Roman Catholic or Orthodox: Which Church should I join?

Roman Catholic or Orthodox: Which Church should I join?

Culturally, I am attracted to the Roman Catholic Church. At least as long as the church in question practices the Tridentine Mass. I agree with their doctrine of Original Sin, and there is historical precedent for the Papal Primacy. But the current Church is getting more and more corrupt, and it has changed so much in the past 2,000 years.

Culturally, I am very distant from the Orthodox Church. Most of the differences are minor, but they compound so much that it makes it really different. But I also believe they are much closer to the original Church. I also really like Greek culture, though I don't speak it (I study Latin though). The Orthodox church I've visited a few times is beautiful. I love their Divine Liturgy, the incense, the hymns, the icons, everything. But, their theology is not as developed. The Catholic Church has gone through multiple heresies, and written massive tomes of theology. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, hasn't had any advancements in theology in like 1,000 years, probably because they haven't had an ecumenical council in as long (because you can't have one without the Pope).

So, I would like to hear arguments from both sides.
>tl;dr
Should I become Orthodox or Catholic? I recently converted (from atheism, though I've yet to be baptized, as I want to be baptized into the Church I choose for life).

Other urls found in this thread:

simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_Cantius_Church_(Chicago)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why not just be an athiest and cut the bullshit out of your life, christ.

Neither both are bullshit

Fedoras and Protestants kindly fuck off

Make me Christfag! Oh wait you can't turn the other cheek nigga

Atheist-leftists fuck off

Dumping more Christian infographics

...

Not all atheists are left. E.g. I support traditional gender roles for women.

*tip

...

...

>Posting .gif files that aren't gifs

>fedora
>christfags only argument
gold

>Reliability = times copied
KEK

Would you like me to post the entirety of Western theology on here so you could just say "hurrrr mental gymnastics?"

There's no arguing with you people, so I choose not to. The evidence is in front of you. If you stopped worshiping Dawkins and Hitchens for long enough to pick up books on philosophy and theology you might learn something, but of course that's too time consuming for you. And of course you're above all those invaluable contributions to Western civilization.

The chart is to counter claims that the New Testament is unreliable because our earliest surviving examples of it are from several decades after Christ's death.

>There's no arguing with you people, so Ichoose not to.
Wow, really? You're instantly right
I am now a hardcore christian

I just told you to read works of theology if you want well laid out arguments. I don't have the time or space to write 50 page essays on proving God.

You can easily write 1+1=2. But to actually go into the mathematical proofs required to show that, requires a considerable amount of time and space.

So if you would genuinely like to hear arguments for Christianity, please direct yourself to the picture I posted of recommended readings of theology. If not, kindly fuck off, because you didn't come here for civilized discussion, you came to stick your head up your ass and laugh at Christians.
>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

OP... I was born to a Syriac Orthodox family from Lebanon. When my family moved to the US, obviously there was no Syriac churches in our area... We also did not identify well with Greek Orthodox because while the liturgy was pretty much the same, the language and culture was a bit different.

We found a Maronite Catholic Church (Eastern Rite Catholicism... Beholden to Rome but having their own liturgical style and culture which had taken many elements from the Syriac Orthodox Church) and I grew up in the Maronite Catholic Church.

After many years, our family had a falling out with that community due to their own corruption within their eparchy.. By that time a Syriac Orthodox mission had been started and after 20 years of Eastern Catholic life, we went back to our roots in Orthodoxy.

What we found (which matches your views on this subject) was a simplistic theology shrouded in ritual and modesty.. It was a departure from the cerebral and complex teachings of Catholicism... It took some getting used to. Ultimately, I love it because the Church is less prone to corruption and closer to early Christianity. Furthermore, a lot of younger scholars are starting to advance the theology... You can find studies on the Internet.

I truly believe either course of action that will keep you engaged would be the correct action

This chart is a fucking mess can you not see that? 7 copies of Plato? Plato wrote dozens of fucking books; 7 copies of which book?

There is only one true Church of God and that is the Roman Catholic Church.

DEUS VULT

I don't see how a book on some shithead's idea of morals could possibly prove the existance of a god. Am I supposed to just accept the stories told as fact? Sorry no, there is no god and gouging my eyes with texts that have prerequisite beliefs that need to be considered fact won't changs that either. Anything in this universe can be explained with science and probability. I'm not going to scavenge my way through hundreds of bigot texts just to find a phenomenon that proves otherwise (implying there is any evidence that event even occured)

Yeah, that's what has me torn. The scholar in me loves the well evolved and exhaustive amount of theology that the Catholic Church has. It's invaluable in defending arguments for God and the like.

But on the other hand, Roman Catholics seem to have an answer for everything, there is little left for mysticism. And when you have someone who thinks they have all the answers, they're prone to be tyrannical and corrupt (as you pointed out).

I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I've only been a "Christian" (a term I use loosely because I've yet to be baptized or receive the Sacraments) for about a year, so I think if I keep reading and attending different churches, I'll find the place I belong.

I would have to refer to the article that I got the graph from to see specifically which text of Plato it was. Regardless, as an historian, I can guarantee you that there are no surviving manuscripts of Plato that are older than the High Middle Ages. And even that is doubtful. Aristotle was "re-discovered" in the West around the High Middle Ages, but many other Greek philosophers and the like would have to wait until the Renaissance, with the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the subsequent exodus of many Greek scholars, to be re-discovered. Arabic was more well understood in the High Middle Ages than Greek was (by which I mean, more copies of Greek wisdom came to us through al-Andalus than through actual Greek sources at that time).

There aren't stories and shit in it you fucking idiot. The works of theology I posted offer systematic, methodical, logical approaches to proving God or other Christian dogma. Again, this is what I mean by you coming here with your head up your ass, refusing to look at anything that contradicts your viewpoint. Believe me, I was there once, I was an atheist myself.

St. Aquinas himself was instrumental in the "by reason alone" approach of proving God. In one of his works (I can't rightly recall which at the moment) he expressly states that he will set aside his faith (though he assures the reader he still has it) and prove God through reason alone. And he goes on to masterfully do so.

Again, pull your head out of your ass and don't be afraid to read things that don't agree with you.

There are no easy answers for difficult questions.

>As an historian
*A historian.
Oh really where do you work?

But god is easily disproven logically.

Ever heard of "the god paradox"? No, I didn't think so. Since I'm not going to vaguely paraphrase texts to prove my point, I'll do you the courtesy of pasting it here.

>If God is able to make a mountain more heavy than He is able to lift, then there may be something He is not able to do: He is not able to lift that mountain.
> If God is not able to make such a mountain, then there is something He is not able do: He is not able to make that mountain.

In logic, problems can often be solved by breaking them into smaller pieces. One solves each of the small problems.

Let us see how one can use this for the God Paradox. The paradox is:

If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?

If one changes this question to a sentence, it becomes:

God can do anything, which means that He can make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift.

We can make this even more simple. First we must see that because God can do anything:

He can make an unliftable mountain,
He can lift anything.

Now we can write the sentence as these facts:

God can do anything.
God can make an unliftable mountain (because of fact 1).
God can lift anything (because of fact 1).
God cannot lift the mountain.

Facts 1, 2 and 3 must always be true. Now we must see if fact 4 is true or false:

If 4 is true, then 3 must be false (fact 1 must also be false).

simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

"An" can be used before "h," did they not teach you that in elementary grammar?

I'm currently doing my doctoral studies at a university, so I guess I can say that's where I "work."

Even setting aside my modest credentials, I'll phrase it this way (since I'm sure you're going to demand some type of proof that I'm an historian, since you're afraid of losing the argument by ignorance alone): I, in all of my years of historical research, before I was a Christian even, have yet to encounter or hear of a medieval manuscript of Plato that is older than the 9th century.

I believe there is a papyrus fragment of Plato from the 3rd or 4th century, but even that is several hundred years removed from Plato.

>I'm smarter than every theologian that ever lived
Your extremely elementary argument is dealt with in volumes by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Aquinas.

I'll sum up the argument by basically saying:

you did the mathematical equivalent of dividing by zero, and then used that as part of your proof that 1+2=5.

You went into the argument with arbitrary assertions that are outside the realm of divinity and theology.

I really do encourage you to try reading theology. At the very least, it will make you a much more skilled rhetorician.

>An can be used
Well its technically correct, but its uncomfortable to pronounce. But thats just ME

>You're afraid you'll lose
Bring it on nigga

>Arbitrary assertions
The assertions are completely relevant since God claims omnipotence. How do you reconcile that he cannot perform either task without blatantly contradicting himself. And for the record nothing is outside of the realm of divinity and theology.

I'm not reading your shitty books because I feel like I'll gain nothing and I'll come out an athiest making the whole thing a complete waste of time.
You still have provided no actual arguments or logic.
>get your head out of your ass
It's kind of hard when you christians haven't even made an attempt to prove me wrong.

He's currently browsing his theological works with his "modest credentials" (by the way did he mention that he's AN HISTORIAN) so he can return with some snide half ass answer

I didn't say you're afraid to lose, what I was trying to say is that it is cheap to try to assert that I'm right simply because I have credentials that you don't. It's an appeal to authority, and a weak one at that.

First of all, God doesn't "claim" anything. Humans make claims about God, but he isn't the one actively engaged in it.

The God paradox is flawed to begin with because it begins by asserting that God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. This is false.
>hurrr but he can do anything
No, he can't. At least not anything that is outside the intrinsic qualities of Godhood.

The paradox has been dealt with for millennia, and there are no good answers to it. Some might say that it is simply beyond human understanding (though I believe this to be a copout).

If the "God Paradox" is your only argument, it's a poor one, because there is more than enough good proof (on both sides of the argument) which effectively renders it a moot point.

Aquinas deals with it by saying that logical contradictions do not fall under the realm of omnipotence. He provides a fairly lengthy (and boring) explanation for this.

I believe Augustine is the one that asserts that the paradox arises from a failure of human language to be able to describe the divine. He also provides a lengthy discussion on it, I believe in "The City of God."

>tl;dr
Seriously, just read the fucking books, you might learn something.

See
if you want an argument. If you're going to sit here and literally say "I refuse to read your arguments" then I'm done debating with you. My reasoning behind many of the issues you raise are dealt with in the works I described. If you have neither the patience nor the motivation to read them, then that is your fault, but don't walk off and pretend you won because you refused to read the arguments that were presented to you.

Anything I say to you, you'll write off as a "half ass answer" because you don't want to actually read anything that might contradict your viewpoint.

And for the record, reading those theological works has tremendous value even if you are an atheist. There's a reason that many of the works of the Church Fathers and Aquinas are required reading for history and philosophy majors.

If you really can't be bothered to read a book, here's a good summary of one of St. Aquinas' most famous works

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

Im familar with Aquinas. You're answers came off as half-assed to me because you didn't elaborate enough on them

>Aquinas deals with it by saying that logical contradictions do not fall under the realm of omnipotence. He provides a fairly lengthy (and boring) explanation for this

Give me the boring explanation for that or a link. Unless its in the one you already provided. Yes I didn't read it I know shame on me I didn't trek over the same dumb-ass argument that EVERY christian makes.

The implications this guy is making are massive, holy shit
>following laws of conduct is unintelligent, it's not like humans collectively decided these laws (it's the whole purpose of society)
>this "perfect" being has to be considered god, can't possibly be some sort of alien master race that has no affiliation with humans whatsoever.
>the "causation" thing implies the previous two, that there is some perfect being controlling humans and that humans can't have produced laws of conduct on their own, both of which are false. Causation doesn't have to be done by an intelligent being. Ever heard of PE and KE?
>the "unmoved mover" bullshit can easily be disproven by the big bang: the ultimate first movement that resulted in all other movements
Sorry, but these texts are on thing and one thing only: outdated.

>this "perfect" being has to be considered god, can't possibly be some sort of alien master race that has no affiliation with humans whatsoever

Add on to the fact that Aquinas uses such a nebulous term that is entirely subjective. This is why some consider Jackson Pollock an artist and some don't. Perfection is a subjective term no one has the golden scepter allowing them to declare things as "perfect"

Orthodox churches have become more of a cultural difference than anything. I'm Roman Catholic, because I was raised in an Irish American family. Same for basically all other Irish, Italians, Polish and Mexicans. However, If I were born in a Greek household, I'd likely be Greek Orthodox. Or Russian Orthodox, if I had Russian heritage.
Calling them two separate faiths, isn't entirely accurate. For example, a Roman Catholic can still receive the Eucharist in an Eastern Orthodox church. Could they worship in a Lutheran or Baptist church? Absolutely not. It would be considered heresy.
The reason it's not considered "heresy" if a Roman Catholic attends a Eastern Orthodox church is due to the perception of the Eucharist. The interpretation is literal, and not symbolic. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy agree upon this aspect, whereas Protestants do not.
I'm speaking about this from the perspective of a Roman Catholic, so maybe you'll get a different response from people of other faiths.
Regarding the Tridentine Mass, there's still churches that preform them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_Cantius_Church_(Chicago)

Anyone in the Chicagoland area should check this church out, if they want to experience an authentic Tridentine Mass.

TLDR; Become Roman Catholic, unless you come from a heavily Russian Greek (or some kind of Slavic) family