Encouragement on converting to Eastern Orthodox Christianity

I am currently Roman Catholic and sort of in a spiritual down phase right now. I just have a lot of bad habits that get in the way of being holy. I started attending an adult catechism with the Greek Orthodox Church, but a couple of things have become stumbling blocks for me, namely,

1) The fasting rules in the Orthodox Church are incredibly severe from my perspective as a lapsed Catholic.

2) I'm unsure about whether I should be received into the Orthodox Church through Baptism or just Chrismation. The Mt Athos tradition is to baptise every convert. But that implies that my Catholic baptism was insufficient. Although I don't believe my Catholic baptism was not a real baptism, I am worried that I will not be accepted by all in the Orthodox communion if I do not become rebaptised, given that the authority of the monks of Mt Athos supports the more rigorist stance.

3) Orthodox confession is face to face, which makes it a bit more difficult to confess very private sins like masturbation, unlike the Catholic confessional tradition of maintaining anonymity using stalls. Do people in Orthodox Christianity confess masturbation? Or should I only confess watching pornography?

Would appreciate some encouragement and advice. Thanks user!

Other urls found in this thread:

catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
youtube.com/watch?v=gPlXC8E1Hb8
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
biblehub.com/lexicon/john/3-36.htm
docs.google.com/file/d/0B43z_Az4kEXdTWM4ZmVnd2JUZzA/edit
biblehub.com/greek/poimanei_4165.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

just got eastern rite

If you’re sincere then you’re conquering your passions entirely. Fasting is a sacrifice to God, you can muster the will to do that surely.
Baptise.
>masturbating
Fucking stop m8

Why do you care about sand nigger voodoo?

Why don't you go one step at the time? You can think about baptism later.

You stay in the Catholic Church because it is true:
>catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

Read this, please. Understand what you're giving up before you give it up.

Understand the basis of the Church's claim of truth. If you understand, you will not walk away. It's as simple as that.

1) The fasting rules in the Orthodox Church are incredibly severe from my perspective as a lapsed Catholic.

This might be hard but it is a sacrifice to God and you will succeed in this. There are however valid reasons to not if it affects health etc.

2) I'm unsure about whether I should be received into the Orthodox Church through Baptism or just Chrismation. The Mt Athos tradition is to baptise every convert. But that implies that my Catholic baptism was insufficient. Although I don't believe my Catholic baptism was not a real baptism, I am worried that I will not be accepted by all in the Orthodox communion if I do not become rebaptised, given that the authority of the monks of Mt Athos supports the more rigorist stance.

You convert and get baptised when you join the one true church, of course.


3) Orthodox confession is face to face, which makes it a bit more difficult to confess very private sins like masturbation, unlike the Catholic confessional tradition of maintaining anonymity using stalls. Do people in Orthodox Christianity confess masturbation? Or should I only confess watching pornography?

It is not difficult. I used to be a Catholic myself and when I converted I experienced that you become much more closer with your priest, he becomes a most sincere friend, you can tell him anything.

I pray you find your way home soon brother.

>It is not difficult. I used to be a Catholic myself and when I converted I experienced that you become much more closer with your priest, he becomes a most sincere friend, you can tell him anything.
It's not that he haven't heard worst things from others anyway. And if something is so hard to tell, you can go to monastery (like a pilgrimage), find a monk who is doing confessions and tell him what you wan't. Many people do that.

Join us my friend

t. Serbian Orthodox Christian alpha

1) I know, it's up to you. I don't follow all the fasting except the Pentecost, the more you fast the more you do something for your mercy.

2)take your life stance from Athos, it's a pity you don't know Greek to listen to the holy monks among the Athonites, they explain the workings of the devil and the holy spirit/ grace of God. Other Christians don't have this and since they don't lie these monks, because they have Logos everything they say it's true. Their miracle working comes from there too and is fully transcendental.

In a nutshell your minds ideas are not all personal, spirits can plant ideas in this compromised organ, you must defy it and work with your heart. You can deal with a lot of problems if you catch wrong or crazy ideas as they are born in your mind and kill them immediately, you will also get experience with time in this.

The biggest sin is pride like the image satan has for himself, the greatest miracles come when you believe, ego and pride are detested by the Lord, in their place a sort of confidence comes that is not dick-ish.

It stops being funny after the second miracle, pay a lot of attention to your words, after you streamline telling, speaking the truth, you might find yourself say something without knowing why and see it happen.

People don't know about this and it's crucial. Also do not put filth in your mouth sexually fag dick sucking, drinking your gf's piss etc, 'pollutingly' it's black magic to lose Logos immediately. That's how we know kikes are damned, their priests suck dicks with a simultaneous blood sacrifice on Brit Milan, they literally utter not one word of truth but force their lies with black magic

3) don't afraid your confessor but chose someone who you feel comfortable with. We live in a shit era, just talk to him like your analyst, with some shame but not with guilt. They deal with the worse and some are exorcists as well.

As you see from this the other christian churches are in confusion, they might be well meaning but it will take centuries to rediscover or divulge to the populace, I remember you too from the other thread, welcome to the fold brothers and we can always do generals here discuss Orthodoxy.

I think we all understood all there is to it, come with us you too. The papacy is a religion but not one of Christ.

How could I forget, must post.

You better dont you piece of shit

Get baptized, brother. I was baptized as an infant but I am preparing to be baptized in the Orthodox Church. It is the legitimate church, you should be baptized as you join.

No , read the thread kraut.

Do it or don't, Sup Forums polling is not a good way to build the foundation of your faith.

Haha ok, Sup Forums is a gate to many things.

I am greek

Here's another condensed meaning (pic)
Oh okay, kalimera file

How about that huh peeps ? If all that wasn't a redpill then idk what is.

First up, this is not politics related, you should have posted it in /adv/ or /r9k/ so don't be surprised when the mods or janitors delete this thread.

Assuming this is actually a genuine post, which is unlikely but you never know I'll address your points with the assumption you are being congruent.

1) If you are going to do something you should do it right from the start rather than go in half arsed and slide back into your old ways in a matter of months. Just remember there is a reason you're trying this out in the first place, you don't want to go in half cock, waste a year of your life and end up exactly the same as when you started do you? The rest of the congregation, or at least the ones who aren't faking it are going to be following these rules too so they'll help you out if you feel you are having problems.

Think of it like buying a new computer game, it can cost you a lot and if you just mash random buttons you're not going to have as much use out of it as you would by putting in the effort to learn the moves and play it properly.

2) If you're sure about it why not get baptized? you haven't given any reason against doing so yet and seem to think your Catholic one didn't count anyway. In my opinion there is not a specific God or Jesus exclusively for Catholics, Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox or even protestants so as long as you make a commitment there is nothing wrong with reaffirming your faith and just saying "OK this is how I'm going to do it now" by being baptized again. If that were not the case then there would have been no need for John the Baptist as the Jews he baptized in the name of Christ would not have needed to be baptized. It is up to you and your relationship with God if you want to be rebaptised or not, but if it will let your new church know you have made that commitment to their way of doing things why not?

Cont...

>cont...

3) Broadly speaking anyone who tells you it is a sin to fap is a liar. The oft quoted reason for it supposedly being sinful is the stony of Onan. Onan is a guy who was slain by God because he wouldn't father a child with the widdow of his brother and used the withdrawal method when sexing her to avoid this. Freaky as it sounds being frowned upon for not impregnating your brothers wife that was how society worked then, if you had a child with them you'd be responsible for the woman's upkeep and that of all her previous kids, so he was tiring to avoid this while still sexing her and not honoring a promise to his family and dead brother. Anti-fap campaigners who basically thought all sex was a sin anyway latched onto the bit about his seed spilling on the ground as being the sinful part and so they misrepresented it to meme their "OMG, willys and minges are so bad" shit. Americans and Victorian Brits lapped this shit up and there you go.

Porn in itself might well be "sinful" but only in certain circumstances. Jesus wouldn't have approved of you pulling your plonker over a married woman thinking about having an affair with her, but doing the 5 knuckle shuffle over a single woman might be OK.

As far as confessing face to face, well I'm sure the priest has heard worse. The whole point of confession is to become more honest with yourself as you confess your sins and get absolved of them. If you are a regular attendee of a catholic church the priest will know EXACTLY who you are anyway despite the screen, going face to face seems a bit more honest. In the Anglican tradition we don't need a go between between us and God and can confess directly to God I've never really understood why other Christian traditions like to put barriers between themselves and God when Jesus was sent to us to break those barriers down, but whatever you feel more comfortable with is fine. Christianity is, literally, a broad church.

Your ignorance is quite frankly lame as fuck, and you’re lying to lead this man in to sin. Fuck off

Just to let you know that schism is a grave sin and you are putting your salvation in jeopardy by doing so.

On eastern confession, you know there is the alternative to sin no more. Maybe face to face confession would shame you into stopping persisting in sin. Remember if you withold in confession then the confession is not valid.

What are the reasons for your apostasy and schism? If you are looking for something novel then you'll get bored of eastern christianity too.

Get to confession and cease your apostasy

youtube.com/watch?v=gPlXC8E1Hb8

Become Eastern Catholic or Oriental Catholic. Byzantine Catholicism is basically Eastern Orthodoxy, but they are in communion with the Church.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say Captain Never-been-to-church.

He's right. The effeminate (the church fathers explain this as masturbation) and adulterers (in heart watching porn) will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. You are literally encouraging a man to do things that will condemn him. Maybe you are possessed by a demon

>The mighty pope commands you won't you obey him REEEEEEEE
Gee satan sure is worried isn't he?

If not larp
Here's the answers.

1)Fasting is dependent on the person, if they are sick/entry level you can ignore fasting or start out slow, for example, during Christmas Fasting, no meat and milk products are allowed, you can instead just do the no meat part in the beginning. Ask a priest, they will help you out.
2) Absolutely get babtised, it's a different feeling afterwards, follow the old writings of Holy Fathers
3)Yes, Masturbation is confessed. If too emberased, find a Holy Father you're not embarrassed to talk to. Becaise if you skip out on telling one thing, you'll start skipping confessing for other sins

Cute you didn't listen..

No Jesus set up Peter as the Pope. Pretty simple.

If all the Bishops are equal and many have different beliefs, whats the dogma of your church ? You have none.

and don't say from ecumenical counsels because you reject as many as you accept and different bishops accept different ones.

Jesus made Peter the first Pope..
Deal with it..

nice to see more people want to seek truth, and yes u should confess ur masturbation xD don't worry priests are used to it

are you implying that we aren't united?

if so u are deeply wrong

All valid churches (valid bishops) are united in the Eucharist for the body Christ cannot be split. All schism comes in the heart of the individual

So you are in agreement with Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepting the council of Florence ?

Yeah Jesus was not reffering to Peter's faith when he said "upon this rock I will build my Church" he was actually trying to say that we should listen to Francis how could we be so naive? Thanks Catholics.

What’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs, Tend my sheep, Feed my sheep, the second command of the three is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all three the same way, as “feed”; but the second command is actually different from the first and third.

John 21:15-17 “He saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my lambs... He saith unto him,
Tend [Poimaine] my sheep... Jesus saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my sheep.”

In the first and the third commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the wordin the Greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimaine, the secondcommand of Jesus to Peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend.

Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimaine, which Jesus uses about Peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in

Revelation 2:27.
Rev. 2:27 “And he shall rule [poimanei] them with a rod of iron...”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock. The same word poimaine is used in Rev. 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

Here’s what the great Eastern father of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, said about this passage in John 21.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century:
“Jesus saith unto him,‘Feed my sheep.’ And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band... the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, ‘If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren.’” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14:331)

spend a bit of time and read this letter by a couple of Ortho priests to Pope Francis:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

A Letter to Pope Francis Concerning His Past, the Abysmal State of Papism, and a Plea to Return to Holy
Orthodoxy

Utterly kills it.

Your arguement is the same as a Prodestant..

Too bad the earliest Church fathers disagree with you as well as the Greek version of the passage you quote.

The early Church fathers, the prominent early Christian writers of the first centuries, recognized that Peter is the rock. There are many citations one could bring forward, but here are just a few.

Tertullian, On Monogamy, 213 A.D., refers to Peter and speaks of the Church,
“built upon him...” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:381)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), who played a key role with the Council of
Ephesus, stated in his Commentary on John: “He [Jesus] suffers him to be no
longer called Simon... He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra
(rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church.”

St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.), Against Eunomians, 4: “Peter... who on
account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D.), Oration 26: “... of
all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church...”

St. John Chrysostom, great Eastern father and Bishop of Constantinople, Homily
3, De. Poenit. 4, 387 A.D. “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...
when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation...”
One could also quote St. Ambrose, Jerome and many others, but the point should be clear.

Francis is an anti pope of a counter church.
That does not mean the papacy is not biblical.

You know that almost 80% of all Bishops left the Catholic church during the Arian Schism ?
The church will always prevail because that is what Jesus promised.

Listen dude we don't have popes here, our beliefs and traditions are all preserved by the people and the clergy alike from ancient times. No patriah or emperor can change the faith if he feels like it. That's why the council of Florence was named pseufto-council and pic related became a Saint by the people. If someone from the clergy starts teaching herecies, the Orthodox people step up that's why we haven't change the teachings of Christ since ancient times.
nice pastas

>obey the pope
>no, not that pope

If Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were? What are the criteria?

Whatever criteria you pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

We don't obey popes. We obey the magisterial teachings of the Church which can not be wrong.

>Return to orthodoxy

The kernal of devoted, serious practicing Catholics will never let the Church adopt the principles of Orthodoxy.

Traditionalist Catholics are fighting against the very things Orthodoxy propmotes.

Married priests.
Contraception reform.
Criticism of devotion piousness as "legalism"

These are the things that the Orthodox Church has let into their faith over the years and no Catholic wants a part of that.
We don't want the profound moral laxity that Orthodoxy follows.

If anything, the Orthodox needs to take on more Catholic beliefs. Research into why the Church believes what it does. Start researching why married priests are an abomination or why contraceptive culture is a disaster.
Turn away from your damaging beliefs and embrace Catholic beliefs.

>when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence
I just told you that neither Patriarchs nor emperors have a say on Christ teachings. The Orthodox church is lead by the Holy Spirit alone though our Saints and that's why how know it is the tue one.

>We don't want the profound moral laxity that Orthodoxy follows.
which profound moral laxity you talking about

Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as they will see if they honestly and deeply think about it. In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the “Church” spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the “Church” spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.

What has a say on Christs teaching ?
Are you going Solo Scriptura ?

So now you are a Protestant ?

You people are even schismatic within your schism. Not really surprising it is appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

The main point is contraception.
There is no doubt that contraceptive culture has led to ruin, and it is an intrinsic evil. So it is upsetting how Orthodoxy has been unwilling to condemn it. Just saying that it is "up to the discernment of individual couples".

If we accept contraception as not evil, and that sex outside its procreative purposes is fine, then what is the argument against things like masturbation, fornication, homosexuality?

The RCC has the Magesterium, which has kept the unchanging law of the Church. Orthodoxy has nothing. The only thing that has prevented Orthodoxy from going the way of Protestantism is that it is confined to traditionalist, rural east European cultures.

But that will change. Orthodoxy will become more lax.

>Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils.
The Church of christ is holy catholic eastern orthodoxy, and hasn't fallen into any error or defected.

>Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.
Papal Primacy, as the Papists in the Vatican practice it is a form of Papal Supremacy, is not anywhere in the bible, nor within holy church tradition. The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for Rome's bishop , but not in its current form.

It's not in the BIBLE ? ARE you Protestant ?
We believe in the written and verbal teaching of the Apostles not just the written word.

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.”

The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. And it was also believed in the early Church.

You have fallen into error if you reject the councils of the Church because the magisterium is protected by Jesus promise to his church. You may fool a Prodestant with your mumbo jumbo, we are so spiritual crap but you are a schismatic. Pure and simple.

>The whole point of confession is to become more honest with yourself

No.

>Christ teachings
>Protestant

>Just saying that it is "up to the discernment of individual couples".
as long as its not abortive there's no biblical or traditional grounds for opposing it; its just as kosher as the catholics "family planning" protocols, but you don't have to be a calendar autist and use software to figure out how to avoid your wife's fertile periods and only sex her during her infertile periods. Functionally equivalent desu.

>The RCC has the Magesterium, which has kept the unchanging law of the Church
top kek, how blind to history are you? you guys keep inventing newer heresies every century.

remember when priests were allowed to get married and have kids? and then uhhh they weren't?....yet even Peter was married and even the bible allows and encourages bishops/presbyters to get married and have families. Give me a break papist, i'm not gonna argue the retarded innovations the papists in italy have made, you already know them and don't seem to care about hypocrisy and lies, and you probably have URL links to aplogetic nonsense for each one, yet the reality remains and they tower over the alleged moral "problems" of Orthodoxy you imagine.

>the clergy starts teaching herecies, the Orthodox people step up
Then on what do you differentiate what is heresy on what is not?
On Holy Scripture?
On teachings of some patriarchs and councils, while rejecting others?
On your feels?
A Catholic takes the Bible and Magisterium, when someone preaches against them, heresy is evident, even if he is "pope".
>became a Saint by the people
Oh, don't you know that one becomes a saint by being chosen to Church of Christ, by God?
Not at all by the people's choice.

meant for

There is nothing Christian about a Prodestant.
You don't follow Jesus order to obey him.
You don't keep the sacraments he gave to you.
You reject the Eucharist.
You reject the one church he promised to protect
and you reject the Apostalic succesion which he himself set up.
You read from a mistranslated bible that had 7 books taken out and at the beginning 9 books wwere taken out including the Gospel of John.

You reject the Bride of Christ and his mother.
There is nothing Christian about a Prodestant other than the fact that they duped Americans into thinking that Schism is Christian.

Ave Maria

Again, how were teachings of Christ preserved.
In Bible alone (i.e. Sola Scriptura) or have they been preserved in teaching of the Church too?
And if it's the second option, then what do you define as teaching of the Church?

>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.”
Where does this even hint at Papal Supremacy as practiced currently? Holy kek, nice out of context scheming you're doing.

Here's the full translation

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[d] that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” 33 Peter[e] said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus[f] said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”

Speaks for itself and doens't say what you imagine. Jesus is saying that Peter's faith will eventually prevail, after it is tested and fails three times, and then it will strengthen/confirm/uplift/convert/etc his brothers. It doesn't say your nonsense.

STOP BEING (((CHRISTIAN)))

I'm a Gadolig, and if you came here because you wanted encouragement to become one yourself i would tell you the same, which is: "It is a mistake to come to Sup Forums to seek serious religious advice.".

Christ through the holy spirit guide us with signs, miracles, Saints etc so we leave all faith maters to Him. Humans can be corrupted.
>Oh, don't you know that one becomes a saint by being chosen to Church of Christ, by God?
Not at all by the people's choice.
True but in Orthodoxy chrurch is not an institution but the people who have been baptized. So when i say the people i mean the church of Christ.
>resorts to autism

stop begging for (((money))) on (((youtube))) and talking shit about your christian ancestors

>practiced currently
It's not practiced currently, we do not have a valid Pope, only anti-pope Francis and he leaves a great deal of autonomy for the national episcopates.
>Satan demanded to have you
is in plural actually, as in you - the Apostles, faithful.
>I have prayed for you that your faith
is in singular, as in you - Peter specifically.
It states that Peter was singled out as the one who's faith will be strong enough, to set a side what is heresy bread by Satan for confusion, and what is true faith, thus "confirming his brothers".

From the outset we must clarify that
we Orthodox, not taking part in the politically
-
correct spirit of western and especially
ecumen
ist
“Christianity,” do not refer to those
religious communities who have, sadly, been separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Orthodox Church as “Churches.”
But, following the example of our Holy
Fathers throughout the ages, refer to them as h
eretics, and you, Your
Excellency
, and
your followers, we denominate as “Papists” and your heresy as “Papism.” These terms
are, for us, not derogatory, neither are they slurs, but they are theological and even
technical terms which best describe the spiri
tual and ecclesiastical delusion and error in
which you find yourselves. We, in fact use them with love, for when one loves his
brother he tells him the truth hoping to bring him back to his senses.
I
t should
also
be made clear that the following words a
re written with pain of heart and
not from some personal bitterness or hatred towards your respectable personage. Our
purpose is not to offend you, but to reveal, rebuke, admonish and to refute your deluded
and heretical ideas, theories and actions.

Holy Spirit dude. Even if the whole clergy become apostates, God will choose the most illiterate monk or layman to wake us up and guide us. This is how thinks work here.

>Luke 22:31-32
This passage is fascinating because it contains a number of important truths. First of all, there
is a strife among the Apostles about who will be the greatest. Jesus explains that His
Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles. So Jesus is talking about how His Kingdom
or Church is structured.

Jesus then says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He
has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith fail not.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired
to have you [hymas:Greek ye:Old English] [plural], that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee
[tou:Greek Thee:Old English][singular], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren.”

It’s important to note that when Jesus says “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you”
is in the plural. This is clear in the original Greek text, but not in the English. Satan
desired to have all the Apostles, Jesus says; but He prayed for Simon Peter alone, that
his faith fail not. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an
unfailing faith, according to the words of Jesus. Jesus says this only about Peter,
clearly separating him from the rest.

Jesus made Peter the leader of his church.

>It's not practiced currently, we do not have a valid Pope, only anti-pope Francis
all your popes have been anti-popes since 1054 lmao

>It states that Peter was singled out as the one who's faith will be strong enough, to set a side what is heresy bread by Satan for confusion, and what is true faith, thus "confirming his brothers".
it states that his 3 denials won't be permanent, but transient, and eventually he'll come to his senses and have good faith, faith sufficient to "strengthen" or "confirm" his brothers. Where the heck are you reading "Papal Supremacy" in those verses? Are you drunk? Also Paul "corrected/confirmed" Peter afterwards anyway, so much for that.

So the Holy Spirit makes you infallible ? Nice!

Jesus left us a church to teach us the truth.
That is not Scriptual.
For a Christian what is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth ? The Bible ?

Goto 1 Timothy 3:15
5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So it is the CHURCH and not the BIBLE that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth for a Christian.
The ONE true and apostalic CHURCH founded by Jesus and who's authority was given to Peter.

If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth then are not Catholics correct in listening to the Church on matters of faith and proper interpretation of scripture. That is has an indespensible role in setting us free ?

This is why it is firmly established in my mind and the mind of all Catholics.

you're misreading is comical
you're trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat but your sleight of hand isn't working here papist

go hocus pocus a verse on purgatory next

Based Poles that understand their religon! Nice

Ave Maria brother

read the greek fool.

Nestle GNT 1904
Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Westcott and Hort 1881
Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Εἴπεν δὲ ὁ kύριος, Σίμων, Σίμων, ἰδού, ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς, τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος· Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Tischendorf 8th Edition
Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος, Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδού, ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς, τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Κύριος, Σίμων Σίμων ἰδού, ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον·

τοῦ = THEE = You Singular
ὑμᾶς = YE = You Plural

>24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24
Satan can also sent signs and miracles.
Of course, it doesn't mean that every miracle and private revelation should be dismissed as that of Satan, rather a caution needs to be maintained.
A miracle should be examined, among other things, under angle of its compatibility with public revelation. If it is incompatible, or outright contradicts public revelation, it is not from God.
Thus we need to state where is public revelation preserved. If we don't do so we can't examine if a miracle is compatible or not, because we don't know with what exactly it needs to be compatible.
I claim that it is preserved in Bible and Magisterium.

What you think that your KJV would remain true to God's word ?

Go read John 3:36 in you KJV.. and learn to obey.. Oh yeah but that's mistranslated too.

here it is in the Greeek for ya'

biblehub.com/lexicon/john/3-36.htm

>3) Orthodox confession is face to face, which makes it a bit more difficult to confess very private sins like masturbation
Wtf? I thought that shit was only in movies. I'm Catholic and every confession I've been to is done face to face. I find it difficult to confess some stuff like you...

Thats why Jesus told the apostles to confess thier sins to each other. you are supposed to feel bad and embarrased. It's a sign of your true contrition.

>singular vs plural
neither of them help your case, Peter was corrected by Paul. The word "strengthen/confirm" doesn't imply Papal Supremacy as it is currently practiced.
Jesus was simply saying Peter is gonna screw up three times but eventually he'll come back to his senses and he'll be able to improve/strengthen/confirm his brothers' faith.
Stop lying.

Sorry, I greentexted the wrong part. I meant to greentext:
>the Catholic confessional tradition of maintaining anonymity using stalls
Which is why I'm confused, because all of my Catholic confessions (which I can count by the number of fingers I have) have been face to face, not anonymous.

That's why we leave that to the Saints. I cannot judge certain things or situations so i listen to what our Saints have to say. Pic related are the newest Saints God gave to us and we hold on to their teachings.

I recognize the two on the right but I forget their names? Got hte names of these 3?

St Iakovos Tsalikis
St Paisios
St Porphyrios

From left to right

St. Jerome states:

Now, if anyone thinks that Paul really opposed Peter and fearlessly insulted his predecessor in defense of evangelical truth, he will not be moved by the fact that Paul acted as a Jew among fellow Jews in order to win them for Christ. What is more, Paulwould have been guilty of the same kind of dissimulation on other occasions, such as when he shared his head in Cenchrea,when he made an offering in Jerusalem after doing this, when he circumcised Timothy and went barefoot-all of which are*clearly aspects of Jewish religious ritual.

St. John Chrysostom has the same interpretation, and Jerome reports that Origen held it as well, though it does not appear in his surviving writings.

The early fathers didn't see a problem with it. Neither do I.

and Jesus made Peter the leader AFTER the resurrection and AFTER Peter has rebuked him three times. That's why he ask him if he loved him three times and told him to rule his church.

John 21:15-17 “He saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my lambs... He saith unto him,
Tend [Poimaine] my sheep... Jesus saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my sheep.”

Pomiaine means to rule.

Thanks bro
You can correct someone without being viciously opposed to them or insulting.
The verse you quoted in Luke 22 is not even remotely related to papal supremacy/primacy.

I usually see the "keys to heaven" verse used, I've never seen someone use Luke 22...you gotta unpack it a lot more, otherwise your effort is kind of embarrassing

Ah I see what you mean. That's a question I don't have an answer to. When I was young in those stalls the Priest could see you.
It's probably a part of the modernization of the counter church after Vatican 2.
Point is you are supposed to feel bad and be guided back into a state of grace. Helps us sin less hopefully.

why the hell dont we have holy men such as this in prominent positions of authority in society anymore, and instead have our kike media and celebrities telling people how to live good lives. Why are we allowing this to happen? Our societies have been destroyed by the (((enlightenment))).

You are referring to Galatians 2, yes? Let's see.
>11 When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong. 12 He used to eat with Gentile followers of the Lord, until James sent some Jewish followers. Peter was afraid of the Jews and soon stopped eating with Gentiles. 13 He and the other Jews hid their true feelings so well that even Barnabas was fooled.
Peter hold the correct view (faith), but he acted not accordingly to this real faith.
Thus he didn't err, he ate with Gentiles, because he correctly viewed Old Law as dead. He acted otherwise out of fear, not faith.
Man can have the faith and be fearful. Man can have the faith and commit great sins. Catholic doesn't state that the Pope acts in the most moral way.
Pope, or even st. Peter can do too little to oppose heresy, but that doesn't make them heretics. It's exactly what happened here. Peter had correct view, but he didn't state it boldly enough.

he has a duty to serve his sheep, the least in heaven is the greatest... he's not to make himself a little prince on earth, living in opulence, who owns a State/country (vatican) and pretends to be infallible when it suits him

It's clear that 100% of first century bishops believed as I do...

Who cares what a heratic believes. The Church is the pillar of the truth just as Paul told us it was.

Heres a good book for you that you wont read..
docs.google.com/file/d/0B43z_Az4kEXdTWM4ZmVnd2JUZzA/edit

the organization that is full of anti-popes is in schism form the real church. and its current papal supremacy is not equivalent to the ancient version

There was never an anti-pope that was inside the Church. To proclaim oneself pope unjustly is an act of heresy.

>worshipping the king of the jews
No, thanks.

So you refure that the Greek work poimane means to rule ?

Ok try this one on then..

Revelation 2:27.
Rev. 2:27 “And he shall rule [poimanei] them with a rod of iron...”


he is the Greek word in Luke 22 Ποίμαινε [poimanei]

and in Revelation it is translated RULE

biblehub.com/greek/poimanei_4165.htm

>There was never an anti-pope that was inside the Church
>heheh anti-popes were never popes to begin with ;)
>the popes who disgraced themselves were just LARPing, they became popes by accident or something
look at this kike logic

The Polish user is correct. A heretic cannot be inside the church. A person not inside the church cannot be the Pope. The seat of Peter is vacant.

The Church however is infallible.

Become a scandinavian pagan, fuck the jewish religion.

1. If I were to proclaim myself a pope right now, would I commit an act of heresy?
2. Are heretics a part of the Church?
>by accident
Accidents are non-existent. Everything that transpires does so, because God allows it.

The problem is you don't follow logic at all.
Like
Mary is the Mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
therefore
Mary is the Mother of God.

A heretic can not be inside the church
Anyone not inside the church can hold office
therefore
A heretic can not hold office in the church

Pretty simple stuff, even for a schismatic outside of Gods one church

>poimane to rule
or to shepherd....it makes sense for one to "shepherd little sheep" not to "rule over them with an iron rod". The only ruler is Christ. His apostles and bishops are servants and at most they serve, feed, and guide/shepherd the sheep.

>Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it.
what a leap of logic.