We need a reading list edition
Why don;t you guys believe in Sola Scripture?
>>305171
>>305171
Sola scripture is for noobs
I'd say we need more fidele.
>>305171
Because those of us who believe the texts are inspired believe in the continuity of inspirations: saints and mystics and the spirit.
And those of us who don't know they're texts in contexts.
>>305816
>those of us who believe the texts are inspired believe in the continuity of inspirations
DESIGNATED
Who is the best saint?
>>306079
personal preference
St. Seraphim is pretty based.
I'd say Father Arseny is the best modern saint but he's not typically considered a saint.
>>306079
Constantine t bh
Happy thanksgiving bros. I'll be breaking the fast today, my priest gave us a reprieve! Hope everyone has a blessed day.
>>306279
>2015
>Still using revised calendar
Top kek
A lot of the books in pic related get mentioned in Eastern Orthodoxy threads.
>>305219
Is this solely for Eastern Orthodox Christians?
>>305171
Orthodox believe the Church for the same reason protestants believe in the Bible--faith in Holy Tradition. The Bible does not contain within it it's own justification; sola scriptura cannot be deduced from the scripture itself. It is believed because protestants belief in the authority of its authors, and that it is canon. Well, it was in and through the Church that this canon was decided in the first place.
In placing trust in the veracity of the canonical texts, protestants are implicitly placing trust in the institution that compiled and sanctified the texts in the first place.
Thus Orthodox do not separate the Church and the Bible.
What do the Orthodox think of Aquinas?
He really was quite a brilliant theologian. The best that Catholicism has to offer.
>>307071
The Orthodox Church considers Saint Augustine's theology hetrodox, so they're probably not crazy about Aquinas.
Organized religion has never been a big part of my life but Im interested.
I have a question to you Orthobros how do you justify the changing of G_d from the Jewish "old tedtament" to the "new testament" one? Also how do you believe in Jesus being the Messiah despite the messianic prophecies being unfulfilled?
If you could answer with some specific bible verses or texts so I can do some more research that would be nice.
>>307131
>The Orthodox Church considers Saint Augustine's theology hetrodox
Why?
>>308378
Orthodoxy has had different views of him at different times, but criticisms of Aquinas are part of a larger criticism of Scholastics, because of what many eventually came to view as its overemphasis on rationalism with respect to God. Orthodoxy began to react against rationalistic and legalistic forms of western Christianity as they became more and more dominant throughout the renaissance and peaked in the enlightenment. It doesn't help that the origins of Scholasticism are usually identified in medieval Muslim theologians like Averroes.
Ironically, despite its current state, Islam was actually the first to emphasized rationalism over mysticism in Abrahamic faiths. It rejected the unbelievable parts of the Christian story, and created a slimmed down and simplified theology that one could argue is easier to believe. Eastern Christians are perhaps more sensitive to the pagan and Muslim origins of Catholic Scholastics.
>>308378
That's quite an exaggeration. We consider his views on original sin to be flawed, but view him as an outstanding theologian in all other aspects. In the Orthodox world he's usually given the title "Blessed" (unlike in the Catholic Church, this has no official meaning in Orthodoxy, it's simply a common term for someone one step lower than a saint.
>>308378
>conflates noesis and dianoia
>original sin transmitted by conception
>just war theory
To name a few things.
>>309647
>war is bad
stop memeing
>>307071
he BTFO of them on the filioque issue, so theyre salty they lost an excuse for the schism
>>309667
Threadly reminder that the Popes utterly refused the Filioque until Charlemagne attended a Mass in Rome and literally demanded that it be used.
Threadly reminder that Pope Leo hated the Filioque so much that he actually had the non-Filioque creed engraved on silver tablets put in St. Peter's so that it could never be changed.
>>309761
>It was accepted by the popes only in 1014, and is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Charlemagne died way before then
>>309761
orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#History
Even if the article is quite biased, it's completely top kek. Rome, the ass-lickers and hypocrites of all history.
>mfw some popes are so afraid of getting called out on their bullshit that they literally name themselves Innocent
Why is Rome bishop the first among equals?
>>309761
Why does this matter so much? What implication does it have when the holy spirit precedes from the son as well?
>>309783
Because he's first in the Pentarchy. Constantinople got the second place because Old Rome > New Rome
>>309804
Because the Orthodox position (which, it should also be stated, has been a majority Catholic opinion at various times) is that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son. This is a perfectly Orthodox position. The heresy starts where it says that the Holy Spirit comes FROM the Son. This essentially makes the Spirit subservient to Father and Son, and a trinity of equal members simply cannot exist in this situation.
>>309804
Also, very relevant to Catholic dick-waving. An addition to the Creed was expressly forbidden by the Ecumenical Councils, and by declaring an addition regardless the Pope was literally putting himself higher than a fucking council.
>>309883
> This essentially makes the Spirit subservient to Father and Son, and a trinity of equal members simply cannot exist in this situation
So it diminishes the importance of the spirit and that's important because it diminishes the importance of how the spirit interacts with the world and everyone in it? Do Catholics believe the spirit has no will of it it's own?
Also how is the spirit equal under Orthodoxy if it proceeds from one of the other members?
>>309904
It diminishes the role and value of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. The Trinity cannot exist as three equal persons when one is subservient to the other two.
The Trinity can exist equally in such a case because God the Father naturally precedes the other two, not in an obediatory way, but composes the Father figure of the Trinity.
>>309883
>The heresy starts where it says that the Holy Spirit comes FROM the Son.
except that Orthodox theologians dont know what Catholics mean by this and cant be bothered to find out
http://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response_on_the_filioque.pdf
>>309883
>FROM the Father THROUGH the Son
Catholic position as well. We solved this issue in some council centuries back.
Come on man, you are starting to sound like protestants with your broken record attacks repeating the same misconceptions over and over.
>>310141
>Catholic position as well
Then delete the filioque, or add the word "per".
>>310176
why? theyre both true. Catholics dont deny the validity of Eastern profesion of faith, why do you deny ours?
>>310189
Because yours says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
It's not because we're dicks because your wording is different. We've already, for instance, acknowledge the Coptic phrasing that Christ has *one* nature, human and divine, as the same thing as saying Christ has two inseparable natures, human and divine. It's different wording, but we agree it is the same thing, and they agree we're saying the same thing.
So it's not because we're dicks, it's that your profession of faith doesn't just fall under "different wording", the wording means something different. You say "from the Father and the Son". That means something specific grammatically. It doesn't mean "by the Son", it means "from the Son", the words "by" and "from" are not interchangeable in Latin.
>>310212
>the Creed was written in Modern English
embarassing, try actually looking at the meaning of the Latin phrasing instead of relying on Orthodoxwiki
>>310212
>Copts get to add meaning to their wording but Catholics don't
>>310230
Go suck the Popes cock Cucthlic
>>310225
"Ex" and "per" are not interchangeable in Latin.
>>310230
Coptics didn't add any meaning to their wording. The problem was they thought Nestorianism was being proposed, and that is why they separated. Meanwhile we thought they were monophysites. Both of us were wrong.
Is anybody here a creationist?
>>310242
I wouldn't be saying such things considering how much your church bent over for the Byzantine Emperor... and Putin... and Israel for that matter.
>>310262
>creationism
>Anno Domini MMXV
>>310273
>placing ex-Patriarch Irenaeus under house arrest
>bending over
>>310273
Care to provide any examples? There are numerous times through history where the Pope has used his power to control Europe
>>310262
Creationist=\=believing the earth is 6000 years old and God just made people one day
>>310273
>bent over for the Byzantine Emperor
If we bent over for the Emperor, we would have accepted Iconoclasm...we didn't. Or we would have accepted Papal authority (Council of Florence)....we didn't.
Seeing as how you had to canonize someone your own Church burned (Joan of Arc) because it was so under the control of state governments, I'd say you had it worse.
>>310300
Most people associate being a creationist with believing in Genesis
>>310305
If you mean taking Genesis as a documentary, those are young earth creationists.
>>310317
What do you consider a creationist then?
>>310243
the issue isnt with the "Ex" part, it's about what the term "procedit" means.
Ekporeusis and procedit can have different meanings, meanings that do not contradict each other
>>310304
>If we bent over for the Emperor, we would have accepted Iconoclasm...we didn't.
but you did accept it a lot of times, and other heresies too.
>Or we would have accepted Papal authority (Council of Florence)....we didn't.
Mark of Ephesus didnt, but he was a man of controversy. The only response he could give when presented with the corpus of works from the Fathers was "muh corruption of texts"
>just like Muslims, rite? ;)
>>310341
>but you did accept it a lot of times, and other heresies too.
A couple of bishops ≠ the Church accepting it
>Mark of Ephesus didnt
The Church didn't.
>just like Muslims, rite? ;)
We wouldn't have icons if we bent over backward to appease Muslims.
>>310383
I mean in a Latin dictionary
>>310387
>A couple of bishops ≠ the Church accepting it
but the Church is with the bishop, or isnt it, Ortho?
>The Church didn't.
because Mark of Ephesus started to go crazy
that last comment was a reference to this part
>The only response he could give when presented with the corpus of works from the Fathers was "muh corruption of texts"
just like what the Muslims claim about the Bible
What part of the bible says pre-marital sex is bad?
>>310391
I'll quote the passages for you
>So, to someone coming from this Eastern heritage –indeed, for any Greek-speaker who
knows what the term “ekporeusis” implies (i.e., procession from a single source,
principal, or cause)
>…the Latin
translation of the Constantinopolitan Creed carried a notable difference. For, the Greek
term for “proceeds” (ekporeusis – “ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon”) was translated
into Latin as “procedit” (“ex Patre procedentum”) –a term that, unlike the Greek, does
not imply procession from a single source, principal, or cause.
>>310408
>but the Church is with the bishop, or isnt it, Ortho?
One bishop does not speak for the whole Church...I think this was the point of our schism.
>because Mark of Ephesus started to go crazy
Because the Church wouldn't accept it.
>just like what the Muslims claim about the Bible
It doesn't really matter what his response was. Conferring supremacy upon the bishop of Rome violates the First and Second Ecumenical Councils which both said Patriarchs are not to exercise authority outside their jurisdiction.
>>310417
The NT says fornication is bad in several places
>>310444
What if I intend to marry the girl?
>>310437
>a term that, unlike the Greek, does
>not imply procession from a single source, principal, or cause.
That doesn't fix the issue, it just means it's what allowed them to wedge in the flioque.
>>310446
And if you break it off? Sex can't become a sin "retroactively".
>>310444
>One bishop does not speak for the whole Church
how many bishops do you need to keep the faith, then?
>Because the Church wouldn't accept it.
they did. That some dissented from the council doesnt mean it isnt valid, otherwise Chalcedon wouldnt be valid.
>Conferring supremacy upon the bishop of Rome violates the First and Second Ecumenical Councils which both said Patriarchs are not to exercise authority outside their jurisdiction.
the Pope just keeps the faith. He doesnt "rule" the rest of the churches.
What do Orthodox think of predestination?
>>310451
>That doesn't fix the issue, it just means it's what allowed them to wedge in the flioque.
so? it isnt contrary to the Christian faith, which is what Nicaea prohibited, going contrary to the "substance" of the faith
>>310474
>how many bishops do you need to keep the faith, then?
You need to have a majority of Patriarchs present or represented for a Patriarchal Council, and all of them present or represented for an Ecumenical Council (Patriarchal consensus alone does not speak for the Church, though). The iconoclast council had zero Patriarchs.
>they did. That some dissented from the council doesnt mean it isnt valid, otherwise Chalcedon wouldnt be valid.
Chalcedon was overwhelmingly accepted by laypeople and monks. We believe the bishops make the decisions and doctrine everything, but these doctrines only become dogma when the laypeople and monks accept them. Laypeople are very important in the Orthodox Church...for instance, if someone is going to be consecrated bishop, and a member of the laity objects with a charge, that charge has to be thoroughly investigated before the consecration is possible.
>the Pope just keeps the faith. He doesnt "rule" the rest of the churches.
He can proclaim Church-wide dogma on faith and morals all by himself.
>>310487
The relationship of the Trinity is the the crux of the faith. Do you think there would be a problem if we said the Son or the Father proceeds from the Holy Spirit?
>>310552
>but these doctrines only become dogma when the laypeople and monks accept them.
that's pretty counter intuitive, senpai
>He can proclaim Church-wide dogma on faith and morals all by himself.
also known as keeping the faith. And it isnt declaring dogma willy nilly, it must have a basis in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
>>310565
>The relationship of the Trinity is the the crux of the faith.
nobody is changing the Trinity. Both the West and East teach the same truths about the Trinity.
>Do you think there would be a problem if we said the Son or the Father proceeds from the Holy Spirit?
yes, but that isnt what the Latin postion implies. You seem to think that the filioque appeared out of the blue, but the Church Fathers and councils disagree with you.
>>310474
>keeps the faith
>>310786
you know, in case some naughty emperor wants to make his whole empire heretics ;)
>>305827
>Wycliffe
>a heretic who let the scripture be trodden under by swine
>>>/l/ollard
>>310802
Or in case a modern generation finds a 1,500 year old Mass to be too much for them, so he can replace it with a half hour version.
>>311127
The Peasants > Wycliffe
>muh tradition
>>311755
>MUH lack of history
>>311517
>Christianity must be attached to a period of time
nice way of undermining the Gospel
and what is the use of tradition and loyalty to Byzantine culture if youre going to accept the modernist practice of contraception and deny the indissolubility of marriage?
>>310475
Calvinistic predestination is heretical
Predestination as foreknowledge is uphold
>>313689
>nice way of undermining the Gospel
If you are against modernism and "progress", you are saying Christianity is continued to a specific time?
>and what is the use of tradition and loyalty to Byzantine culture
The Coptic Church is extremely similar to the Orthodox Church, so it's hardly just "Byzantine culture". Byzantine culture was a product of the Church, not vice versa.
>if youre going to accept the modernist practice of contraception and deny the indissolubility of marriage?
Contraception isn't modernist.
The Orthodox Church grants divorce on a case-by-case basis, for things like infidelity or abuse. Christ even said it was okay under some circumstances, such as infidelity. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, grants annulments, often for unsubstantial reasons--and annulments would mean all sex had in marriage would be fornication and all children from it would be illegitimate; Catholics don't knowledge that because they just use annulment like divorce.
>>314156
*contained to a specific time
>>314156
*don't acknowledge that
>>314119
Predestination as foreknowledge (I can 100% predict something but free will still exists) is logical horseshit.
>>314175
That may be true but the Orthodox position would assume that God could make this work somehow. Just that the means are beyond human comprehension itself.
Equally horseshit though is Calvinism.
A God that they claim to be loving yet treats the subjects of its love as nothing more than mere puppets!
>>314224
The Orthodox Church is pretty existentialist.
>>314226
Yes, it certainly is or if it isn't that, it would be close.
>>305171
Please pray for Father Lazarus of the Desert.
>>305171
>Why don;t you guys believe in Sola Scripture
Because it's retarded.
The Bible is obviously not a perfect document, and its messages are muddled at best.
The Catholic Dogma may not be the perfect solution, but the idea of taking the messages written by people 2,000 years ago and interpreting them in a modern context is important.
In sola scriptura, the seeds of Creationism and fundamentalism were sown.
>>314156
>you are saying Christianity is continued to a specific time?
i dont understand what youre saying
>Byzantine culture was a product of the Church, not vice versa
it was a product of Constantine's state cult
>Contraception isnt modernist
acception of it IS modernist. The Fathers spoke gravely against it.
>Christ even said it was okay under some circumstances
He said it was okay to separate from your spouse, not to remarry.
>Speculation about Catholicism
try actually reading what the Church teaches concerning annulments next time. Getting an annulment doesnt make the children illegitimate, nor does it automatically make sex fornication. What the annulment is concerned with is whether the marriage was sacramental, there could still exist a natural marriage right there.
The increase of annulments has to do with the popularity of contraception in modern culture, something so popular even the Orthodox accepted it (which is a little bit heretical).
>>315009
> the seeds of Creationism and fundamentalism were sown
Oh nigger please, you better not portray the Catholics as some champions of reason and science, considering they used to take the Bible at a face value until recently.
Pic related, racial origins derived from Biblical figures (sons of Noah).
>>315387
>i dont understand what youre saying
Suggesting that if Christianity doesn't change with the times, then it isn't timeless, is ridiculous.
>it was a product of Constantine's state cult
Yet Orthodox Christianity is extremely similar to Coptic Christianity, the Churches are on the cusp of reunification, even.
Also, Constantine is a saint in Roman Catholicism as well, I believe.
>acception of it IS modernist. The Fathers spoke gravely against it.
They were talking about abortifacient contraception, not condoms.
>He said it was okay to separate from your spouse, not to remarry.
Catholics can remarry after an annulment
>Getting an annulment doesnt make the children illegitimate, nor does it automatically make sex fornication.
Which means it wasn't an annulment. An annulment is for something like bigamy.
>>315400
so?
the problem with Creationism is that it interprets Scripture while ignoring science. Catholicism did the opposite, interpreting obscure verses in the light of naturally acquired knowledge
>>315427
And only a minority of protestant denominations are young Earth creationists.
Secondly, the Hebrew word יוֹם can be interpreted as both "day" and "age". So even going just with sola scriptura you don't necessarily have to conclude that the world is 6000 years old. (and I mean even in English when we say "back in my day" we don't mean day as a 24-hour period of time, just for illustration)
Thirdly, the problem with not having sola scriptura is pretty huge, since you can flat out invent whichever tradition fits your current political need. And that's extremely dangerous.
>>315463
>And only a minority of protestant denominations are young Earth creationists.
Pretty much any one that isn't is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
Feel free to name the Protestant denominations that aren't one or the other, there are precious few and shrinking.
>>315463
>Thirdly, the problem with not having sola scriptura is pretty huge, since you can flat out invent whichever tradition fits your current political need.
This isn't true. I don't know how Roman Catholicism works, but in the Orthodox Church, when Sacred Tradition is debated, you bring up Church Fathers, Desert Fathers, early Christian letters, and so on.
>>315495
>posting that shit while Catholics literally have a marxist SJW Pope
Stones, glass houses etc.
Second, you're confusing sola scriptura with scriptural literalism. Those two are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
>>315523
I'm Orthodox :^)
I'm not conflating them. I said nearly all Protestant denominations are either that video, or young earth creationists. There are precious few that aren't, and that number is shrinking as each one that isn't a young earth creationist morphs into that video.
>>315424
>Suggesting that if Christianity doesn't change with the times, then it isn't timeless, is ridiculous.
the substance of the Christian faith doesnt change, but the way this faith is expressed can change depending on the circumstances in which we live. Right now we need to adjust the faith to engage with the rise of Secularism and Atheism, not to engage with the thousand year old Iconoclasts.
>Yet Orthodox Christianity is extremely similar...
it still is a product of Constantine's state
>Constantine is a saint
in Eastern Catholicism, maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that he made a mistake.
>They were talking...
I doubt it
besides, condoms are still contraception, it doesnt matter that they arent abortifacient
>Catholics...
not after a divorce though
>which means it wasnt an annulment...
why? because you say so?
again, listen to Catholics when it comes to Catholicism, otherwise youre going to get misguided
>>315536
I hope you realize that video only pertains to the US where everything got coopted by marxism.
>>315544
>the substance of the Christian faith doesnt change, but the way this faith is expressed can change depending on the circumstances in which we live. Right now we need to adjust the faith to engage with the rise of Secularism and Atheism, not to engage with the thousand year old Iconoclasts
You mean to appease them?
>it still is a product of Constantine's state
No more than Roman Catholicism is.
>in Eastern Catholicism, maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that he made a mistake.
By calling the First Ecumenical Council?
>besides, condoms are still contraception, it doesnt matter that they arent abortifacient
It matters hugely. One is taking a human life.
>not after a divorce though
Yup, so long as the Church annuls it. The Orthodox Church doesn't grant remarriage to just any divorce, either, only those it recognizes.
>why? because you say so?
Because an annulment means the marriage was never valid, it never existed.
Why do Catholics/Orthodox use the word "saint" only for that patron pantheon? Every Christian is a saint according to the Bible, not sure how can you manage to twist that shit.
>>315555
The Church of Denmark and the Church of Sweden both have gay marriage and female clergy, and are in full communion with the Church of England, which also has female clergy and many of its churches in the U.S. and Canada have gay marriage--the CoE is on the same track.
>>315579
"Saint" can be used in multiple senses. A lot of terms can.
>>315500
This is actually problematic. When debating tradition that explicitly contradicts the Scriptures you go with "would the Church Fathers approve?" instead of going with the scripture. When it comes to authority, scriptures > Church Fathers. Always.
I think Luther had the best methodology, tradition is fine as long as it doesn't contradict scriptures.
>>315593
It's not a question of it conflicting with Scripture, it's just whether or not Scripture covers it. Scripture was written by and for Christians who were practicing a continuation of Judaism and were brought up since childhood on how to practice their religion; Christianity made some changes, but it didn't just do away with the whole religion, it fulfilled. Still, a thousand years later, someone might say such-and-such a thing is not part of our religion, and so you have to go back and show that it wasn't randomly introduced, but practiced by the earlier Christians.
Luther contradicts Scripture, not to mentions abridges it. Scripture says to keep Sacred Tradition, and it says faith requires works to be fulfilled, without works, faith is dead.
>>315563
>You mean to appease them?
to have dialogue with them, like grown ups do
>No more than...
you mean the Catholicism that always disputed with the emperor and tried to restore the East to the faith when it fell?
>By calling the...
who said anything about councils? im talking about the state cult he developed in the East
>It matters hugely
only on gravity. The two still turn out to be wrong
>Yup
it looks like youre confusing a civil annulment with the Church annulment, care to clarify why youre doing it?
>only those it recognizes
which is slightly heretical
>because annulment means...
it means sacramental marriage never existed. And there are situations when it doesnt exist as a sacrament, like with unbaptized persons.
>>315612
Protestants pretty much teach that works are the product of God's grace, belief and future salvation.
To make it short, you don't go to heaven because you do works, you do works because you'll go to heaven.
>>315613
>to have dialogue with them, like grown ups do
Why do you need to adjust faith to do that?
>you mean the Catholicism that always disputed with the emperor and tried to restore the East to the faith when it fell?
I mean the Catholicism that appealed to the Donation of Constantine.
>who said anything about councils? im talking about the state cult he developed in the East
He never was a cult anymore than the Bishop of Rome was in the West.
>only on gravity. The two still turn out to be wrong
Why? Without appealing to Aristotle.
>it looks like youre confusing a civil annulment with the Church annulment, care to clarify why youre doing it?
Because if someone gets married in the Church but does not get a civil marriage, that marriage is still recognized by the Church.
>which is slightly heretical
Not anymore than the Catholic Church permitting remarriage is.
>it means sacramental marriage never existed. And there are situations when it doesnt exist as a sacrament, like with unbaptized persons.
Therefore the sex within that union was not in Holy Matrimony, correct?
>>315623
Do you honestly believe non-Christians can't perform good works? And do you honestly believe there aren't people who have a very strong faith in God who lead lives that will prevent them from being saved?
>>315693
Yes to both.
>>315711
That's silly. What about the Good Samaritan?
>>315711
And how can you say the latter part when Christ said that not everyone who says "Lord" will get into heaven, but only those who do the will of the Father?
>>315665
>Why do you need to adjust faith to do that?
you dont
>Donation
that wasnt a matter of faith
>He never was a cult anymore
i was talking about the state cult that used Christianity as a political glue in the East, not about any cult surrounding him as a figue
>Why?
well because...
>Without using arguments
oh, well you got me there, Vladimir!
>that marriage is still recognized by the Church
what marriage?
>Not anymore than the Catholic...
The Church doesnt permit remarriage, youre just going in circles now
>correct?
yes, it wasnt "Holy", but it still happened within a natural marriage
>>315723
>you dont
But you said
" Right now we need to adjust the faith to engage with the rise of Secularism and Atheism"
>that wasnt a matter of faith
And what part of our faith revolves around Constantine?
>i was talking about the state cult that used Christianity as a political glue in the East, not about any cult surrounding him as a figue
The state is the protector of the Church, or was, anyway. I don't see what's wrong with revering it.
>The Church doesnt permit remarriage, youre just going in circles now
Yes it does, it just gets around it be saying the former marriage never was.
>yes, it wasnt "Holy", but it still happened within a natural marriage
Then the Catholic Church thinks natural marriage are dissoluble?
>>315744
>Not true belief, as simple as that.
So Thomas More didn't have true believe, because he burned all those people for being heretics?
>Well that was a parable so that guy didn't even exist, but regardless, there's nothing about the Samaritan not being a believer in the parable.
But he's a heathen. Samaritans were to Judaism as Rabbinic Jews are to Christianity.
>>315754
>But he's a heathen.
Only nominally. Protestants have this concept about visible and invisible church, visible being the physical institution and invisible the collection of true believers.
Also Samaritans were first and foremost an ethnic group.
>>315745
>But you said
I meant the way we express the faith, not the substance of the faith
>and what part...
of the substance of your faith? Nothing
on the way you express it? Some bits of it
>the state is the protector...
it shouldnt be, the Church shouldnt depend on the State. Even the councils ordered by emperors werent needed and could be assembled autonomously
>Yes it does
No it doesnt
>the Catholic Church thinks...
only sacramental marriages are indissoluble
>>315770
Orthodox have the same belief, only we consider those terms purely relative to man, as the Church is actually not dichotomized, it is a healing of dichotomies. The militant and the victorious Church are one, as are those who are not visibly in it along with those who appear not to be but are in it. Works are kind of important there.
They were an ethnic group, but so are the Jews. The Samaritans had a different belief system, that is what defined them as separate.
>>315819
>I meant the way we express the faith, not the substance of the faith
Explain how it should be expressed differently.
>it shouldnt be, the Church shouldnt depend on the State. Even the councils ordered by emperors werent needed and could be assembled autonomously
The state being the protector doesn't mean the Church depends on it. It just mean the state was a protector.
>only sacramental marriages are indissoluble
So if a married couple converts and their marriage wasn't sacramental, there's no issue with them divorcing?
>>316038
>Explain how it should be expressed differently
it depends on what context
>doesnt mean the Church depends on it
it depends on what "protection" means in that context, because if the protection that was given to the Church by the State was to maintain a cultural identity, then the customs must be kept the same for all of the Churches in the State's jurisdiction.
>So if a married couple converts
from what exactly?
if the couple has a valid baptism (in a Protestant Church), then the marriage is sacramental and cant remarry, regardless if they were Catholic
if the one or both wasnt baptized, then the marriage isnt sacramental until they consummate marriage after baptism
Bump for good discussion.
>Catholic thread gets deleted and this stays up
Mods confirmed for Orthodox
>>316658
I don't think mods want more than one Christian general. Since this one was here first, it stays.
What works outside of the Philokalia do you recommend?
How did you convert?
>>316697
The Ladder of Divine Ascent, St. John Climacus (of Sinai).
>>315400
Except ironically history shows otherwise. The Reformation brought about conflict between science and faith
>>315593
Luther's methodology is the worst! By denying Tradition or cherry picking it, he's basically telling people that they can have their own interpretation of scripture, leading to shitty relativism. Due to this, there is no way of even knowing what Scripture itself is saying since the very mechanism to understand it is now considered to be subjected to the plain text which is ALONE, subjective and open to multiple meanings. We see this through the differing beliefs Protestants have and inadvitably, it boils down to "muh sola scripture" and we end up not even knowing the message of scripture itself
>>315623
And it also means no free will by implication. This is precisely how Luther's shitstorm with Erasmus began. This is how Calvinism came about. And this is considered nonsense in Early Christianity
>>316137
>it depends on what "protection" means in that context, because if the protection that was given to the Church by the State was to maintain a cultural identity, then the customs must be kept the same for all of the Churches in the State's jurisdiction
The Church's customs in the Orthodox Church are mostly the same as in the Coptic Church. National Churches are mainly distinguished by language and cultural stuff the parish does apart from liturgy.
>if the one or both wasnt baptized, then the marriage isnt sacramental until they consummate marriage after baptism
Then how come consummated marriages can be annulled?
>>316697
Saint Isaac, the Desert Fathers, Dostoevsky, the Way of a Pilgrim
How do I into Mysticism?
What exactly is Mysticism? What's the goal of it?
What are some Mystical practices that you or others do?
>>318772
Pray the Jesus Prayer more than you read theology books. Pray. Then pray some more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHP4Z84a_WY
It's as fundamental as meditation is to Buddhism.
>>317612
>The Church's customs in the Orthodox Church are mostly the same as in the Coptic Church.
i dont know about the Coptic Church so cant know that for sure
>Then how come consummated marriages can be annulled?
because consummation is necessary but not sufficient for a sacramental marriage
>>319126
Customs of the Catholic church are mostly the same as Orthodox church too.
Most differences are either small or in regards to papacy and purgatory.
>>319256
well, as i said, i dont know about that so i'll have to check that out
>>319126
>i dont know about the Coptic Church so cant know that for sure
So you were basically just guessing before and playing it as an accusation?
>because consummation is necessary but not sufficient for a sacramental marriage
Along with it are required at least on person be baptized and there be a civil marriage. Or are you saying more is required?
>>319256
Orthodox and Coptics don't have Low Mass and the priest still faces the East, and they both use icons much more than Catholics. Also they don't use modernist music or art styles.
>>319579
Is there any real difference between Orthodox and Coptic?
>>314175
The idea is that god can 100% predict everything but doesn't hi will on people, they chose whether or not to follow it themselves.
>>319594
Coptic are Oriental Orthodox.
The technical different is that Oriental Orthodox believe Christ has one nature, human and divine, whereas Eastern Orthodox believe he was two natures, human and divine. They've both agreed they're saying the same thing in different terms, they split because they misunderstood each other (Oriental Orthodox thought the Orthodox Church was proclaiming Nestorianianism, and the Orthodox Church thought the Oriental Orthodox were preaching monophysitism). They've both agreed that they are both the One True Church and offer communion to each other and sharing administration in numerous circumstances, it's just sorting everything out until they become officially one communion. The Assyrian Church of the East joining up is not far off either.
>>319579
>So you were basically just guessing before and playing it as an accusation?
how is admitting not knowing about the customs of the Coptics a "guess"?
>Along with it are required at least on person be baptized and there be a civil marriage
both people must be baptized
>Or are you saying more is required?
yes, a number of things are required.
>>319579
What I also love about Orthodox liturgies are all prayers to Mary, which are mentioned exactly jack-shit in the Catholic liturgies.
>It is truly meet to call the blessed, the ever-most blameless and Mother of Our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, Thee who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, Thee do we magnify.
>>319761
Not a Christian but that's a pretty impressive record of consistency in beliefs, after nearly 2,000 years of separation your only difference is a semantic disagreement. Definitely the most consistent form of Christianity.
>>319786
You were guess that the Orthodox customs are just a meme of Byzantine culture.
>both people must be baptized
Unless it is consummated, you said.
>yes, a number of things are required.
What else?
>>321676
Yep. Even though they haven't participated in any of the Ecumenical Councils since then, it's not an issue, because ecumenical councils are called to combat heresy by codifying things, but none of those heresies came up in with Coptics so they're already on board with us on all of it. For instance, they never dealt with iconoclasm, so they didn't need an ecumenical council to deal with it. Now Coptic icons are in a different style than Eastern Orthodox icons, but they are still not modernist. Pic related: top left, 6th Century Egyptian Icon; top right, contemporary Coptic Icon; bottom left, 6th Century Greek icon; bottom right, contemporary Orthodox icon.
>>322360
>Top left picture
>Jesus's arm around the dude
>those eyes
Ayy lmao
>Centre of Orthodox faith is located in Istanbul
>a city of 15M Muslims
can't make this shit up, orthodox """""people""""" confirmed for c.ucks
How can I become Orthodox?
I was raised in some crazy as fuck proddy cult.
Never been baptized, never taken communion, any of that stuff.
There's a Greek Orthodox church in my town. I went last week, but I felt awkward, didn't really know what was going on, and sperged out and didn't really speak to anyone there.
Where do I start?
>>323408
Go back. Get there early and see if any old people are hanging out in the dining hall preparing lunch for after liturgy. Introduce yourself, say you're not orthodox but you were interested in attending the liturgy. They'll take care of you.
Also, it can help to email the priest ahead of time so he knows you're coming. Then stay afterwards and talk to him during coffee hour. Ask him whatever questions you have.
No one will do thing for you, not even a priest, but they will help you along the way. Don't be nervous. People are people, and these are people who obviously care enough to show up to church every week.
>>310273
Israel?
>>314156
In the ERE contraception, masturbation, and abortion were all considered equally sinful.
>>322360
>Unless it is consummated, you said.
i did not say that
>What else?
look for it yourself
>>325296
>i did not say that
Then the consummation in question is fornication?
>>324929
No, they weren't. The penance for abortion was was, way, way longer than masturbation, and contraception back then meant abortifacient.
Masturbation, and sex with a spouse while using a condom can't be equated. Literally the only reason the Catholic Church equates them is Aristotle.
>>323408
>There's a Greek Orthodox church in my town. I went last week, but I felt awkward, didn't really know what was going on, and sperged out and didn't really speak to anyone there.
Look up what to do online.
Stay for coffee hour and talk with people then.
>>325490
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me.
What is the orthodox position about / argument against christian zionism?
100% sincerely asking btw
>>325629
The Orthodox Church supports the Palestinian government. This isn't because its pro-Muslim so much as the Christians of Israel are almost entirely Palestinian, and they suffer as the hands of the Israeli government as much as Muslim Palestinians.
>>325671
>Kekservatives will never realize this.
>>325490
but Onan pulled out, which is certainly not abortive.
>>325671
What about the belief that some christians have about prophecies or the claim that Israel should be supported because they are the "chosen people"?
>>325471
no, but consummation alone doesnt make a sacramental marriage
>>325490
>what is Onan
contraception is against the selfgiving nature of marriage. You cant give your complete self to your spouse from the waist up, moderno bro
>>326089
Jewish lies.
>>327034
>Onan was a particular case who had particular duty to get a particular woman pregnant
so? instead of getting the usual punishment for not doing his duty he got punished with death, which means contraception is a pretty big deal
>there's no law that says, "Thou shalt not pull out."
there's one that says "be fruitful and multiply", familiar
>>327298
>so? instead of getting the usual punishment for not doing his duty he got punished with death, which means contraception is a pretty big deal
No it doesn't, since there's no command concerning it.
>there's one that says "be fruitful and multiply", familiar
Sure, but that's in a general sense. If it applied as a command to each person, then celibacy would be a sin. You should certainly have kids if you get married, though.
>>327298
>so? instead of getting the usual punishment for not doing his duty he got punished with death, which means contraception is a pretty big deal
You have an obligation to impregnate your husband's widow. But such an obligation doesn't even exist anymore.
Why wrote the old testament? How did they know so much about god?
>>327604
The revelation ("revealing) of God was a long process, which still continues to this day, taking place over many thousands of years--mankind's constant attempt to grasp and connect with God. The Old Testament is a collection of many books, by many authors, over many millennia. Even pagan religions had regulatory capacity (think the great minds of ancient pagan Greece and their discussions of God) in that they prefigured Christ, albeit less directly than Judaism did.
Many individuals over time have had glimpses of God, and the Old Testament is compendium of those insights. When you peace all the disparate insights of history together, they begin to form a clearer picture. Ultimately, they are all fulfilled in the story of Christ.
That's the basic Christian concept of revelation.
>>327738
>The revelation ("revealing) of God was a long process, which still continues to this day
Amen brother
I've seen new liberal arguments stating that Homosexuality isn't actually condemned in the bible, such stories like sodom are bad because of rape, not homosexuality. What do you say?
>>327840
Jesus himself reaffirms the Genesis account of marriage(1 man 1 woman). At best protestants can say homosexuality isn't specifically condemned in the scriptures(and they'd be wrong) but even if that was so there is literally nothing in the bible saying homosexuality is acceptable so its really not much of an argument. I should note that its not necessarily a sin to have homosexual thoughts, its in practice where it really becomes a sin
>>327840
The NT explicitly condemns homosexuality
>>327900
Which passage?
>>327891
>I should note that its not necessarily a sin to have homosexual thoughts,
Lusting isn't a sin?
>>327905
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Romans 1:27
>>327840
it's when you stick you dick in another man bum or mouth when it gets really gay
and god doesn't like really gay, just a little gay
>>327840
The teachings of Christ and the Apostles is pretty simple when it comes to sex. It is a profound act, literally Man's ability to create life (I have yet to find a more profound ability), and thus has a sacred and moral dimension. All children instinctively desire to know their parents, just as they desire to know God (both their creators), and so parents are bound in life through marriage as they are bound in life through the life they create together.
Simply put, this is the only moral use of the gift of human sexuality. Homosexual conduct does not rise to this standard, and is therefor condemned, as are all misuses of sexuality including heterosexual fornication and promiscuity.
Liberals are right that there is nothing particularly special about homosexuals relative to homosexuals, but not that it is therefor permissible.
>>327909
Eh, I'm not a priest. It's not good. If you're having lustful thoughts you should be praying and trying to get it out of your heart. But Satan tempts us all and we are not necessarily responsible for all the thoughts that come into our head so that's why I say its not necessarily a sin. although if its something you are really having a problem with you should mention it to your confessor
>>327840
Man and Women can only be married
People can only have sex when married
Ergo Man and Man can not have sex
>Start reading OT
>Within the first few chapters get hundreds of names spat at me
Am I meant to remember all of these people?
>>327976
Nah
>>305171
Hey orthobros, recovering former atheist here. I've looked a bit into orthodoxy as opposed to the other branches of Christianity and find it really appealing, especially compared to the Southern Baptism I was brought up in.
I'm planning on visiting an orthodox service, since I'm really interested in orthodoxy, but I'm really worried about committing some kind of feaux pas.
Is there anything I should know going in? Should I contact the priest in charge first? What should I expect and what should I avoid doing? Is there a specific way I should dress?
>>328001
http://www.antiochian.org/content/first-visit-orthodox-church-twelve-things-i-wish-id-known
I'm having trouble understanding the old English in the OT can someone explain whats happening in Genesis 12:13-12:20?
>>328001
Read this http://frederica.com/12-things/
Don't go up to receive the Eucharist you need to be a chrismated member. Dress nice but don't try and outdress everyone else. Just hang out in the back and follow everyone's lead on when to sit and stand, don't worry about being the stranger we're pretty comfy and welcoming and not as intimidating as we seem t b h you might even get hugs and kisses from people
>>327485
>No it doesn't, since there's no command concerning it.
i didnt mention anything about commands, i just mentioned that Onan was punished with death because he pulled out. That is a pretty big imperative all by itself
>Sure, but that's in a general sense.
it applies to couples
>>327522
>But such an obligation doesn't even exist anymore.
it's an example about how Onan didnt just not do his duty as a brother, but he did it in a way that was unnatural. Which is why he got a greater punishment
b
>>307349
>no replies
plz?
>>307349
God didn't change, his covenant with man did. What prophecies went unfulfilled?
>>307349
Jeremiah 31:32-33
2 Corinthians 3:6
Hebrews 8:13
>>328001
How did you come to ditch atheism?
>>307349
The Old Covenant represented the flesh without the spirit, that is why its ethics were purely in terms of the flesh, an eye for an eye. The bread for it was unleavened because there was no spirit. The blood of the new covenant is leavened, because it has the spirit with the body, it fulfills the old covenant, and has a spiritual ethics; it breathes life into the covenant. The spiritual is only possible through Christ, because he frees the spiritual and instills it.
>>332815
>why its ethics were purely in terms of the flesh,
in punishment maybe but parables such as the binding of Issac and Job seem to be very spiritual
>>332922
While the Old Covenant is often used to refer to the entire Bible before Christianity, strictly speaking it's the agreement between God and his people. The Law is what Christians used to refer to the entire pre-Christian Canon of writings, which is why Christ says he didn't come to abolish it, but to fulfill it.
>>332815
This is also why baptism replaced circumcision.
>>332960
what has that got to do with your claims about the OT being flesh and not spirit?
>>332793
It'll probably sound weird, but I was walking outside one evening in September, and I felt the breeze on my face and I saw the light of the sunset on this patch of coniferous trees and all of a sudden I just knew in my heart that I was in the presence of a higher power.
After that I started skimming religious texts. Quran, Zarathustra's gathas, Jewish texts, the gideon bibles they give out on campus, etc.
>>333046
Testament and covenant are the same word in Greek and Hebrew.
>>307131
> The Orthodox Church considers Saint Augustine's theology hetrodox
Which was in the main a relatively-modern phenomenon, in a large degree due to the influence of Fr. Romanides.
I would recommend the following books on the historical reception of Augustine and Aquinas among the Orthodox:
Marcus Plested, "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas"
George Demacopoulos, "Orthodox Readings of Augustine"
>28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous:
wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If
I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
>29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure
there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it
for forty’s sake.
>30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and
I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there.
And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
>31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak
unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found
there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.
>32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will
speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found
there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.
>33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left
communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his
place.
Sounds like Abraham was pretty annoying, what was the point of this?
>tfw want to go to Orthodox liturgy but don't have the time with studies
Anybody know any good online stuff?
>>305171
Who /fasting/ here?
>>335553
It's probably supposed to be funny. You would get the humor more if you lived in a society where haggling was an everyday thing. He's literally haggling with God.
>>335688
Right here.
>>335647
How much work do you seriously do between 9 and 1 on a sunday?
>Since an infant inherits not sin but "merely" death, there is no pressing need to baptize him immediately for the remission of sins.
Discuss.
Reading?
>>335688
I'm investigating and have read that fasting includes not eating or drinking from midnight until sunset. Now I know where Mohammed got Ramadan from.
So how do y'all handle it? Have you just done it all of your lives so it's standard? I am really not sure that I can do this, so am starting with a few hours at a time.
>8:00 a.m.
>can't drink coffee
Seriously how do you handle it?
>>338848
That's only the fast before communion. Other than that, you're not supposed to ingest anything during the Christmas Eve fast. But no other fasts prohibit coffee, they just have major dietary restrictions (no dairy, oil, eggs, meat, fish or wine). The Christmas fast that we're all in now isn't as strict, oil and wine are allowed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays, and fish is allowed on Saturdays and Sundays.
>>336567
The Orthodox Church doesn't believe you "inherit" original sin through conception. Infant who die all go to heaven by default. But if an infant is baptized, then he receives communion as an infant, unlike in the Catholic Church where communion is put off until you can understand it with reason.
>>339083
>Infant who die all go to heaven by default
What about the Synaxarion read at the Liturgy of Meatfare Saturday though?
>We should also know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of delight, whereas those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna.
Inb4 'and' is to be interpreted as an AND operator
>>340802
>What about the Synaxarion read at the Liturgy of Meatfare Saturday though?
who
>>340802
>What about the Synaxarion read at the Liturgy of Meatfare Saturday though?
Yeah, I should correct myself. They don't go to heaven, but they are reconciled to the new heaven and new earth after judgement day. They don't suffer. They haven't established communion with Christ in this age, so they establish it in the next.
>>340901
The annual Orthodox Liturgy comprises 20 large tomes, much more than a Missal.
>>305171
I thought Orthodox rejected sola scriptura just as Catholics do.
>>341764
He's addressing the question to Orthodox
>>339057
Thank you.
Another question if I may. I also read that you should have a tiny bit of the holy bread every day.
Can you take it home with you for this purpose? How is it kept? Can you create this yourself with a blessing or does a holy man have to do it?
Thank you.
>>342814
You probably mean the antidoron. During the Presanctified Liturgy, a loaf of bread is blessed, and then a piece of the bread is selected and cut out to be the "Lamb", the Eucharistic bread. The remainder of the blessed bread is called the antidoron, and is given out at the end of the Liturgy, right after communion. It's also okay for non-Orthodox to receive, unlike the Eucharist. It's consumed on the spot; I've never heard of it being taken home to consume every day, in any rite or tradition. It's not the Eucharist, but it's still blessed, so it should be treated with respect (eat it carefully, make sure crumbs don't fall, etc.)
>>342814
I'm Greek Orthodox, and I haven't seen that. What you're talking about probably depends on which national Church you follow, or maybe even the habits of particular dioceses within a national Church.
It doesn't seem practical to do that for me, because you get a total of two large bites of antidoron (one during communion--not the Eucharist--and another at the end of Liturgy). but some ladies make the Eucharistic bread and when the Metropolitan was here, he gave them each a entire loaf of antidoron (which was part of the liturgy, it represented loaves Christ used to feed people), and I'm quite sure that isn't consumed all at once.
If do you attend a parish where the antidoron is normally taken home, then you'll notice people aren't eating it on the spot, and you can ask what to do.
Was Lot the original kek?
>Two strangers come into your house
>Other people want to rape them
>Offer your virgin daughters instead
Came someone explain the trinity to me? What what I understand the Father is who we usually think of as God, the guy in the sky, the Son is Jesus, but what the hell is the holy spirit?
>>306079
"who is the best"-anything isn't correct way to discuss anything
not even if you have new and uncertain interest in something
>>307131
Yeah, but Aquinas is less rational than Augustine. I feel like Aquinas is compatible with Orthodoxy but I guess he does follow Augustine in certain respects.
I read somewhere that it was mostly the latter Thomists who came after Aquinas that really distanced them from Orthodoxy. But everyone likes to critique interpretations of Aquinas.
>>334996
nice, thanks!
>>343836
"Coffee hour" is just the social time after the Liturgy. It's the "after church" period. Most churches have a kitchen and dining area. Often a few people will have made lunch/brunch and the whole church enjoys a meal together, birthdays are celebrated, kids go a play, or maybe they'll have some religious instruction.
>>344631
The spoon doesn't touch your mouth. The priest drops the bread in.
>>346822
Interesting that when Gregory the Scholar (the soon-to-be +Gennadius of Constantinople) fled the fall of Constantinople, he took but one personal item along with him: his copy of the Summa Theologica in Greek.
>>346986
Interesting. Every video I've seen of Russian Orthodox services has them putting their lips over the spoon to get every drop. And my "idiot's guide to Orthodoxy" has the same thing.
Even the Coptic service I watched last week had the full-on spoon in mouth lips covering spoon action.
What subsection are you?
But now I'm confused. Isn't it bread and wine mixed together in some kind of bread pudding-consistency?
Found this website, has a bunch of holy writing, ranging from church father letters to Old Testament Apocrypha, lots of different language too, including original Greek and Latin
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/index.htm
>>348217
Some people chomp on the spoon. OCA drops it in for the most part.
>>348217
And the bread isnt mused on the chalice like pudding. Each individusl chunk is relatively whole, but they are soft from the wone.
do all orthodox families do feasts once a year? my family does this and most families do in my country as well. its always on a holiday, usually depending on the village where your family came from
What do you guys think of the Gospel of Barnabas?
>>315009
If you go to a protestant mass any of these days you'll see that the concept of Sola Scriptura works in theory only. Most of the masses I've been to consist of subjective interpretations of whoever is responsible for the mass that day. This happens in most churches across the globe, I would guess.
What I find interesting in protestantism is Sola Fide, or the justification that sinners will be granted forgiveness through faith alone. If you have faith, there is no sin that can take you too far away from God's grace. The most fucked up individuals, who sin not because of choice but because they're assoled by mental illnesses way beyond their control, can be forgiven and have a chance to live in peace after death. A peace they have certainly not found while alive. That's some true love and forgiveness shit right there, bro.
Should I skip Aquinas and Augustine?
>>349010
No. Just because they made a few errors doesn't mean they weren't great theologians.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
pic related is from a Russian icon of the Annunciation. Obtained in 1970s by relatives, it is old or made to look old.
The letters look like a circle with a triangle on the bottom, and a bisected square. I don't know.
Also looking very closely it looks like this was painted on much later. There is a crack running through the area that this covers up. It seems very odd.
Does anyone have any ideas? My wildest guess is an ancient cyrillic yus big followed by an omega. The "omega" is done in two strokes, the other character in one.
>>348947
Turns out, Sola Fide is actually more complex than that according to Dr Phillip Cary.
His interpretation of Luther's Sola Fide involves Faith in a person(God) and holding onto him. The person thus must hold onto God in the face of his sinfulness and the influence of Satan.
The Calvinist version of Sola Fide to Cary is more...Pelagian and arrogant in nature since it inevitably turns faith into a "work" given how one is trying to make him/herself more assured of his/her salvation which is also arrogant.
http://www.academia.edu/1657933/Sola_Fide_Luther_and_Calvin
If Cary's interpretation of Luther is really Luther's Sola Fide then his form of Sola Fide if he would include free will in it is actually quite compatible with Orthodoxy given the existential nature of this faith and the portrayal of a struggle in the face of despair from the threats of oneself, others and devil himself which is also what Orthodoxy teaches that one is struggling and toiling until the end of life to hold onto the Faith s/he receives and participate in the Sacraments of the Church.
I can't say for Luther but in Orthodoxy, the person will grow as s/he perseveres in the face of this despair and makes progress towards his/her ultimate destiny, Theosis.
Interestingly, the Finnish school of Lutheranism views Luther in the light of Theosis though I personally find this too far fetched.
I cannot say Catholicism given the fact that merit is in the equation in its doctrine of Salvation.
>>351505
I doubt it
Here are some things said by Luther
>Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.
>It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.
>If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies
>One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them
>It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.
>Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.
