The Roman Catholic Church arrogated to itself a supreme, global authority which it never possessed as merely the Patriarchate of Rome in the first centuries of the church. The heresy of Catholicism gave way to the heresy of Reformation Protestantism and the division of Christendom into thousands of individual sects and denomination. We all need to go back to the source, the ancient faith of Orthodoxy.
Orthodox user: are you prepared for the pre-Christmas fast? It's time to get serious.
Other urls found in this thread:
creeds.net
biblegateway.com
twitter.com
I'm tired of being told by pedophiles that I'm damned.
Oh look, she's wearing a hijab.
>wants to lecture others about heresy
>holds a pic with Tsar Nicholas II having a divine halo around his head.
Pick one and only one, slav.
It's not a hijab. Orthodox is an older more traditional form of Christianity where women still cover their hair. This is where Islam 'borrowed' the idea from.
Women within the Roman Catholic church still cover their hair, ie Nuns.
Nicholas II suffered a wet martyrdom. He earned his halo.
It's just a scarf. If you're visiting an Orthodox church, any cloth that covers your head will do. Scalfs are obviously lighter and more comfortable.
That's also Natalia Poklonskaya, who it's rumored may be running for Russian President, and she's holding a picture of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia.
So when Christians wear a hijab, it's sweet and pious, but when Muslims do it, it's terroristic?
Stop equalizing a scarf and a hajib. The context are not the same because the scarf is about piety while the Burma is about slavery
Notice how the cerularian schismatic ignores the nonchalcedonians and nestorians. The bishop of Rome had always had primacy within the ancient church which is historic fact.
..tsar nicholas was deeply religious, considered himself a servant of Christ, and in the end died a bloody death for his faith
christians do not wear hijabs, especially not outside churches
>religious terrorism
orthodox believers never had any crusades or inquisitions either
Laetentur Caeli :^)
A man must have an uncovered head in church, while a woman must have a covered head in church. It imposes an obligation on both men and women while in church (complementarianism), unlike mohammedism which imposes an obligation just on women all the time (mohammed's virgin /r9k/ woman-hate)
Head scarfs are voluntary in Christian churches. We do not treat our women like cattle the way Islamic savages do.
Orthodoxy accepts the concept of Petrine Primacy, but it is conditional on the bishop of Rome respecting i) the dogmas of the church defined by the canons of the ecumenical councils, and ii) that the bishop of Rome is primas inter pares - his primacy is of a ceremonial nature and he cannot unilaterally change or define new dogmas.
Like the Council of Nicea?
>We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
>who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
>mummy
It's also a historic fact that the patriarch in Rome isn't infallible, but that's like dicta something something. Ples no bully. You betrayed us. We forgive but don't forget.
The Canons of the Council of Constantinople specifically forbid anyone to alter the words of the Nicene Creed. So, I don't know why you are raising that as an example. I guess you're probably an ignorant Catholic who accepted the BS story given to you by Catholic Answers.
luv my mummy
I share your hatred of Catholicism
that's why we need to you speak out against it
us pagans do it and they say its just "sour grapes" from heathens
show your flag.
>Jesus is God and has always been God
>BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT ONLY PRECEDES FROM THE FATHER, NOT FROM THE SON
>being an Arian
Roman Catholicism is the physical representation of satan's second temptation of Christ at the garden of Gethsemane: worldly empire..mammon.
jesus is called the firstborne which means he had a creator which means he isn't the Creator
>he says this, not knowing how important the Byzantine Emperor was to the Greek Church he is a part of (while the Byzantine Emperor was around, that is)
This is called Arianism.
If Jesus was created, then he isn't God (like you said), so why is it important, then, if he resurrected? The resurrection only has importance because God himself in human form experiences death the same as we do, and conquers it
You don't understand Triadology. An attribute of a person of the trinity has to be unique to that one person or shared by all three. If you say that the Father and the Son are the origin of the Holy Spirit, then you prop up these two persons of the trinity at the expense of the other, the unity and symmetry of the trinity is destroyed.
The Filioque has major implications for the church. It is a terrible heresy because it creates confusion about the nature of God and if you don't have a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit, it corrupts your understanding of grace because grace is the action of the Holy Spirit in creation. So it's no wonder that the Roman Catholics fell for the theory of created grace and a ridiculous quantitative economy of indulgences after they abandoned Orthodox triadology.
We took a hit for it. But then again we never claimed to be God.
Based post deserves its trips.
>An attribute of a person of the trinity has to be unique to that one person or shared by all three
Why? The trinity is just the best way that we can understand God, and if we understand Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, the Holy Spirit must precede from him as well as from the Father.
Neither did we
...
Don't know about that, semi-brah.
Justinian to pope
Last exchanges
>orthodox aka Christianity+ Islamic influence
>catholic aka yiddish+Christianity
Only true Christianity is Protestants fuck off jew
My grandparents grew up orthodox in Belarus but never raised my father that way. What do I need to know to get into it. There is a small orthodox church in my town. Not sure if it's mostly Greeks or what.
The meaning of "procession" in the Greek Nicene Creed means it is an eternal procession, i.e., you are explaining the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit. It does not describe the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Jesus just sending the Holy Spirit down to Earth to help some people out. Catholics try to wiggle out of the Filioque controversy by saying that 'we only meant the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit', but the official historical documents of the Catholic Church have affirmed that the Filioque in their Nicene Creed pertains to both eternal origin and temporal mission.
And the temporal mission argument doesn't work anyway because if it were true it would be completely redundant to include it in the Creed.
One question: why are you so envious? Maybe think about that and just sleep. We aren't into toxic legalism to your extent. We're mystics, man. Leave us alone. We are frozen in time. Enjoy your 'world' you seem to treasure so very much.
You don't understand the dogma of the double procession as defined by the councils. It's from the ancient theological doctrine which was already believed by the early church theologians that the spirit had its source from the father but that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son as a result as one principal and not from two separate principles.
Haven't you read Chapter 1 of the Gospel according to St. John?
OP claimed that the bishop of Rome never held primal authority within the early church
Catholics aren't legalistic. The letter kills but the spirit gives life and all that. It seems like lots of Greeks are like Pope Francis in that any attempt to clarify things or logically develop them is "rigid" or "legalistic"
So what actual historical evidence do you have that the early church before it became corrupted had no oral traditions or liturgy or sacraments on par with scripture? Because I find this hard to believe if you have zero evidence for your claims.
Kidding me? Your finding categories for everything is infamous. Acquinas, the constant arguments, the politics, the definitions, the defense mechanisms/frantic self-justification. Quiet with all that. Jesus didn't talk like that. Just be still. We will not drown.
One of the reasons why the Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque in Orthodoxy is because this particular line from the Creed is a direct quote of John 15:26, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"
Wouldn't the Holy Spirit have inspired St John the Evangelist to include the Filioque if it was orthodox?
I guess the potentates of the Roman Catholic Church thought they knew better than St John the Evangelist and the Holy Spirit.
Or just keep arguing with Catholics about stuff that happened literally centuries ago... I'll stay agnostic I guess.
You know what to do. Just go there.
It's not something that everyone needs to know. There are plenty of Catholic mystics. But there is a firm intellectual structure supporting the whole thing, for the type of person who needs that.
If you want to know why you should become a Catholic, visit a Catholic general thread. I recommend it
Not to mention that there insistence on the Platonic category of divine simplicity has further muddied the waters with respect to their triadology.
The context is Jesus speaking, and he says he sends out the advocate
>26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
biblegateway.com
Notice he says "whom I will send to you" and not "who my father will send to you"
Anyway. God has His reasons. You are apart from us. A different tribe. That's all I really know or need to know right now.
What can I expect? Is it weird for a single guy alone to go? I haven't been to church in years.
I know quite a few people who are atheists precisely because of this "just believe, man" type of attitude that is far too common among Christians these days. There are objective logical reasons for being a Christian, and people should know them
Once again you are equivocating between temporal mission and eternal procession.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father," is temporal mission, it does not tell us about the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit.
"even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father," is eternal procession. The Holy Spirit is in an eternal spiration from the Father, and not both the Father and the Son.
Call or email the church if you wish. But yes, just go. It's God's home. It's your home.
>objective logical reasons for being a Christian
How about a little faith? Lol.
So the part you like is eternal, and the part you don't like is temporal.
I posted the passage in context from the full chapter because it constitutes a united whole
Faith is just believing in something that you did not personally witness (or accepting a teaching that you did not personally work out), because you have logical reason to do so.
So yes, once you have reason to do so, you will have faith
Christ>Reason
Christ IS reason.
>ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, kαὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, kαὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
It doesn't matter what you think. The interpretation I am stating is the defined dogma of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. The third ecumenical council of Ephesus passed canons affirming that anyone who alters the Nicene Creed is excommunicated.
The filioque came into usage after a local synod in Toledo. It was then pushed further into usage in the western church by Emperor Charlemagne despite the protests of your own pope Leo III.
The Church had spoken. All these people who pushed the filioque into the Nicene Creed were heretics as was solemnly defined by the Third Ecumenical Council. If you think you're above the Council of Ephesus then you are no better than a protestant. You cannot pick and choose which canons you will abide by.
>Orthococks
sage
Then he cannot be absolute
But if you say that the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father but not the Son, you are going against the Council of Nicea, which condemned Arianism
Why?
Because reason is not absolute.
Is that an absolute statement?
Statements cannot be absolute
That statement contradicts itself since it tries to apply subjectivity to EVERY statement, including the statement that statements cannot be absolute.
So you are saying that your own words are false
>Orthodox user: are you prepared for the pre-Christmas fast? It's time to get serious.
I know user, I know. It's been a rough year and I keep getting the feeling that I'm not really trying hard enough, by my own faults. Please pray for me, as I also do for you.
The canons of the ecumenical councils cannot contradict each other, otherwise they are not true ecumenical councils.
The notion that denying the double procession of the Holy Spirit leads to Arianism is absolute nonsense. If anything, it protects the divinity of the Trinity.
Your argument is dead from the start: if what you are saying is true, then the Third Ecumenical Council of the Church passed a canon with promotes heresy and it is therefore not a real ecumenical council of the church.
>All Catholics are obligated to believe that the Council of Ephesus was a true ecumenical council of the church
Therefore, you argument is completely illogical and wrong.
>martyrdom
His death had nothing to do with his religion.
It was a Satanic ritual murder of a Christian king.
Statements do not have truth values. They are a communication tool, not a truth-bearing tool. Language can only be an imperfect representation of an ineffable idea that is truth-bearing. A person uses the language to communicate in hopes that the receiver will reach the same understanding of the represented truth.
So, your understanding of language is poor, and that is why you are cucked by logic and have a bad epistemological understanding.
You think it might have something to do with Muslims being terrorists and not the clothing itself?
But if the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father, and not from the Son, that means that the Son is not divine, since he cannot intercede through the Holy Spirit except if he taps into the greater power of the Father.
This is Arianism.
And the Catholic Church accepts both Nicea and Ephesus btw
>he tries to use logic to prove that logic does not exist
Catholic here, what does it feel like to be a Russian Orthodox?
This kind of threads are the reason i love this board, i get to learn a lot about shit that would otherwise require some serious and dense reading.
Thanks you to all the anons that are participating in these discussions.
mommy wants the czar back?
little late for that mommy
shouldnt have killed rasputin
Russian Orthodox Church are money-grabbing Jews, merchants on temple steps who's only desire is to keep Russian people dumb and obedient slaves. They use their influence to take property from museums, colleges and hospitals.
Fucking commies failed even in such simple task.
I didn't use logic.
For a statement to be truth-bearing, the terms would need to be perfectly defined, which would require them to be put in relation to every other possible concept, of which there are infinitely many. And each of these other infinitely many concepts would also need to be put in relation to every other concept. Because to fully understand what something is requires fully understanding what it is not. With conceptual thinking, language, this is impossible.
thats the point of all religions user. People are dumb and have to be enslaved, we just have to be sure they are enslaved by people that share our values.
I have literally never seen an Orthodox Church, so I have no dog in this race, but yes. Satan clearly wanted the Russian royalty out of the way.
Degenerate faggot royal family members and communists were clearly not doing God's work.
As to this reformation of the reformation, this whole Pope thing is an issue. You do realize the man has NO clue what the Bible says about anything?! You guys are going to have to straighten this whole Catholic/Orthodox mess out before we are even going to consider it.
Premise:
>For a statement to be truth-bearing, the terms would need to be perfectly defined, which would require them to be put in relation to every other possible concept, of which there are infinitely many.
Arguments:
>And each of these other infinitely many concepts would also need to be put in relation to every other concept. Because to fully understand what something is requires fully understanding what it is not.
Conclusion:
>With conceptual thinking, language, this is impossible.
If you don't believe in logic, stop using logic
This, by the way, is the true meaning of the tower of babel. The confusion of tongues refers to this break of language from the represented ideas. In perfected man, we have perfected language and all is understood because the language becomes a perfect representation of the ideas, instead of being imperfect representation of ineffable ideas. So we communicate fully with direct meaning and perfect understanding.
I don't think it has sunk in yet:
by putting the filioque in the Nicene Creed, you are automatically in violation of the canons of the Council of Ephesus. You can say that you are in agreement with Ephesus as a good Catholic, but this is all a big lie put forward by Rome and they want you to forget what was actually contained in the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council.
Well, as always in Motherland things got grotesque.
Even lowly priests drive BMW.
You are presuming these statements have truth values, which is presuming what you wish to show. They do not have truth values, so I am not using logic. I am communicating.
All of these arguments are irrelevant. Jesus teaches us how to discern the righteous from the unrighteous. We will know them by their works. St. Peter was the rock. The rock still stands. Russia fell. Byzantine fell. Alexandria fell. Greece fell. Asia fell. They all fell, but Rome. Everyone who has broken from the one true church has withered and fractured and died. It is only the so called oryhodox churches who make spectacle of their authority, who complain about being slighted. If they were true, their arguments would be of wisdom not of honor and pride. If the "orthodox" teachings were true, then where is their harvest? Where is the money that was lent them? They have buried it in the ground. If they were true, why would they need to call themselves Orthodox? Certainly every church believes themselves to be orthodox? This litigousness is the sin of the pharisees. You wish to cite lost documents and historical privelage known only to you. Certainly what privelage God gives, he can take away. Do not argue on the law. Argue over the spirit. Argue on the theology alone, and rely not on any appeal to human, paper authority.
Name some
Argue it on the theology and not the history. We are not jews.
Instead of dividing we should be joining forces and help each other, that catholics can get rid of that anti christ pope.
A lot of big problems come from confusing the representation with the represented idea.
Well I personally think that it's worded the way it is because of linguistic differences between the Greek and Latin understandings of the term "precede" and that the Greeks only sperg out about the "filioque" because they don't get these linguistic differences. So to include "and the Son" to the Creed isn't an addition, it's a translation, not just from Greek to Latin, but from Greek culture to Latin culture. But both mean the same thing.
So from this I get 1) you are communicating and 2) what you are saying does not have truth value. So why should I listen to you?
Check out Catholic general threads, I was just about to go to bed
That language is imperfect does not deny the possibility of understanding. In fact, the divine gift of wisdom is precisely the ability to understand true meaning. It is not language that is flawed truly but man. It is our lack of charity that interrupts our understanding, not an inability to understand. Being a perfected man does not lead to perfect understanding; rather perfect understanding leads one to be a perfect man. It is only by doing that we can change our being.
Agreed.
The only (((christians))) who should literally being called out are the liberal ones.
Traditional Protestantism, Roman Catholics and Orthodox should unity.
We communicate in hopes that the other person will have a similar understanding. The truth is not in the statement, but in the idea understood. But the idea itself is not effable.
As an analogy, it is like if I draw a sketch of a dog and hope that you can understand from the sketch what it represents. It represents a real dog. But the sketch is not the real dog, it is just a representation. Language is similar to this, in that it represents ideas that have truth, but the language or statement is not itself truth.
>That language is imperfect does not deny the possibility of understanding
It denies the possibility of language being truth-bearing.
>It is not language that is flawed truly but man. It is our lack of charity that interrupts our understanding, not an inability to understand.
No, wrong and wrong
>Being a perfected man does not lead to perfect understanding; rather perfect understanding leads one to be a perfect man.
No, wrong.
>Protestant general: Catholics are corrupt and evil whore of babylon
>Orthodox general: catholics are corrupt and evil heretics
>Catholic general: Did you enjoy mass today?
Imagine being this angry that your religion or schism is based on hate for the rock on which Jesus founded his church.
We still love you all though