Anyone here converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy?

I used to be a trad Catholic attending Latin Masses, but now I am convinced I should become an Orthodox Christian. I am considering being baptised into the Greek Orthodox Church down here in Australia.

If you have been on a similar journey can you share your experience? Did Sup Forums help you learn more about Orthodoxy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zh_p20lHqtA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
youtube.com/watch?v=D3FidcvkeDo
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9023/when-jesus-gave-peter-his-name-rock-what-is-the-significance-that-he-then-said
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

not on that path but I wish you well and God Bless.

We will welcome you into Christendom once russia and greece restores it.

Cyka blyat

youtube.com/watch?v=zh_p20lHqtA

nigga orthodoxy is mainly greek

The vast majority of Orthodox Christians are Slavs, not Greeks.

>100 million Russians
>maybe 4 million Greeks
>the Eastern Slavodox Church is mostly Greek

Also why are you posting a Catholic?

i was talking about the traditions.

you mean an orthodox who appointed your popes because your pope was orthodox?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
>The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium), is one of several relics attributed to Jesus, a product of the circumcision of Jesus. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess Jesus foreskin, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it.

Nah, he considered himself the restorer of the Roman world and appointed the head of the Church (in reality just the ravager of Italy), and recognised the Pope as head of the Church.

Should be

>Nah, he considered himself the restorer of the Roman world (in reality just the ravager of Italy) and appointed the head of the Church, and recognised the Pope as head of the Church.

hahahahahahahahaha
>recognized pope as above himself
>literally appointed him

Catholics place church above state which is clearly not how the early church functioned. Also Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit evoked through the *pope* which is not supported in the writings of church fathers.

>inb4 all these quotes from 8ch about See of Rome
taken in context you can see that they mean something entirely different.

Guys the Church was still United then and he controlled both Rome and Constantinople, it’s a moot point

no he's claiming that the church was always Catholic and then the so-called "orthodox" split.

tl;dr he's an autistic papist who didn't read enough byzantine history.

I used to be agnostic, then wanted to convert to eastern orthodoxy. But then I found out that the first pope of Roman Catholicism is saint Peter himself, one of the apostle. I found out that orthodox were just separatists that wanted to have sex and divorce instead of the Latin priests who vows celibacy.

I said recognised the Pope as head of the Church, not recognised the Pope as above himself. Until the Investiture controversy it wasn't clearly defined who was really in charge so we have to understand that.

no more like you guys wanted to feel supreme after rome fell.

Also why you no hesychasm?

yeah the pope literally demanded that the kings bow down to him.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH. THE ONLY CHURCH.

no you're schismatics thinking that a single man can change a decision of a council.

That single man rules with the consent of THE LORD Jesus Christ

That’s retarded and I say that as a Carholic.

The Catholic Church as we know it didn’t come into being until the Middle Ages, and the centralization of power under the Pope from its start as the Bishop of Rome is one of the reasons the great schism kicked off in the first place

orthodox are kind of pozzed too like the protestants
even if none of their patriarchs are left leaning like pope francis they accept things like contraception, divorce and sometimes abortions. am I wrong?

>at the First Council of Constantinople, only attended by Greek bishops, they proclaimed that Constantinople was second to Rome because it was the New Rome
>at the Council of Florence, the Eastern Orthodox agreed to give up their hissy fit and rejoin the Church on condition that the Pope helped them against the Turk, and they did briefly rejoin the Church before the Mohammedan Turkish Islamic Sultan (who was a Muslim) appointed radically anti-Union patriarchs so it all fell apart

>be orthodox christian priest
>wants to be a model for all men
>inserts his penis into a woman's vagina everyday after church mass
>larp as holy and sacred man
>gets blowjob from his wife whenever he wanted to

You can't be a preacher of celestial holiness if you're not into chastity. Bodily desires and pleasures should not in anyway surpass and precede chastity. RC priests and nuns already are married to the Church and guiding the churchgoers like their children.

>inb4 child molestation hurr durr

you are wrong.

abortions are never acceptable unless it's the mothers life at risk. in that case consult the priest.

The bible says that God blesses a marriage. We say that that means that God blesses a marriage through his church. So for the RCC if two people on an insland fuck that can be marriage. For us the church must bless it. That's why the *church* can allow divorces with pennance and stuff and this is serious stuff unlike the RCC strawman commonly heard.

contraception: i believe only NFP is ok with us.

The walk to Canossa was a defining moment for the West. No Caesaropapism here

>blowjobs are sinful

>not knowing enough history to recognize that the Council of Florence was actually a political decision.
Emperor John V literally wrote to the pope saying "if you give us an army i will convert my people by force to catholicism".

From what I have seen most of their pizzas tendacies have come from their leaders being subjugated under Ottoman rule and having to play nice in that situation
I certainly don’t envy the situation of any Christian stuck in that kind of scenario

*pozzed tendacies

Shoo shoo.
Not many people know about the continence tradition.

The decision to schism was also a political decision. So of course rejoining the Church will be a political decision. It was always the mob of Constantinople that prevented it (when the Turks didn't)

>caesropapism
>a term that was never used until like the 18-19th centuries.

Man i love catholics inventing stuff. Especially church doctrine. They just have a single man put a "holy spirit" tag on something and now we have to believe it.

>single man can change a decision

He is the Vicar of Christ. It's a hierarchy
>Trinity
>Mary as Queen
>Angels and Saints
>Pope
>Cardinals
Etc. up to the bottom

That's why communism won't work because even the heaven itself has hierarchy. Satan wanted equality so he was ousted from heaven.

lolwut? The schism was actually started by the Pope when he decided to just go and make a french barbarian the "roman emperor". Like wtf m8 the byzantine empire is the rightful heir what are you doing?

ah wait a minute ... i think i know what it's called ... i'ts called jealousy. HA got it.

This, to pretend that politics between east and west didn’t play into things would be to ignore a whole side of the story regarding the great schism

yeah man (((hierarchy)))

let's unite all nations with 0 representation under a man from another single nation who has no other purpose in life but to subject everyone to himself.

Papal states were the worst. We should not repeat that.

desu we should reunite but in a way that we don't have to listen to one guy.

You can call it what you like but it doesn't change the fact that in Eastern Slavodoxy there have been many occasions where the church authorities were taking orders from secular rulers that ruled over them

Except the Eastern Roman Emperor at the time recognised Charlemagne as the legitimate head of the Western Roman Empire, as did the head of the Church at the time. The one group that didn't like it was the mob of Constantinople since they became convinced that there should only be one empire.

except that he didn't until later.

>So for the RCC if two people on an insland fuck that can be marriage
the church doesn't really take that position anymore since after the pope clarified amoris laetitia but it still distinguishes between 2 kinds of marriage, natural and sacramental. but divorce isn't real, sorry man.

oh yeah? i can name a few popes in your history that weren't too nice. In fact so not nice that they had kids.

Just do a Yoda, and burn your Bible.

You’re both right on this, though I think this ties into the political issue that the Byzantine empire was still seeing itself as the Roman Enpire (which by succession they absolutely were) and the civilizing west which didn’t accept the idea that the distant Greeks had any legitimate claim to claim what they saw as their lands

God can separate one body that is a married couple after marriage. He can do that through his church. So I don't get your argument here.

we need to be like this guy. civil instead of baiting something that isn't even completely true.

The Pope is just there to make sure that Catholic teaching is kept as it is without being changed, as well as being the final authority on certain things like development of doctrine (i.e. making implicit teachings into explicit teachings), as well as communicating certain messages to the public in recent times. So the Pope doesn't have that much power at all.

The point is that there was never an issue of Charlemagne being the legitimate Western Roman Empire and it is a fabrication of the Constantinopolitan mob

The catholic church is the one and only true church. Jesus's prayer was that we all be one under his church which he established.
youtube.com/watch?v=D3FidcvkeDo

Agreed: A compromise like that would be the only way at this point

>be orthodox christian priest
>be given some jesus power to preform rites and cerimonies for the church
>really just kind of be the one out of the local community picked to do these maitenance activities
>know the real holy men are on a mountain or in the desert and you dont have to try and be a role model

>be roman catholic
>try to make every priest a monk
>be surprised when there are just not enough people capable of living such a holy life
>have no ascetic core foundation so when the priests look bad the whole religion looks bad
>some scat fetishist german critisizes you for it and creates protestantism

no man can separate what god joined together. what do you think jesus meant when he told the woman at the well she had five husbands?

idk that's hot what history suggests.

yes man is not separating it. But God is separating it through his church.

Ok but their job as Pope is to preserve Catholic teaching. If they are immoral that is unfortunate and they should reform their behaviour.

But some Popes that had kids, like Pope Paul III, had actually lived immoral lives in the past and had reformed, and then actually became very good Popes. Pope Paul III, for example, is responsible for the Council of Trent

Can you give some indication about which of my responses you are replying to?

you're not getting it. when 2 people on an island fuck they join together. the issue for people with 5 marriages is not who they should separate from but who they're actually married to and the church has canon lawyers for figuring out that kind of stuff

The problem with these threads is people will likely just quote theology and ignore any historical context because everyone is trying to win them

desu I am not the best with theology, I am just posting my observations from what history I study; this whole conflict just feels pointless to me though, of all the sects we should just acknowledge the present reality and deal with other forces trying to kill our churches

well in the orthodox church it's simple. You're not married to anyone.

When jesus said that, he dind't establish the church yet. Judaic marriage laws are different iirc.

Imo Theology is useless unless you can actually see it in context. most theological treatises were written in a certain context, probably fighting a particular heresy. So taking what they said and blanket applyin it is wrong imo.

>well in the orthodox church it's simple. You're not married to anyone.

Does your wife know this?

you're probably right. honestly I'm just a fan of the catholic church's moral absolutism and I don't see much of it in the orthodox church. I once was watching some russian orthodox movie where a girl was begging a priest to "bless her abortion" I was like wtf. who even does that shit. thank god the priest in the movie wouldn't do it.

The Bishop of Rome has primacy seen in scripture and Early Church tradition
>Peter is consistently listed first or singled out when listing the 12 Apostles
>At the end of John, Jesus tells Peter alone to feed his sheep and lambs despite earlier in John where Jesus says only He is the good shepherd and can take of His flock, not anyone else
>Though all the apostles get the power to remit and retain sins, only Peter is given the Keys
>What Peter says at Jerusalem in Acts is similar to what Daniel says in Kings showing Daniel is a type of Peter

History
>Every time there's a heresy in the Early Church, it starts in the East
>St. Athanasius and St John Chrysostom get forced out of their sees
>Ask the Pope for help because since he's the ultimate judge, the other bishops have no authority over him.
>Gives Athanasius a fair trial and rebukes the heretics that forced him out of Alexandria
>Chrysostom dies before anything can happen, but the Pope refuses to have communion with Constantinople until they restore Chrysostom's position
>St. Jerome in his letter to the Pope recognizes that the See of Rome is the rock that Christ built His Church
>The second important see was Antioch until Constantine made Constantinople and the See of Constantinople was made second by the authority of Rome
>All the Church doctors agreed that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and deserve their punishments
>Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople fall to Muslims after their schism
Honestly, Eastern "Orthodoxy" is just Protestantism with a Greek veneer. If Easter "Orthodoxy" is so great why does Bergoglio say that Catholics cannot try to convert them lest they commit a mortal sin? Why have the recent "popes" been promoting unity without conversion?

Exactly, who the author is, when they wrote, the context around it all matters

You don't need to be baptised again. If you were a "trad catholic" you would already know this.

>baptised
Weren't you already baptized as a Catholic? You can only be baptized once, you'll just need to be Chrismated.

Glad you're taking the Orthodox pill though. It's been a fufilling journey in my experience with it.

>everytime a heresy starts it's int he east
maybe because there was more power in the east and more people lived there after the barbarians tore through rome?

also none of this actually says that the pope can say things from the Holy Spirit. It just says "for this heresy, the see fo rome has it right".

Also Peter and the See of Rome is still techincally above all the other sees by seniority i.e. primus inter pares.

>trad
>Catholic

Pick only one. But I do wish there were western orthodox churches, instead of having to go with shitskin Greeks and arabs or Slavic babuskas and gopniks.

What about Pelagianism though, didn’t that kick off in Britain?

And why I agree with you that the theology is there, in reality it took a long time before the Bishops of Rome really start to flex their muscles, centuries really. Hell it took time before they stopped being referred to as Bishop of Rome and started being referred as Pope

I mean, you can find catholic churches with greeks and arabs and gopniks. like even in america

Alexander VI transformed the Papacy from an aging religious vehicle that no one respected to a secular power that took its place in Italy and used the Church as a way to stand next to Kings. If the Popes had that backbone they would have seen the Emperor killed for his influence in the word of God. It is a purely politically split and while there might be theological differences they were made to combat heresies (fucking Arian). The Church needs one language and bickering over shit like this why the seats of the Apostles are desecrated is barbarian tier shit.

>he doesn’t know about the whole Novus Ordo versus Latin Mass shitstorm

if by "reuniting" that means "s-submit to Rome" then we're good on our own.

uniates get out

>christ chan is hot
these threads dont really help me i just want to go find lewds :^)

>orthodox were just separatists
>divorce
We were one church and the RC's had to sperg out and excommunicate us. You bastards are the throne of Satan as evidence by your Jesuit servant of the anti-Christ Pope. The Orthodox Church has apostolic succession from all the Apostles, take Saint Andrew establishing the Orthodox Church in Georgia for example. Peter does not have "muh keys" that is a deliberate misinterpretation of the gospel.

also our emperors are hotter

...

No, you're wrong. And Francis is not a leftist. He is a perfect Catholic, which just so happens to be leftism. Read the catechism of the Catholic church. Reads like it was written by the UN.

>18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Explain the misinterpretation

We will have our autocephaly soon brother.

who is 'we'

Submit as in Pope is greatest among equals as was decreed. There needs to be a leader but he must not have so much power to ignore his flock. Though, at this point who would you even pick for the others? Russian and Greek Patriarch are the first two. Latin Orthodox? Syriac? Does Rome still get supremacy over the West? Always wondered why 'Patriarchs' (even now) weren't above Cardinals but below the Pope.

idk if the pope can just become another patriarch like before and restricted from issuing church wide decrees without having an ecumenical council would be ideal.

>No Caesaropapism here
Part of the reason "the west" is a shit hole

An autocephalous American Orthodox Church? That would be an interesting thing if you can pull it off

its a modern technical document for written mainly priests only like 25 years ago, what do you expect from it? what about it can be construed as leftist?

Papal infallibility comes from Luke 22:31-32:

"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Peter is given an unfailing faith while the other apostles are not. This doesn't mean that the pope can't sin. It means when a true Pope clarifies a teaching or makes a dogma, he is protected by the Holy Spirit.

well that's Peter. We can't put personal qualities into succession. If that was the case our bishops would be ideal and saints.

See, that compromise was tried in the years before the schism, but it just didn’t work out
The compromise of greatest among equals was torn apart by politics and the tensions regarding it, and if it was tried again likely the same thing would happen

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9023/when-jesus-gave-peter-his-name-rock-what-is-the-significance-that-he-then-said

Just read this. It's a lot to go into.

>Over 1000 years and still buttblasted

Non-immigrant/Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Christians in America?

I've read the entire catechism. What is your issue with it?

i've sen this before and this is such a strawman on real life events

It will happen in time, we just need 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants to forget their native language for English. Once we stop conducting the liturgy in anything but English, churches will have to reconcile that they aren't anything but an American church.

Eastern orthodox is all about living in pain and humility. Would not recommend for anyone with even a little self-esteem.

If anything, the Petros/petra distinction only reinforces the claim of the Pope as supreme authority. Jesus did not establish Peter (petros) as the sole authority, he established the office he was granting to Peter as the source of authority, and every individual Pope is a small part (petros) of the rock that the Church is built on (petra)

at least give an example

This is a good example of cherry picking to make one side look better
And I just can’t see a Venetian Doge hijacking a crusade meant for Egypt, shattering the Greeks empire, then damning the east and everything almost to Vienna to turk rule as good thing desu

he was bishop of antioch before he was bishop of rome.
Why then, isnt the antiochian patriarch the pope? :^)

You're literally a bunch of hypocritical fucks. The Byzantines could have slaughtered the clergy of Rome at their Zenith, but didn't. Then when the West became stronger they sacked Constantinople and eventually let Turks ravage Eastern Europe. We could have been Brothers, but you guys had to be jealous pricks.