augustinian philosophy.
Muslim here.
Why don't you niggers just dig through the bible n shit to learn who's right?
>>712870
The bible isn't like the Qur'an.
It isn't meant to be viewed and interpreted as the definitive statement on all things. It is a compilation of things divinely inspired, and, indeed, it is important, but tradition plays a near-equal role.
>>712867
"Modernist" music from an Orthodox perspective means pretty much all musical style from the Renaissance onward.
Yeah, that's heretical. Actus Purus, for instance, is completely incompatible with the essence-energies distinction, unless the terminology were changed to use distinctions like gnomic will, etc.
>>712855
top kek
A glorious crusade to retake Constantinople and in the fires of the great kebab removal a new era of Christian brotherhood shall be forged
>>712870
The Bible is not meant to be an exhaustive record of the faith and its practice. But trust me, we have. We still continue to disagree about things like "On this the rock I build My Church", which Roman Catholics take to mean Christ was proclaiming Peter Caesar of the world.
>>712875
The Orthodox Church sees the Bible as a record of tradition, not some counterpart. Think of a circle that's labelled "Sacred Tradition". "Scripture" is another circle within it.
>>711258
How come Catholics never make demands form the Orthodox in these threads? Its just a list of things the Orthodox think the Catholics have to change
>>712886
Not likely. If Constantinople is retaken and made into a sort of "Orthodox Vatican", it will lead to a much more conservative line of Patriarchs there. They will, if anything, be far less likely to compromise with modernism.
>>712898
The Catholics are much more willing to change to please the world. Do you even Vatican II?
>>712907
Vatican II didn't change any Catholic doctrines. But I will give you that Catholics seem much more enthusiastic about reunion than Orthodox do
>>712870
The Bible is a result of sacred tradition, not vice versa as in the more legalistic Judaism and Islam.
>>712898
Catholics care more about the Schism than the Orthodox.
>>711444
That's what Fatima was for. Putin even asked Francis to consecrate Russia.
>>712437
>Miracle of Damascus
That's not recognized by either Church.
>>712912
What? It certainly does, it says Protestants are in the Church.
>>712912
>Catholics seem much more enthusiastic about reunion than Orthodox do
Part of this is because Catholics see the Orthodox Church much, much more legitimate than the Orthodox see the Catholic Church. For instance, the Catholics recognize Orthodox baptism, whereas the Orthodox do not recognize Catholic baptism (you don't have to be rebaptized if you convert, but your baptism is not considered as valid unless you do convert, in which case the Church sanctions it).
>>712974
Neither Church recognizes fucking olive oil pouring out from an icon of the Virgin Mary? Seriously?
Well, at any rate, I only pointed it out because that particular apparition of Mary rebuked both Churches for their schism.
Have the pope and the other 4 patriarchs elect a new emperor of Rome responsible for leading the church
>>713015
I don't think it's been officially investigated.
According to Sr. Lucia, the Orthodox Church would be the main catalyst for the consecration of Russia.
>>713083
The Caesar is the secular ruler, he doesn't lead the Church in anything except secular concerns. It's his job to call Ecumenical Councils, true, but he can't even vote in them himself.
>>713096
Even if he is just a figure head it would give the church a sense of unity by electing one "voice"
>>712898
>How come Catholics never make demands form the Orthodox in these threads?
because we arent autistic Easterns who see their Imperial, pseudo-Apostolic cult as being the only valid tradition. We value different expressions of the same faith, which is why we have a number of rites, each with their own uniqueness.
Also, the Council of Florence, as an ecumenical council, already settled the matters of contention between the Churches, they just need to get over their stubborness and accept it (and all later councils, of course).
Personally, I'd make them drop Palamistic doctrine and keep it as an opinion (with some ammendments, of course).
>>713083
>the other 4 patriarchs
>4
nigga, the pentarchy is an Eastern myth, literally no one except themselves accept it, and that is because of Justinian
>>713134
The first among equals is the figurehead. We owe all obedience to the Caesar, as per Romans 13, but there is no canonical provision for the Church appointing a Caesar. That's not our job.
>>713170
The pentarchy is just a way of organizing the Church. Properly speaking, there's no reason we couldn't change it, since it is not a dogma that is passed down from the Apostles.
>>713184
>Properly speaking, there's no reason we couldn't change it
That's good to know, it's one baby step towards accepting the revealed dogma of Papal Supremacy
>>712980
Quote the passage please
>>713199
No, it's not at all. It's one step from saying if the Ecumenical Patriarch tries to say the Pope has supremacy, Moscow will be the new Ecumenical Patriarch.
>>712980
theyre only in the Church the same way you are in the Church, Constantine. That is, through a valid baptism (which not all Protestants have)
>>713215
Moscow will be next, and it will continue until youre left with the American Church, which isnt an autocephalous Church at all
>>713207
"Unity of the Church" is a common phrase throughout Unitatis Redintegratio, and applied to "separated brethren", which is an implicit statement that the Church is not unified, and that the separated brethren are in it.
Also, this
>Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ
afaik I know, Roman Catholics consider Protestant baptism to be valid (which Orthodox Christians don't, unless retroactively made such by being received into the Orthodox Church), meaning....
>>712875
We don't take the Quran as definitive, it's Ijma.
>>711258
for the Catholic church to relinquish its Ultramontanism.
>>713264
>The Orthodox Church
Well they are wrong
>No, what will happen is Russia will take Constantinople
funny way to spell Istanbul, also, it wont happen, Russia cant do that
>it will become very conservative.
Sure, just like "Constantinople" was conservative before
>>713264
>mfw Martin Cruscius and Jakob Andreae tried to convert Patriarch Jeremias II to Lutheranism but were cock blocked and rebuffed as heretics.
That's why as a Catholic I'm cool with the Orthodox, even if we differ philosophically and doctrinally.
>>713174
So pretty much if even if each church acknowledges each other's existance, if there's no Caesar that each church agrees upon there still will not be an end to the schism?
>>711258
Third Council of Nicaea.
>>711300
>few remaining orthodox
The Orthodox Church has 200-300 million people in it. It's the second largest single church in the world after the Roman Catholics.
>>712734
>uniatism
>works well
It creates division and hardship, look at the Ukranian Orthodox and the Ukranian Catholics. In some cases like with Coptic Catholics uniate churches were literally just set up to steal sheep from one church to another. Besides, the Eastern Orthodox have explicitly rejected uniatism as a way of mending the schism. They fundamentally reject the idea the the bishop or Rome is somehow the king bishop.
The only way I can see the churches getting reunited short of a miracle is if one church admitted it was wrong. I'm extremely doubtful that either church would ever do this - there is just too much built up over the past thousand years.
>>713404
>the Eastern Orthodox have explicitly rejected uniatism as a way of mending the schism.
They really didnt want to mend the schism in the first place, only a few faithful actually make the first steps. Ecumenism is seen pretty badly by the conservative Orthodox
>They fundamentally reject the idea
they dont actually understand the Papacy in the first place, of course they reject it, that's the whole point of the schism (after "azymes" of course)
> is if one church admitted it was wrong.
it will never happen, since the Orthodox cant (or have a difficult time) act as a unified body in the first place. They disagree on several issues that just frustrate the faithful
>>713430
>they disagree on several issues
Which issues are these?
>>713300
Constantinople has had at least two Freemasons as Patriarch (we only know these two because the Masons themselves disclosed it), including the one who lifted the anathemas, so of course that See will be cozier with Roman Catholics. Moscow doesn't suffer from this. Furthermore, the Ecumenical Patriarch has absolutely zero authority to recognize the Pope as leader of the Orthodox Church. If he did that, he'd have to do it on his own. He has as much authority to do that as he has to recognize the Mormons as the True Church.
>>713312
The Lutherans were in love with the Turks, you can imagine how we felt about that.
>>713448
Everyone but the Venetians, the Russians, the Poles, and the Austrians liked the Turks.
>>713441
I like how you play the Freemason card against agreement with Catholics but let it slide when it gives you bragging rights for agreeing with other denominations (O.Orthodox). I dont know, it's just quirky...
>>713373
A Caesar is just your nation's ruler, Churches that aren't in the same nations don't have the same Caesar anyway, that's not really an issue.
>>713437
wasn't the interpolation of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed one of the reasons for the schism in the first place? It's probably still a point of contention I imagine.
>>713437
Too numerous for me to list. Actus Purus is one, though, for instance: it is a doctrine derived completely from Aristotle, completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus
Whereas the Orthodox essence-energies distinction is attested to by the Church Fathers
https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
>>713441
I am going out on a limb here and going to assume you favor the Moscow over the Constantinople
>including the one who lifted the anathemas
so do you see that act as illegitimate?
>>713459
Yes, it is a significant issue. Imagine if we said, "The Father proceeds from the Son"
>>713459
Within the Orthodox Church there is no disagreement over the filioque.
>>713461
I thought that the poster was talking about disagreements within the EO church
>>713462
No, it's legitimate. I don't really like it, but it's fully valid, since that See is the one that pronounced the anathemas.
>>713461
actus purus isnt a doctrine, the doctrine is divine simplicity, since for God to be God, he must be undivided. It's pretty much what it means to be God
Essence-Energies as elaborated by Palamas posits two Divine beings, one which is God and the other which is just "Divine". It's pretty much duotheism
>>713475
> I don't really like it, but it's fully valid
So you see the mutual excommunication between two of the historical patriarchies as a good thing?
>>713467
I mean in disagreement with the Roman Church. It always struck me as a semantic disagreement, honestly, in how the phrase was grammatically structured and the meaning said structure implies and so on.
>>713437
>Which issues are these?
the proper attitudes towards contraception, for example. Orthodox faithful have trouble reconciling the differing views of their bishops and priests
>>713469
Theologoumena?
>>713477
I think that's why some orthodox churches, particularly the Oriental church, have acquired the mean spirited sobriquet of "Nestorian" Churches amongst the Latins.
>>713479
I think the Bishop of Rome fell into unequivocal heresy, yes. This in itself did not have to cause a schism. I think there are four Ecumenical Patriarchs who are officially anathematized.
>>712898
The entire authority of the Catholic church is based on the idea that they're the rock Jesus established with Peter. Palpal infallibility and so on are all dependent on them being the One True Church that cannot be overcome. All the schisms reflect very poorly on this, so it's a source of anxiety. Other Churches that don't make such heavy reference to that particular verse don't have the same anxiety and aren't in such a rush to mend the schisms.
>>713477
Do you think God's wrath is God's essence?
If not, you subscribe to the essence-energies distinction.
>>713508
Geez, Constantine, you literally act like a bot in these threads.
You post the same links, paste the same FAQ, give the same responses and ask the same questions.
How about you actually try to understand for once?
>>713511
That's not how Orthodox Christianity works, it's not about compromising and finding a middle ground with heresy, as Roman Catholics and Protestants do.
From an Orthodox perspective, the Catholics continually deriding the essence-energies distinction as polytheism is the same as those who say the same about the Trinity. God has existence, essence and attributes. His existence is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, his essence is love, and his attributes are his energies.
>>711258
in no particular order:
>the absolute destruction of the Russian state
>abandonment of the filioque by the catholics
>acceptance of the essence-energies distinction in the West
>some sort of East-west political Union
>renunciation of papal infallibility
>>713520
>the destruction of the last Christian state in the world is required
Sounds about right.
>>711426
>it would be best to brush over the doctrinal differences with fancy word games
the theological differences aren't just matters of semantics like people make them out to be.
there are fundamental differences in Orthodox and Western epistemology that have major implications on how God is thought of.
>>713518
If you're fine with finding a middle ground with paganism, why not also find a middle ground with heresy? Mary won't mind, she seems like an understanding woman.
>>713529
Protestants, by denying Mary is God's Mother, deny the divinity of Christ.
>>713527
Yup, but it would be much easier to ignore those with word games. which if they do get back together is probably what they will do
>>713525
What about Armenia and Georgia, my adelphos?
>>713527
Ive noticed that many orthodox refuse to call the Catholic church Catholic, while Catholics have no problems calling the Orthodox orthodox.
I mean its not like your admitting they are right by using their preferred name
>>713518
>the Catholics continually deriding the essence-energies distinction as polytheism is the same as those who say the same about the Trinity.
maybe in your land of make believe. Do you think you can avoid criticism by saying "THEY SAY THE SAME ABOUT THE TRINITY SO IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I MAKE UP DOCTRINES THAT DONT MAKE SENSE"?
The only thing that could actually mend the schism is secularism and Islam becoming so widespread churches cling together in an attempt to re-establish dominance, but I don't think the Catholic church even has it in them to care anymore. Francis is still Pope, so clearly nobody is still paying attention.
>>713543
I think I can avoid the criticism by shows it's attested by the Church Fathers, whereas Actus Purus comes completely from Aristotle and Muslims.
>>713525
>last Christian state
>state full of degenerate Slavs with some of the highest abortion rates in the civilised world.
pls. the real reason it would need to be destroyed is because the Moscow patriarch is an integral part of Russian intelligence.
the Russian church cannot come to terms with Rome anymore than the russian state can join NATO.
there's more at play here than cosmic imaginary friends and their fan clubs. geopolitics dictate that the churches won't merge...
>>713533
>Protestants, by denying Mary is God's Mother, deny the divinity of Christ.
lolwut
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php
>We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of God, although from eternity He has been a particular, distinct, entire divine person, and thus, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, true, essential, perfect God, nevertheless, in the fulness of time assumed also human nature into the unity of His person, not in such a way that there now are two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus is now in one person at the same time true, eternal God, born of the Father from eternity, and a true man, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written Rom. 9:5: Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.
>>713554
>banned profanity in TV
>banned gay parades
>severely limiting abortion and requires religious conciliating before you go through with it
Seems pretty Christian compared to other states
>>713542
it's the same as Evangelicals calling themselves "Christian" and calling us Romans, at the end of the day it just makes them feel better.Besides, most loaded terms are commonly used by the dissenters (Old Believers, "Reformed Christians", "Orthodox Church")
>>713557
>praising the Eurasian Taliban
ok.
>>713555
The Bible says Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and the Mother of the Lord. If you are saying she is not the Mother of God, it is implicitly stating that the Lord Jesus she is the Mother of, is not God.
>>713564
How is that remotely comparable to the Taliban?
>>713542
I'm not a papist, but I use "Catholic" and "Orthodox" for the sake of clearness.
"papist" and "Greek Christian" are my preferred internal term for both of these organisations. no one else uses these terms, and "Greek Christian" could be confused for Greek Catholics/Eastern Catholics, which are papists who use an Eastern liturgy.
if you'd prefer, I'll call them as they are: papists and Greeks.
>>713553
>I think I can avoid the criticism by shows it's attested by the Church Fathers
Palamism isnt attested by the Church fathers. Your website only has some quotes with some pretty dubious gloss in between. And Palamism isnt held by the Copts, since they use more the language of "nature" and "grace" instead of Essence/Energies.
>>713518
I wouldn't deride it as polytheism, but I will say that it leads to some excessively idiotic conclusions about Christology and the nature of the incarnation.
>>713576
What are you talking about, that's a Coptic website. And what does grace have to do with this? The Orthodox Church believes in God's grace as well, you're acting like it's some term interchangeable with energies, which it's not. Grace is God's actions, energies are his attributes.
>>713569
since he's quoting from the book of Concord:
Lutheran's don't deny Mary's role as theotokos, they simply deny that it is right and good to pray to her.
>>713580
What does it have to do with the incarnation that's idiotic? The doctrine was mainly codified (it always existed, but was not always codified, like all codified doctrine) to define what monks see in Hesychasm. They see the face of God, like Isaiah does (not literally with human features of course, even if it figuratively represented that way). This experience is explained by Saint Basil in the Fourth Century as experiencing God's attributes, but not his essence. Remember Christ said only the Son has seen God? So what do you think Isaiah and the angels were seeing as the face of God? Well, they were seeing God, obviously. God's energies are God. The distinction is very simple.
>>713589
Lutherans are the only Protestants who believe Mary is the Mother of God.
>>713586
>that's a Coptic website
based in America, which makes it pretty liberal for Orthodox standards
>you're acting like it's some term interchangeable with energies
it is for the Copts
>which it's not
under your Duotheistic theology, maybe, but again, agreeing to it would be like agreeing Mormon Trinitarianism is the true expression of the Trinity. It's only believable by its members
Is anyone here actually Catholic?
>>713569
Why would I be saying she isn't?
>>713602
Damn straight.
>>713623
All the major Lutheran denominations have gay marriage .
>>713626
Not my LCMS.
>>713628
Uh huh. And how do they feel about evolution?
>>713599
if man cannot experience the essence of God, what then was incarnate in Christ?
the essence of the second person, or the energies thereof?
if the latter, then isn't this a heresy that denies that Christ was a hypostatic Union of man and God, since no hypostasis of God would be present, only his energia.
this would make Christ no different than a mere human who's achieved theosis, which is obvious heresy.
thus, either the heresy of Christ not being fully god is truth, or essence-energy distinction is false.
yes, I know it was invented as a justification for navel-gazing prayer, but wouldn't it seem that this form of prayer is simply incorrect when, at the end of the day, it's justification is a pronouncement of heresy?
>>713599
>The distinction is very simple.
o rly? then explain this
>The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them 'to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times', as the divine Maximus says."
>Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God [to say the least: we are certainly right to question how something which infinitely transcends something else, and then infinitely transcends it an infinite number of times, could be considered in any way identified with that which it transcends], even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible.
What kind of God who can infinitely trascend His energies an infinite number of times be entirely manifest in every one of them?
>>713633
The same way Catholics do. Lutheranism is just Catholicism Lite after all.
>>713626
the LCMS and WELS forbid it outright.
the ELCA permits it but doesn't force it (I.e. if a congregation doesn't want to marry gays, the bishop can't force them to).
>>713647
LCMS's official doctrine on the matter is YEC.
theistic evolution is "liberal" for them.
>>713641
Christ had both a divine and a human essence, as well as divine and human energies. No one experience the "essence" of Christ, but Christ is 100% God, right down to His Body. Not even Christ's humanity knew Christ's divine essence (Matthew 24:36), though Christ's divinity did
>>713649
The ELCA is the only one in communion with the original Lutheran Churches of Europe.
The others are burgerist offshoots that literally deny evolution.
ELCA forces female ordination
>>713665
what do I partake of in the sacrament then, if not Christ's essence?
>>713665
>Not even Christ's humanity knew Christ's divine essence
Nestorian as fuck.
>>713678
It's all just semantics, get over it
t. Patriarch
>>713686
so you avoid charges of heresy, which nestorianism is, by calling it semantics. that's some mighty fine hand waving.
>>713674
"Body" in Orthodox Christianity means the union of spiritual and material. "Flesh" means just the material. I actually don't know the answer to your question from reading (it has a definitive answer, I haven't read it), so I will answer from conjecture: since theosis does not involve being united with God's essence, I think Communion can only be energies. If, after all, we were all communion with God's essence, then each person in the Church would be like a person in the Trinity.
>>713678
Please explain that verse in Roman Catholic terms.
>>713673
>ELCA forces female ordination
this is technically false too.
females can be ordained, but
a) bishops control whether or not a certain candidate is viable for call in their synod
b) congregations vote on pastoral candidates iirc. if the congregations rejects a woman or gay pastor, that's on the congregation.
>>713697
I'll do you one better and let the verse explain itself. The Father knows, the Son does not. Jesus is the Son.
>>713702
They can't reject someone *for* being a woman, though, as this goes against the rules of the Lutheran World Federation.
>>713704
So God doesn't know?
>>713704
That Christ had two wills, human and divine, is not only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, it's even accepted by the Coptic Church. Christ just didn't have a gnomic will.
>>713708
i-i'm also OK with female ordination, though, so it isn't a big deal for me.
>>713730
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
>>713746
tfw /pol/ is part of the same grouping as these people.
>>713746
can your ad hom garbage and argue correctly.
opposition to female ordination stems from 1 Timothy 2:12, which uses the verb "authentein" to describe an activity that women are not allowed to do.
authentein is a hapax legomena with no definitively known meaning, and thus I cannot base doctrine in it.
further, an etymologically similar word, "authentes" is often used in contemporary Greek works to denote atrocity, murder and/or usurpation.
with this light, 1 Tim 2:12 very well could be re-read in the light of "don't fuck the bishop to sway his opinion"... in that such is a specifically female usurpation that allows her to teach with improper authority.
so, no, I'm yet a Christian with no qualifiers, and do not subscribe to liberalism for its own sake.
>>713764
>opposition to female ordination stems from
It not being permitted for 1,500 years.
>>713761
Cafeteria Christians? Yeah
>>713774
if you start with an appeal to tradition, then there is no contest as far as general argument goes:
the only solution to this dispute is the 30 years war. I'm not going to sit here and go on a debate about scripture v. tradition.
>>713792
>Luther advocated for female ordination
>>713792
Also, on what grounds do you believe Scripture was meant to be a comprehensive guide to Church administration?
>>713792
>if you start with an appeal to tradition,
Also, how is there anything wrong with appealing to the traditional interpretation of this verse? Do you think we should used the passed down interpretations, or make new ones?
>>713795
if it isn't, then it becomes irrelevant as to what Paul said or didn't say about women.
>>713800
>Do you think we should used the passed down interpretations, or make new ones?
"new" interpretations were needed to stop indulgence Hawks, and "new" interpretations were also needed to install papal infallibility in proper.
the scripture doesn't explicitly support the tradition when seen in light of the Greek text, and it is contradicted elsewhere (gal 3:28). thus, the tradition should be culled, as it contradicts the written teachings of the apostles.
>>713804
Erm, Scripture being not comprehensive hardly impacts is authority. For instance, Wednesday and Friday are Christian fast days that aren't mentioned in Scripture (the earliest written source for them is the Didache), but they are still doctrine. That doesn't mean Scripture's authority is impacted, is just mean Scripture is not intended to cover every single thing. Christ himself did not subscribe to Scripture alone, since he believed in the Resurrection of the Dead (the Sadducees did not, because they believed in Scripture alone).
>>713813
I'm Orthodox. I agree that the Catholic Church innovated things. However, Protestants prune things. So both are in error.
>>711426
>a mutual statement recognizing each others validity.
Except they did that repeatedly.
>>712734
>This 2bh, we should introduce Uniatism again as a legitimate method of reunion, it works pretty well.
2. With regard to the method which has been called "uniatism", it was stated at Freising (June 1990) that "we reject it as method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html
>>713857
>Orthodox recognize the validity of the Roman Catholics
No, We acknowledge potential validity--that is, if a Roman Catholic is baptized, the baptism becomes valid if the Roman Catholic converts.
>>713168
>We value different expressions of the same faith, which is why we have a number of rites, each with their own uniqueness.
Oh no, how come we never thought of that?
Oh yeah, we did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy
Also, catholics shouldn't throw stones.
Both our Churches took the traditions of their head sees and imposed them on everyone else(there were like 4-5 rites in the West. Also the maronites whom you latinised to unrecognisability).
>>713860
On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church - profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops - cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches- Balamand declaration;
>>713884
Also:
First of all, everyone should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life.
>>713884
The Orthodox Church rejects the Balamand declaration, bruh.
>>713894
>let me tell you about your national Church;
Most of them did;
>>713906
In that case, let's wait until June.
>>713906
Their Sacraments either are valid, or not valid, it's not a question of opinion or relativism.
>>713912
June isn't really about anything except fasting (which will not change, even if the Ecumenical Patriarch wants it to) and autocephalous status. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholics. That Council isn't until 2025
>>713921
As known, the agenda of the Council was determined by Pan-Orthodox decision of the First Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation (1976) and includes the following ten items according to the order in the Acts of the Consultation:
a)Orthodox Diaspora
b)Autocephaly and its manner of proclamation
c)Autonomy and its manner of proclamation
d)The Diptychs
e)The matter of a common calendar
f)Impediments of marriage
g)Adaptation of church regulations on fasting
h)Relations of the Orthodox Churches with the rest of the Christian world
i)Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement
j)Contribution of the local Orthodox Churches to the prevalence of the Christian ideals of peace, liberty, brotherhood and love among peoples, and the lifting of racial and other discrimination.
>>713926
But it's not going to be an Ecumenical Council, so it has zero authority to do things like that. It can only talk about bettering relations.
>>713937
>But it's not going to be an Ecumenical Council.
Neither was the one that declared Palamas legit or lutheranism to be heresy.
>>713945
No, the Palamas one was an Ecumenical Council.
As for Lutheranism, I don't know which council you're referring to, but Lutheranism doesn't need a council to declare it heretical anymore than every other Protestant sect does.
>>713952
>No, the Palamas one was an Ecumenical Council.
Depends on who you ask.
>As for Lutheranism, I don't know which council you're referring to, but Lutheranism doesn't need a council to declare it heretical anymore than every other Protestant sect does.
Meant calvinism, sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672)#Refutation_of_Calvinism
>>713985
>Depends on who you ask.
It's considered one by the Orthodox Church. The upcoming council is not.
No, the Synod of Jerusalem wasn't an Ecumenical Council, but you hardly need one to confirm Calvanism is heretical, since Calvanism says things which explicitly contradict Orthodox dogma. Do we need an Ecumenical Council to call Mormonism heretical? No. Ecumenical Councils mainly deem things heretical that are being propagated *within* the Church, not outside of it, or else they'd have to address Islam, Scientology, etc.
>>713992
>It's considered one by the Orthodox Church.
[citation needed]
Most orthodox writers accepts 7(and it's what i had in my religious education book, approved by the Romanian Church, alongside most of my interactions with the Church. 99% say 7.). Deal with it.
>>714001
Sure, seven is given the general number, but there were technically more which had the same weight (the Council of Jerusalem, for instance, has the weight of an Ecumenical Council).
Anyway, I tend not to look at Romania for doctrine. The Romanian concept of hell, for instance, seems more Latin than Orthodox to me.
Nothing, the schism will not end unless one side is substantially wiped out to the point it cannot function independently.
>>714099
This, unless they put politics over religion.
>>713846
>I'm Orthodox. I agree that the Catholic Church innovated things. However, Protestants prune things. So both are in error.
Just like you guys were when you elevated the status of Constantinople to being only second to Rome or abandoned clerical celibacy?
>>714118
Constantinople's position of honor isn't dogma, though, so it's not really the same thing.
There originally was not distinction between episkopos and presbytyr, they were two terms for the same office, what we'd now refer to as "bishop". What are "priests" now, is a created office that was not in the original Church The idea that priests always had to be celibate as dogma is nonsensical, since the office didn't even exist then. As for bishops, they cannot marry in the Orthodox Church.
More importantly, since YOU permit Eastern Catholic priests to marry, you have absolutely zero grounds to make accusations. Your Church itself says priestly celibacy is not dogma, but a discipline. So you are either saying your Church is heretical and lying, or you are admitting it's just a discipline, not dogma.
>>714118
>clerical celibacy
M8, that is shit and only leads to pedophilia and shit.
>>714146
>Who cares about the Church Fathers and and early Christianity, innovation is only something other can churches do. We cannot innovate by definition silly heretic!
>More importantly, since YOU permit Eastern Catholic priests to marry,
>Thinking Im a catholic
>shiggy
>>713846
>Hesychasm
1.Find an obscure biblical passage
2.Loosely tie it actions of early Christians
3.Tadaa innovation whilst still being the "unchanged church"
And thats how the practice of asceticism by early Christians was used to justify a new practice using 1984 think. Oh weve *always* prayed like that.
Its just like Muslims do with Matthew 26:39
>>714131
>More importantly, since YOU permit Eastern Catholic priests to marry, you have absolutely zero grounds to make accusations. Your Church itself says priestly celibacy is not dogma, but a discipline. So you are either saying your Church is heretical and lying, or you are admitting it's just a discipline, not dogma.
This. There are also some married roman priests(and some easteners that chose celibacy). The only dogmatic thing that must be kept is that you can't marry after becoming one.
Clerical celibacy has some advantages and some disadvantages.
Trying to make a big deal beyond that is just denominational wankery.
>The Romanian concept of hell, for instance, seems more Latin than Orthodox to me.
Oh, i'm sorry. I never realised a country surrounded and influenced by orthodox slavs and greeks can develop an entire concept of hell on it's own. You are the first that's ever leveled this nonsense at me.
>>714221
>going into your closet to pray
>"obscure passage"
>>714286
>Oh, i'm sorry. I never realised a country surrounded and influenced by orthodox slavs and greeks can develop an entire concept of hell on it's own.
I never said it did. I said just it's rather influenced by the Latin conception. It's certainly very different from the Greek or Russian Orthodox understanding of hell, which is that it is the same as heaven, being filled with the radiance of God's love, which is like a fire or a light, agony or bliss, depending on one's relationship with him.
>>714314
>>going into your closet to pray
>"obscure passage"
Just as obscure as Matthew 26:39 yet you dont go around doing the salah
>>711258
Restore Tridentine Mass, get rid of Purgatory or at least leave this as optional like the Orthodox "Toll houses" and get rid of Papal Infallibility. Transubstantiation can be defined as the change that takes place in the Eucharist rather than a mechanism to explain it. Immaculate Conception should be dropped and the Pope must accept that he ain't really over all the other patriarchs despite his honor. These would be a good start.
>>714375
If we were into rejecting the Pope we would all be protestants
>>714374
Not that uncommon, actually.
>>714376
You have to deny infallibility and dominion over the other sees. You still get to be the First of Equals.
>>713260
I don't think we consider any baptisms to be valid except our own, at least locally here. Anyone going through Rite of Christian Initiation winds up getting baptized/rebaptized and going through the rest of the sacraments as well.
>>714376
>If we were into rejecting the Pope we would all be protestants
Gee, it's not like we have historical Churches that confer to their chief bishop only partial power that didn't spiral into protestantism
>>712870
Most of the dogmatic differences between the churches come from dumb Latin peasants who can't translate Greek properly.
>>711258
Not catholic, but the patriarch looks baller
>>712870
>Muslim
>why don't you use your religious text to learn who's right?
>what is Shiite/Sunni schism?
Wouldn't the Church's movement towards secular liberalism make it harder to reconcile with the Orthodox?
>>711258
>EU reforms itself into a new Roman Empire
>Remove turkroach from rightful Byzantine clay
>Dismantle heretical Orthodox Church, convert population to Roman Catholicism
>Crusade rest of the world
>???
>Crusade rest of the universe in the name of The Emperor
Obviously there are more extreme methods, but this seems like the most simple and painless why of mending the great schism.
>>711258
Descendants of major civil splits usually reunite in the face of a common enemy. When atheism/ agnosticism really gains traction, we may see a union of sorts between them. More likely between Russian and Greek, but maybe eventually Roman as well. Once America is finally converted, shit will begin to go down in the religious world. Hatred towards Islam might speed this up.
>>715009
>EU
>Roman Empire
Even if you think Russia as Third Rome is a joke, the idea of an EU shaped by Catholicism persuasion is even more laughable. At least Russia policy is strongly influenced by the Church, but there is no such relationship with the EU.
>>715369
Russia and Greece are already One Church. They have interdependent management, but they're in full communion.
>>712746
yikes
weird post
>>714860
>Constantinople and friends
>Andrew
pick one and only one
>>716026
Where do Roman Catholics place Andrew's See, out of curiosity?
>>716042
Byzantium. So I'm not sure what that guy was on about.
>>714131
>There originally was not distinction between episkopos and presbytyr
So? when the "distinction" was clear and made the priests still had to be celibate, and it did exist in the early Church, since the Canons that the East cites as "supporting" their practice have priests and bishops as separate.
> you have absolutely zero grounds to make accusations
of course I can. If you werent howling about how your Church has remained "static" I wouldnt bring it up, but since you brag about how your Church has always rejected "innovation" then I can accuse you of being an uninformed mong who doesnt know the origin of their practices (other than a vague "original Church", something that would be false if taken literally).
>Your Church itself says priestly celibacy is not dogma
who the fuck even said it was theological dogma?
>So you are either saying your Church is heretical and lying, or you are admitting it's just a discipline, not dogma.
No, im saying the Latin Church preserved the practice of the Early Church while the Greek Church abandoned it (and they did it because of their own anti-Roman bias). It doesnt have anything to do with theological dogma or something similar.
And about Constantinople, it's not its position that is innovation, rather, its mere existence is innovation, an innovation that had to be supported with fabrications, politics and sweet East-Roman gold, and an innovation that eventually divided Christendom
I would respect you if you sincerely disagreed with the arguments against E. Orthodoxy, but your tendency to twist and strawman these arguments makes me think otherwise.
>>716042
I dont know, there isnt any legit tradition about where his See is, exactly.
>>716142
>who the fuck even said it was theological dogma?
I was talking about innovated dogma, so when you brought up this, I assumed you were as well.
>No, im saying the Latin Church preserved the practice of the Early Church
This is highly unlikely, since the early Church had married priests. Unless you're saying people could be made priests after they were married, but then had to remain celibate and deny their wives intercourse. Are you saying that?
>>716149
We know that where he preached is the same territory covered by that See.
>>716159
>Unless you're saying people could be made priests after they were married, but then had to remain celibate and deny their wives intercourse. Are you saying that?
I'm not him, but there is a bit of historical evidence to leads us to believe that the early church's priests where usually elders who where expected to live in continence. Also Paul.
>>716198
Paul says married couples should not live in continence, except temporarily (1 Corinthians 7:5), and that one should always fulfill the sexual needs of one's spouse (1 Corinthians 7:4).
>>716159
>I assumed you were as well.
It was just about innovations in general, what would count as innovated dogma in Orthodoxy is Palamism, not sexually active priests.
>Unless you're saying people could be made priests after they were married, but then had to remain celibate and deny their wives intercourse.
This is exactly what happened, but because of your use of "deny" I'm pretty much sure you will quote a bible verse that you have quoted before. As I was writing this I see you did exactly what I did.
>Paul says married couples should not live in continence
He said that all of that was by way of concession, not of command. Also, his audience is the laypeople, not the Bishops, priests or deacons.
Anon here is right >>716198
>The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the 3rd century,[28] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made "whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God".[29]
>>716177
that doesnt mean he founded his See in Byzantium
>>716159
Peter was married.
The Catholics don't care. They want celibate priests so that the very little money they amass in their lifetimes reverts to the church.
It's all a money grubbing scheme.
>>711300
Nice meme, it would never happen - me and other millions of orthodox Christians would rather die for Christ than to fall for Satan meme.
Orthodox until death and nothing will take that away from me. None of your anathematized cults - I believe in God not some ideologies presented by the religion - God is present in orthodoxy not anywhere else.
>>716273
>what would count as innovated dogma in Orthodoxy is Palamism
https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
>Also, his audience is the laypeople, not the Bishops, priests or deacons.
Isn't the wife of a priest still a layperson?
>He said that all of that was by way of concession
He says that of marriage itself. He says if you *do* get married though, you should not live in abstinence.
>] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife,
Bishops still have to be chaste in Orthodox Christianity. We don't look at bishops as "big priests", like Roman Catholics do. Most priests are not eligible to become bishops, and you don't have to be a priest to become a bishop. Bishops are mainly chosen from monks. A priest is a member of the congregation chosen to act on behalf of the bishop, he's not some some sort of "parish bishop". We also, unlike Roman Catholics, see married priests as even advantageous: a priest ministers directly to the laity in counseling and things like that, so if he's marred and raised kids, he's better able to discuss marital difficulties, council children, council parents on dealing with children, and all sorts of other things that go with married life.
>>717295
Amen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnCO0OlhlE
>>716223
I was talking about the example Paul set himself. The early Christian church actually had a big fight on this constantly. There was always a faction that wanted all the clergymen to follow the example of Paul and Christ and not marry or have sex ever. They won eventually.
>>717392
>We don't look at bishops as "big priests", like Roman Catholics do.
I'm not him, and It was looking good until you decided to try to speak up for a church you don't belong to. Our Bishops can be from Monastic Orders too. A lot of them are actually, so are a lot of the Cardinals.
Also our stance on celibacy go almost totally in line with Paul's own example, and that of Jesus. Not really much else beyond historical tradition. The theological faction that won that early dogfight didn't want priests to get married at all.
>>717462
>Our Bishops can be from Monastic Orders too. A lot of them are actually, so are a lot of the Cardinals.
I never said they couldn't be (which is a lot different from saying they mainly are drawn from monasteries).
My point is that the Catholic conception of what a priest is, is fundamentally different from the Orthodox conception. For instance, the Catholic is conception is that the priest is a representative of God talking to the people, whereas the Orthodox conception is a representative of the people talking to God, as well as a representative of the bishop. Priests cannot, for instance, perform sacraments outside the Jurisdiction of their bishop, since they do not have the authority to perform Sacraments in general, just on behalf of their bishop. In Catholicism, the difference between a priest and bishop is like a ladder going up, a pyramid of jurisdiction, with the Pope at the top. In Orthodox Christianity, the priest is an extremely distinct office from that of a bishop, a priest's office has zero meaning apart from the context of his bishop.
>The theological faction that won that early dogfight didn't want priests to get married at all.
I assure you that that faction would object just as strenuously to priests being clean shaven.
>>717536
>the Orthodox conception is a representative of the people talking to God,
You'll notice this, for instance, in Liturgy: the priest still faces the East. And in Confession, the priest prays to Christ to forgive your sins after you have Confession them toward an icon of Christ. In Roman Catholicism, the priest himself is the icon you confess toward.
>>717536
>I assure you that that faction would object just as strenuously to priests being clean shaven.
I admit, it would be nice if our priests had the orthodox look going on when it came to facial hair.
>>717392
>https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
I already dealt with this before, I wont do it again
>Isn't the wife of a priest still a layperson?
the bishop isnt
>He says if you *do* get married though, you should not live in abstinence.
He never orders you to not live in abstinence because he isnt giving any command
>Bishops still have to be chaste
That is just one example out of a ton. Many Church fathers and Council canons prohibit bishops and priests to maintain sex with their wives.
>We don't look at bishops as "big priests", like Roman Catholics do.
So is are you going to school me on my Church? By what authority, Fr. Vladimir's? You Orthodox misunderstand Catholic ecclesiology so much you are indistinguishable from Evangelicals.
>We also, unlike Roman Catholics, see married priests
again, the issue is continent clergy, not married clergy
>>713399
Why arent you convinced by Orthodox arguments and theology?
Does the fact that orthodox dogma being unchanged unlike that of Catholics mean nothing?
>>717771
Why would he be convinced by strawmen and ad hominems?
>>714388
>Not that uncommon, actually.
Its very uncommon compared to Hesychasm
>>717778
The arguments presented by the Orthodox arent just insults and strawmen.
>>717806
Sure, they rely on false information too
>>717815
Which false information?
>>711258
The end of either the East or the West.
>>713453
>poles
They were the greatest ally, afte the battle of vienna against russians. Though a lot of them want to sweep that under the rug.
>>717864
>Andrew made his See in Constantinople
>The Pentarchy was the way the Church was organized originally
>>713453
>the Venetians
I take great pride in being Venetian.
1. Absorb Orthodox church into more organized and powerful Catholic, though allowing Eastern Synods to maintain structure
2. In exchange, adopt the Orthodox calendar for dating Easter and other feasts
3. Allow priests to get married, allow women priests
4. Pool money together to buy back Hagia Sophia
5. Continue tradition of ignoring the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th commandments by ignoring the 10th as well
6. Priests not allowed to rape more than 3 children per parish
7. Admit Constantine was a douchebag
8. Rename Yahweh to something less Jewish
9. Put Jesuits in charge of everything
10. Remove Revelation from NT, replace with gospel of Thomas
Of course, unification and not schisming over petty disputes is abhorrent to Christians. So keep your expectations low
>>711258
90% Religious Authority, 2000 Piety, and complete control of the Bishoprics of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome.
>>716286
Exactly. Hell, for the longest time Byzantium was a suffragan to Heraclea, the provincial metropolitan.
What I read from other sources though, is that Constantinople also claims itself the heir to the lineage of Ephesus (St. John the Apostle).
>>717295
As long as the Latins are not mentioned specifically in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy Catholics are not anathematized ;^)
>>718651
Or no Empire-level title with an Orthodox ruler.
t. Meneth
>>713096
>can't even vote
Which does not exclude bribing or kidnapping bishops who won't toe the party line like what "Saint" Justinian did. But no vote. Got it.
To be more serious though, the West, since St. Isidore of Seville, has rejected the Byzantine model of Church-State relations as unhelpful and harmful.
>>713862
You know that the ROCOR-affiliated priests who serve WRO liturgies have been told to drop them and go full Chrysostom/Basil right?
The Antiochian Archdiocese of course is a wholly different pan of falafeel.
>>711258
Loads of shitposters on a tengri praising mongolian hut.
