Tell me why I shouldn't jump ship for constantinople

Tell me why I shouldn't jump ship for constantinople

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jwocywANpfQ
archive.fo/FhiRT
desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_IV_Angelos
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Put it on the rits

Because it is controlled by Turks.

You're about 600 years too late faggot

Because they don't like gay niggers in Turkey.

What meme flag is this

...

Soon brother, soon

>American education

We learned the same stuff, Tyrone

Shhhhhh

Because it's a shitskin religion

Well you would jump to Moscowy AKA Third Rome

The only remaining bastion of Ortodox faith (including all other patriarchies)

I'm not anywhere near burgerstan

>Moscow Patriarchate
>not a kremlin mouthpiece
I thought that was the worst of all of them, you mean to tell me the others are worse?

wish we could get state flags

Because Jesus is a myth dumb ass. Man created Gods.

I don't know about you Americans, but at least here the orthodox church is completely autonomous from patriarchy of Constantinople despite nominally being it's subject. The clergy answers only to archbishop of Finland, and the bishops and the archbishop are chosen locally.

Pic related, Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki.

youtube.com/watch?v=jwocywANpfQ

No, I am saying that throughout history Moscowy was considered the third rome, so you would not hop to Constantinople.

And i Said it kinda bad, Moscow patriarchate + all other are what remains of the Ortodox fate
I did not say Moscow is better

archive.fo/FhiRT

(i tried to give a real link but it told me it was spam no matter what i tried)

In the US there are overlapping archdioceses that answer to different patriarchs, in addition to the OCA that has its own

desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection

>be atheistic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman
>"All those hundreds of simultaneous resurrection hallucinations!"

Yeah same here, but OCA isn't held in the same respect to the others due to the circumstances it received its autocephaly,
There's also something kinda similiar to the OCA here amongst all denominations called the 'kinotita' (community in Greek), which basically don't want their money to go back to wherever their Patriarchate is based, and would rather directly spend their money on their community rather than be allocated money from the head.

Who /western rite/ here? Just me?

Because Bible proves filloque (Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son).
>32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
John 1
>7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate [Holy Spirit] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
John 16
Father can command the Son, despite them being equally divine, because Son was begotten by Father.
How could Son send (command) Holy Spirit, if Holy Spirit wasn't proceeding from Him?

BTW which denomination are you?

Sedevacantist catholic, and because i am sedevacantist i am technically schismatic anyway

>How could Son send (command) Holy Spirit, if Holy Spirit wasn't proceeding from Him?
By the authority of the Father, according to an Orthodox sermon I heard

>Sedevacantist
Ayy, me too.
>technically schismatic
I can see what you mean, but that's untrue.
That's an unnecessary hierarchization and reminds of Jehovah's Witnesses mental gymnastics.
If Father only has that authority (it's in His nature) why would He give it to the Son (if it's not in the Son's nature)?
Son shares some authority with the Father, but by means of shared divine nature, not by any further act of Father (other than conception of the Son, that created Son's divine nature).
St. Peter must've been given authority in Matthew 16,19, because it's not in his human nature to have it. If Spirit doesn't proceed from Son, then Son indeed doesn't have authority over Him by His nature, but question in the first paragraph still stands.
What is the consequence of filloque then? If Son can command the Spirit regardless, what does filloque bring, what isn't there in "Orthodoxy"?
Why do you want to convert? Is it for reception of sacraments? In the times when they can be reached, you should of course partake in them. But if they are no valid in your vicinity, God's grace can be invoked without them, for He doesn't need them to act.

>first paragraph
second

Where were you 600 years ago when we called for help? Oh that's right, you backstabbed us, sacked our city and left us for dead. Now your society is crumbling to zionism.

Rot in hell.

>Guy wants to convert to your religion.
>Rot in hell.
Very telling.
>Where were you 600 years ago
Nowhere. Neither I, nor you, nor the OP existed at the time. Rational soul is created during conception, not before. Only Jesus's (divine) soul existed, but that's because divine nature is eternal.

This isn't catholicism you stooge. Orthodoxy is deeply entwined in history and Byzantine society.

>Oh that's right, you backstabbed us
You shot yourselves in the foot and that incident might be indirectly responsible for why Islam pretty much won.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_IV_Angelos

The sermon I heard was something along the lines of "The Father is the Source. In (verse I forget), 'Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit comes through Jesus Christ, but not from Him." I'm not saying I accept this fully but it's a fascinating thought.

I will ask someone about Matthew 16:19 if our friend with unpaid debnts can't explain it. In my visits to Orthodox churches I did run across an old woman who ditched the Latin church in the 60s. I think she's my best source of information.

>Why do you want to convert?
When I started reading about it I didn't actively want to convert. It was shortly after I accepted that western women are fucked and my only option for marriage is probably a Ukrainian mail order; the countries they come out of are typically Orthodox countries (I'm sure not aware of Polish mail orders) so I was exploring the possibility of religious conflict between me and whoever I ended up with. Once I started reading I started realizing they might be onto something and even some Vatican II documents acknowledging as such. I'm still not completely set on conversion, but I'm leaning toward it at this point and I'm waiting to move out of the basement before I actually take the plunge.

Not my point.
>Guy wants to convert to your religion.
>Rot in hell.
Shows that you don't care for his salvation, nor you have the mercy to forgive supposed sins of his ancestors.
>Orthodoxy is deeply entwined in history and Byzantine society.
Church is universal, not limited to one nation. If you disagree with this, you disagree with Creed.

>>"All those hundreds of simultaneous resurrection hallucinations!"

Would be impressive, if it had actually happened.

How do I join the Orthodox church? There are a few around me but they are all ethnic based. I'm just a WASP and I feel it may be difficult to integrate into a ethnic-based Orthodox church. The closest one to me is Romanian (so gypsy niggers) and the next is Greek and Russian. Looking online it seems most of their congregations make up these races and 90% of the Church activities center around being Greek, Romanian, Russian, etc. I would like to join the Church because it seems fairly traditional. My current church lets faggot niggers get married and let Muslims come and do a dual-worship once. It's led by a woman who co-pastors with her husband (who she cucks) so most of what is preached is nu-christian feel good crap like LOVE EVERYONE JESUS LOVES YOU shit. If I can't go Orthodox then my only other options are the same mostly cucked protestant denominations, Evangelical Nu-Christianity feed the niggers love Israel Megachurch scams, or Catholic church that shelters illegal immigrant spics. I'm seriously starting to think about giving up church all together and just reading the bible on my own.

>There are a few around me but they are all ethnic based
Have you actually been there? Heck, I'm in Alaska and it was mostly converts at the Greek church when I visited, including a few mexicans

>verse I forget
It's John 20,22.
>The Holy Spirit comes through Jesus Christ, but not from Him.
This is completely unnecessary distinction in my opinion and passage does not imply this. In fact opposite is implied.
>I will send him to you.
If their view was to be correct, why is nowhere in the Bible said
>One who sent me, will send Holy Spirit to you, through me.
See how redundant it sounds? Sometimes intermediary is used to receive grace and one could argue (in context of John 20,22) that Jesus was used as one, because He was visible to His disciples, while Father was not (this betters Apostle's understanding of grace bestowed upon them).
However such interpretation falls flat in Acts 2, when Christ is in Heaven and visible no longer.
So either:
a. Spirit always comes through Christ but not from Him (???).
b. Christ wasn't used as intermediary there, Spirit sometimes comes through Him, sometimes directly (this is disproven by John 16,7).
c. Spirit always comes from both Christ and Father.
>Vatican II documents acknowledging as such
Vatican II also "acknowledged" that islam worships the same God as we, so I wouldn't rely on it.
>I'm still not completely set on conversion
Well whatever you do, do not do it lightly. It's a very serious decision. Take both stances into mind.
God bless.

>My current church lets faggot niggers get married and let Muslims come and do a dual-worship once.
Eww, sodomites and heathens.
>Catholic church that shelters illegal immigrant spics
Do not join it. They are not true Catholics.
>just reading the bible on my own
Yes, you should read bible by yourself, came to your conclusions and later check your conclusions with interpretations of others, see if they make valid points.

I'll take a note of your filioque logic and ask some orthodox to try and refute it.

My point regarding the Vatican II documents is that those are a number fewer beliefs that I wouldn't be immediately declared a heretic for considering as I would have a century prior. It's one more instance of the Latin Church cucking itself among the other instances of Vatican II documents.

Allow me to make a comparison: the Catholic Church allows local cultures, apparently, to influence the Mass, thereby simultaneously allowing an African priest to clap and dance the hymns, for the liturgy of Chrysostom to be celebrated, and for the homily to be followed by an Aztec dance performance on the feast of Guadalupe. (All these I have witnessed personally.) Which of these are okay, and which are (((local))) influence? According to the Church, all of them are okay, but any idiot with a brain (i.e. not the mexicans that were there) knows that at least the third situation is extremely irreverent at best and heathen at worst, while the second may even be good for us for all we know.

So Vatican II puts out multiple claims, for example; such as 1) Islam and Talmudism worship the same God as us, and 2) this nastiness about ecclesiological structure explained in pic related (which, by the way, is defensible by the Greek definition of kαθολιkος, "including all members of a set"). How can you tell which is good and which is bad, since they're both cucking? You just can't trust Vatican II, but it's accepted as doctrine these days within the Roman Church, and if I was to cross the schism I'd be in a lot less trouble with Rome now than I would be if I did it a century ago.

I wrote all that and forgot the pic.