Difference between Catholic and Orthodox

[Wyatt Miller]

2. The Orthodox reject the "satisfaction theory of atonement". The Orthodox subscribe to "Christus Victor" (the idea of atonement illustrated in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe).

3. Hell in Orthodoxy is not separation from God. Hell, like heaven, is experiencing the full radiance of God's light and presence, but with a negative relationship so that it is like fire.

4. The Orthodox reject the idea that our understanding of dogma develops. The idea is to keep the exact same understanding the Apostles have, invented terminology is not meant to develop the understanding, but to PROTECT it from being "developed".

5. Catholics define usury as excessive interest, Orthodox define usury as any interest.

6. The Orthodox reject the Catholic idea of supererogation.

7. The Orthodox reject Purgatory. The Orthodox do, however, distinguish Sheol (called "Hades" in Greek) from Gehenna.

8. Orthodoxy places enormous emphasis on fasting, in fact more than half the days of the year involve some sort of fast. And there are even some days which are total fasts, no intake, period. Two consistent fast days (almost every Wednesday and Friday, no meat, dairy, eggs, fish, oils or wine) trace back at least to the Didache.

9. Orthodox draw most of their priests from the married laity, but most of their bishops from monks.

10. Infants can and do receive Holy Communion.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The author of that book teaches at my school. He is a really neat dude. I think he was a Catholic priest that turned Orthodox.

[Samuel Edwards]

Neat! Cool to know

[Ryder Morgan]

And yet you can't prove that any of the fairytale shit you just said actually exists.

[Brody Campbell]

I can experience it, which is even better.
youtube.com/watch?v=qQ9xzi0HebI

[Henry Reed]

How do I convert? I'm nominally protestant, but I like the orthodox doctrine. The only issue is I'm anglo-canadian, and understand no slavic language or custom.
I like the Greek rites, as I read of them, and I figure a congregation of that sort would be easiest to join as a catechumen (or the orthodox equivalent).

Assuming you are orthodox, what do you suggest?

[Caleb Stewart]

Likewise, you are unable to prove that God does not exist. But since you are bereft of the gifts of God, and he experiences them, it is clear which position is preferable.

As Aquinas says, "It is impossible for any created good to constitute man’s happiness. For happiness is that perfect good which entirely satisfies one’s desire; otherwise it would not be the ultimate end, if something yet remained to be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e., of man’s desire, is what is universally good; just as the object of the intellect is what is universally true. Hence it is evident that nothing can satisfy man’s will, except what is universally good. This is to be found, not in any creature, but in God alone, because every creature has only participated goodness. Therefore, God alone can satisfy the will of man, according to the words of the Psalms (102:5): “Who alone satisfies your desire with good things.” Therefore, God alone constitutes man’s happiness.” (Summa Theologica Part 2. Q.1. Article 8)"

[Michael Brooks]

Cardinal Ratzinger already wrote against anselm's theory.

Current theory accepted by the Latin Church is somewhat in between Christus Victor and Anselm's theory.

Eastern catholics fully believe in Christus Victor.

In the other Churches in full communion with the Catholic Church Christus Victor is widely accepted as truth.

Aside from that you are right in every other point you've made

[Ian Lopez]

Antiochian Church, if there's one near you. Their services in Anglo countries are completely in English, and they are more than half converts or children of converts (in the West) so it won't be like walking into a foreign country.

[Eli Davis]

>dogma is increasingly seen as relative in the RCC
What else is new

[Kayden Ward]

I'll have to see. The only Churches I know of near me are all slavic with the exception of a humble little Greek one. It's a tiny little building in comparison to the grander slavic architecture. I find it endearing, dunno why.

[Brody Green]

Check it out, see if you like it. Greek services are generally in a mix of English and Greek. If there are no books with the translations there (which there should be), the priest can get you one.

Greek Orthodox hymns are beautiful. I don't think any other language is as music as Greek (except maybe Italian), because Greek uses vowels so much. The Greeks were the first to develop an alphabet that used vowels, and the reason for that is they had to, you can't read Greek shorthand like you can a lot of other languages.

youtube.com/watch?v=_a6-u_6dZ8M
youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs

[Thomas Martinez]

There is one that claims to be a 'western orthodox church'. Any info on them?

[Luke Green]

as musical* as Greek

[Charles Flores]

Western Orthodox Church means Western Rite Orthodox

[Elijah Peterson]

I used to listen to a lot of Greek Hymns during school as a way to focus when working on assignments. It's partially how I got interested in the faith, along with my interest in history. Protestant theology kind of ignores christian history between Paul and Martin Luther.

[Isaac Brown]

How do they differ from eastern rite?

[Luis Lee]

I don't care

Only Hellenism, Nova Roma, Asatru, Romuva, Rodnovery, Druidism, Hetanism,Vainakh, Ætsæg Din are suitable for the white

The sandnigger religions can fuck off, especially christianity with its cuck precept like "don't resist to the wicked" and "the meek shall inherit the earth"

[Jonathan Rogers]

Depends on the parish, there are several Western Rites. They range from basically Trindentine Mass (with some alterations, sometimes including Western Rite Orthodox icons, which look like Medieval Catholic icons), to an Orthodox form of the Anglican Liturgy, to other Liturgy. The Liturgy of Saint Germanus, for instance, is an Orthodox Liturgy, which was what was in France in the 6th Century (before they were forced to accept Latin Rite)

Here is something from the Liturgy of Saint Germanus (notice a Western Rite carved icon):youtube.com/watch?v=GI92g8JWwn8

[John Parker]

>25% Muslim

Hush hush, Jean-Etienne. Come back when the FN actually wins for a change.

[Adam Taylor]

Neo-Pagans seem to have zilth in the way of a morality that could help civilization. They are commonly into free love and genderquer stuff, and often are into drugs and "inner goddess".

[Oliver Morgan]

Get rid of that heretical shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=8qLDFiQcjlY

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=tMXwluMcGrg

You need to be purged.

[Jeremiah Lopez]

I was raised in a non religious, relatively liberal household and I never have had the much exposure to religion or even God himself. Ever since taking the red pill I have wanted to believe and go to church but it seems so daunting. Would anyone recommend me a place to start on the path of faith?

[Ryan Bailey]

Let's look at the REAL Templar chant: youtube.com/watch?v=M0d4qM7gCH8

Which sounds more like that style of music, the hymn you said is "heretical", or this music: youtube.com/watch?v=1lOwUrtNx_s

[Isaiah Phillips]

Read The Way of a Pilgrim

Also go to Orthodox worship

[Xavier Clark]

Thank you. Unfortunately I don't think their are any Orthodox Churches around me.

[Thomas Fisher]

Until the 80s the sandniggers were pogromed but christiancuck as usual betrayed the french and helped the socialists to weaken our people.

You're traitors to your race and i hope your churches will burn.

[Ayden Martin]

>Also go to Orthodox worship

Don't listen to this faggot.

Pick Catholicism.

youtube.com/watch?v=ggCRDbLqq5E

[Josiah Bailey]

Send an email to Ancient Faith ministries and ask them if they could establish a mission by you

[Jackson Ramirez]

youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk

youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo

[James Evans]

Orthodoxy in French sounds more beautiful than Catholicism in French
youtube.com/watch?v=sGvjx1102U8

[Ian Wood]

This. Same shit different asshole

[Michael Ramirez]

Whatever you say, """Ragnar"""

[Michael Jackson]

Should you ever have the time OP could you refute or provide materials for refuting the arguments in this video?

youtube.com/watch?v=Hwz62uU0K_I

He makes it seem like the Orthodox abandoned tradition and invited in all sorts of problems when they rejected the primacy of the Se of Peter.

[Jordan Miller]

Believing in things you can't necessarily prove is virtuous.

[Luke King]

I don't feel like watching an hour long video right now, but I'll watch it later and post rebuttal with my next thread.

In the meantime, here is a pastebin with FAQ's, including one for Catholics: pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

[Asher Cooper]

Thanks for you help, Dont put yourself out or anything I know there will be more threads in the future.

[Evan Hughes]

First ten minutes: the Pope is not like any other bishop, he's the successor to Peter.

But PETER was, in function, like any other bishop (1 Peter 5:1). He was given a special title (just like James is called James the Just), the Rock, but that is a title for him, not a title passed on, anymore than every bishop of Jerusalem is called "the Just". Peter is a foundation of the Church because he plays a massive role in founding it, not because his CHAIR is the foundation.

[Robert Cooper]

15 min

The Filioque is not just a semantic difference, since the Catholics teach that it means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as ONE PRINCIPLE
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/principium#Latin
This is dogmatically incompatible with the Orthodox position of From the Father, Through the Son

The Pope became a big issue sort of stemming from the Filioque, since Ratramnus, the most brilliance defender of the Filioquie, based his authority to alter the Creed on the theology of the Pope being equal or greater to any council. Ratrmanus was under the impression the Pope added it, although he was wrong here: the Franks did, and the Pope at the time opposed adding it.

The Pope didn't really become a super-central issue, though, until the Donation of Constantine started being invoked agains the Byzantines, and from that point onward, the Pope's claims became a source of major outrage in the East

[Dylan Gutierrez]

17 min
We still hold that position. Leaven is very important because it is what distinguishes the New Covenant Passover from the Old Covenant Passover. There is also a serious issue that Catholics refused to let laypeople have the wine, the Blood of Christ, it was reserved from the clergy (luckily there has been a softening of this position)

[Thomas Brown]

18 min
This is a complete lie. Patriarchs were generally chosen by rulers (but ordained by bishops), but that was the case with the Patriarch of Rome for a very long time as well.

Secular rulers never had any dogmatic power in the Church, and several emperors have been anathematized. This is a Catholic meme because we don't try to make our bishops political rulers, they accuse us of being subservient to political rulers. While the state and Church should work together, it is in fact completely inappropriate to put clergy in political positions, since it leads to people like the Borgias. We've never had a bishop like Borgia, yet the Catholics have had several POPES like him, because they turned the clerical office into a political one.

[Alexander Wright]

19 min

Multiple Patriarchs were martyred under the Turks, and it wasn't for obeying them

The communists tried to replace the Orthodox Church with "the Living Church". Some clergy defected, most refused and were imprisoned or exiled. But the Russian people knew it was phony, and didn't attend. Under Stalin, there was a realization that the Church was needed for moral in WWII, so Stalin released the clergy and returned it. The clergy who defected, if they wanted to return, had to do the penance of apostates. The Patriarch, in return, said the Church would be unquestionably loyal to the USSR; immediately, almost all the Russian bishops broke off communion with him for this, but Stalin had to let them continue to run in order for the Church to function. There have been many periods when the Church was persecuted by the communists again, on and off, but we never, ever bowed down to them, or the Turks (the Ecumenical Patriarch today continues to denounce Turkish policies)

[Landon Smith]

19:30 min
"Without the Pope there cannot be any dogmatic development."

GOOD. We don't want our dogma to "develop", we want to keep it exactly as the Apostles had it.

Our Patriarchs managed perfectly dealing with heresies. Calvinist theology was being promulgated in the 17th Century with the Church (including by the last Ecumenical Patriarch), and the Church convened a council and anathematized the heresies.

[Dominic Nelson]

>3. Hell in Orthodoxy is not separation from God. Hell, like heaven, is experiencing the full radiance of God's light and presence, but with a negative relationship so that it is like fire.
Why not both?

>4. The Orthodox reject the idea that our understanding of dogma develops. The idea is to keep the exact same understanding the Apostles have, invented terminology is not meant to develop the understanding, but to PROTECT it from being "developed."
Autistically paranoid but whatever floats your boat. At mess you CAN say you're the most in line with the Early Church unlike Protestants.

>5. Catholics define usury as excessive interest, Orthodox define usury as any interest.
And? The reason we redefined it is because the rest of the world economy became so usury-tastic that avoiding interest at all would be Sisyphean.

>6. The Orthodox reject the Catholic idea of supererogation.
Okay? Never heard that word before.

>7. The Orthodox reject Purgatory. The Orthodox do, however, distinguish Sheol (called "Hades" in Greek) from Gehenna.
So you basically do, you just don't call it Purgatory?

>8. Orthodoxy places enormous emphasis on fasting, in fact more than half the days of the year involve some sort of fast. And there are even some days which are total fasts, no intake, period. Two consistent fast days (almost every Wednesday and Friday, no meat, dairy, eggs, fish, oils or wine) trace back at least to the Didache.
Good for you. Fasting is a matter of self discipline. It's not a be all end all of piety.

>9. Orthodox draw most of their priests from the married laity, but most of their bishops from monks.as long as you have apostolic succession we don't care. It's just your tradition, like we have ours.

>10. Infants can and do receive Holy Communion
Why? And I mean in a practical sense. They don't understand it and physically, the Eucharist still retains the properties of bread so can infants actually physically consume it?

[Jason Smith]

20:30
>only the voice of Peter can summon an Ecumenical Council
So why was the Council of Nicaea called by Constantine?

[Dominic Hughes]

>the Council of Florence showed how caesaropapism the Orthodox were

Funny, the Church rejected that Council despite it being strongly supported by the Emperor

The thing is, "Ecumenical", in Greek, then, meant "Imperial". The "Ecumene" meant the reaches of the Empire. By that time, the Greek term had come to refer more specifically to the civilized world and then simply the Roman Empire.

[Xavier Williams]

>21:15
We've had councils, but only when we need them, I already mentioned the the Synod of Jerusalem. It's only not called ecumenical because it uses Roman Catholic terms like 'transubstantiation' (in order of a council to be dogmatically ratified, it must be incorporated into the Liturgy)

What "raging debates" is he talking about? we don't really have those, because unlike the Latins, we don't engage in a lot of speculation, we just teach was Christ did, and say all other matters are a mystery. Where speculation is engaged it that's not heretical, it's called theologumena, and it's not a serious issue so long as it doesn't conflict with Christ's teaching or gets taught as if it were Christ's teaching.

[Cooper Young]

22:00

Love how this guy calls spirituality "worldly". For us, it's just the opposite.

[Christopher Torres]

:23:00
>no visible bond of unity
In fact there is, we have the same faith. He means there is no legalistic bond of unity

[Connor Roberts]

24:00
Christ never directly passed on dogma concerning contraception to the Apostles; dogma is and only ever can be what Christ directly passed on to the disciples (hence why our Biblical canon is merely very, very strongly established based on first generation witnesses, but not dogmatic as in Christ did not pass on a Biblical canon). There is a distinction between contraception and "birth control". The Church does not allow "birth control" (a modern euphemism for abortifacient), which has always been prohibited; the Church also don't allow any device or medication aimed to stop conception, but which could lead to "birth control". Contraception is distinguished from "birth control" in that contraception is exclusively about conception, and has no possibility of interfering with what develops afterward in the event that it fails. The Church, in some cases, does allow the use of condoms in marriage, because they are simply a advanced form of coitus interruptus. Did some Church Fathers condemn coitus interruptus? Virtually none (those quoted by Roman Catholics are generally out of context and talking about abortifacients, lewd practices, or childless marriages), and those validly referenced would also condemn the Roman Catholic practice of "natural family planning": Clement of Alexandria, for instance, explicitly condemned intercourse in particular times with the intent to minimize chance of conception, an "outrage to nature", in the very paragraph he condemns "wasting seed", the latter so commonly cited by Roman Catholics;
cont

[Austin Morales]

Saint Augustine (who was a Nestorain, btw the way, "Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had." [Tractate 8 on the Gospel of John] unlike Saint John Chrysostom, who calls Mary the Mother of God) said intercourse is for procreation, that is its teleos, and any intercourse not toward this teleos is disordered; if that is the teleos of all intercourse, that would rule out natural family planning; to those fathers who were against coitus interruptus (only those two), natural family planning would be likewise repugnant, because it aims to frustrate the teleos of sex, it's not just about being "open" to procreation, it's about actively seeking it; but let's contrast this view with what Saint John Chrysostom says: "If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want." [Quoted from On Marriage and Family Life, a collection of homilies by Saint John Chrysostom] But how can we affirmatively settle the matter as to whether the Church treated it as a sin? Very simple, we look at the penance manuals for confession for the first thousand years.
cont

[Gabriel Lewis]

Only one of them, Poenitentiale Hubertense, lists coitus interruptus as a sin, and we know that is due to a misunderstanding of biology--how do we know? Because it gives the penance time as *ten years*, which is what every manual gives for abortion; compare that to the ten to twenty days typically given for masturbation, or the three years generally prescribed for sodomy. The Orthodox Church expresses the same moral stance as it always has:
cont

[Connor Wright]

"The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin. At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: 'Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency' (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family." mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/ Sex is, optimally, a total giving of the self, and should be open to the possibility of procreation, but where more children could greater hamper the lives and future of your present children, then having sex with the possibility of procreation is not an act of giving, it is an act of selfishness, and to practice abstinence for purely economic concerns rather than as a spiritual discipline, is unwise, as Paul cautions, and Christ outright says that not all can be celibate, only those to whom it has been given (Matthew 19:11). Forcing permanent celibacy on couples who can't, in good conscience, have more children, is very harmful. Saint Paul says if you can't control yourself, get married, and the Catholic Church says those who are married need to control themselves.

[Caleb Garcia]

Thanks for doing all this.

[Elijah Ortiz]

Now, concerning divorce being permissible in the Orthodox Church (in fact it's actually officially a sin, but bear with me): contrast Orthodox divorce guidelines with Catholic annulment guidelines

Valid grounds for annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church include, but are not limited to:
*you married for social status but the person did not have the status you expected
*you didn't know marriage was a "permanent relationship"
*you married intending to have the option of divorce open
*you did not know marriage was an "exclusive relationship"
stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church.pdf
ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm

These are not good reasons for annulment, if you tried to use these reasons to have your marriage annulled in the Orthodox Church, they would be absolutely rejected (and they certainly would not be accepted as valid grounds for divorce). Annulment properly means that the marriage was always invalid (an example, bigamy), but the Catholic Church just uses annulment as a way to sanction divorce, while calling it "annulment". But if your husband leaves you with three kids, you have to stay married to him and raise them as a single mom; if your wife gets knocked up through adultery, you have to stay married. Compare the Catholic grounds for annulment to the Orthodox grounds for divorce Orthodox Church: saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce It is in fact much, much more difficult to get a divorce for the Orthodox (and not only do you have to have your local bishop actually issue the ecclesiastical divorce after a hearing, you also need him to issue permission to remarry) than it is for Catholics to get an annulment,
cont

[Blake Butler]

Cool OP, now answer me.
And I'm actually sincere and looking for good honest discourse. Because unlike Protestants, you guys don't resort to shitflinging memes like pic related.

[Cooper Price]

No problem

and getting an annulment in the Orthodox Church is not really even possible, since Orthodox Matrimony is not juridical, it's ontological (it's not something that is one and done, there are no vows, it is something continually existing, and if ceases to continue de facto, then it ceases ontologically, just like if you commit apostasy, then you cease to be Christ's Bride; if your marriage has been terminated for a minimum of one year, then you can apply to the Church for formal recognition of its de facto determination, but this is not the Church dissolving your marriage, it is simply the Church recognizing the fact that your marriage has ceased; but if your marriage ends in the Orthodox Church, it is still often something you must do penance for (depending on your bishop: some bishops only require penance for divorcees who remarry), the Church strongly discourages even widowers and widows from remarrying, let alone divorcees.
cont

[Ian Jones]

There are numerous Catholic spouses out there who could successfully file for annulment if so inclined, and that would mean that none of their marriages are valid, they are all living in fornication. Does this really make sense? Some Roman Catholics even mistakenly think that the difference between divorce and annulment is just "one is legal, one is spiritual"--this wrong according to Catholic Church history and theology, which sees spirituality as very legalistic. The fact is that the Catholic Church completely banned divorce (termination of a "valid" marriage), with annulment (recognition that a marriage as never "valid") still being permissible. But when the Church got more liberal over the ages, she broadened the conditions for annulment (which used to require approval of the Pope himself) to the point that they were far wider than annulment in civil law, you can get an annulment in the Catholic Church through pretenses that would be utterly rejected in any civil court, which is why the overwhelming number of Catholics who get annulment through their Church, can only qualify for divorce legally. The difference between an annulment and divorce is that the former means there never was a marriage and any consummation was fornication, the latter means there was a marriage but it was dissolved--both can be either civil or ecclesiastical.

[Connor Hill]

>Why not both?
Because that is incoherent. The Orthodox see God's energies as God himself. You can't be simultaneously radiated with them and separated from God.

>The reason we redefined it is because the rest of the world economy became so usury-tastic that avoiding interest at all would be Sisyphean.
So it ceases to be a sin? Avoiding sin altogether is Sisyphean, that doesn't mean it isn't demanded, It's not a question of bring the standard down to fit the world, it's a question of bringing the world up to fit the standard.

>So you basically do, you just don't call it Purgatory?
No, Sheol doesn't purge you in Orthodoxy

>Good for you. Fasting is a matter of self discipline. It's not a be all end all of piety.
We consider it integral to spirituality.

>They don't understand it and physically, the Eucharist still retains the properties of bread so can infants actually physically consume it?
We don't understand it either.

[Owen Ortiz]

25:00
Uniates are not "basically the same" as Orthodox, spiritually speaking

Compare Eastern Catholic monastics 9first video) with Orthodox monastics (second video)
youtube.com/watch?v=4-FGjmVr0jQ
youtube.com/watch?v=LpLmvsz8_AQ

Cosmetically the same, but as you see, the Eastern Catholics have taken on the Catholic mindset. Mindset is hugely important in Orthodoxy:

[Blake Reed]

25:30

He said in the beginning that there "can only be One Church", but yet admits the RCC is willing to Commune Orthodox (we would not do so with the RCC). This would make us the Church de facto, sharing One Cup makes you One Church. So the RCC recognizes us as part of their "Chrch", though we don't recognize the RCC as part of our Church. So he contradicted himself saying only the RCC was the Church and the Chair of Peter is the linchpin

[Landon King]

I'm not fan of Luther, but no, he did not get rid of "Catholic" in the Creed, Lutherans still say it to this day. Luther believed that the Catholic Church is the "invisible Church".

[William Rogers]

27:40
Well we probably would be One if the Pope didn't succumb to Satan's Third Temptation

[Jaxon Walker]

28:40
"safeguarding the divinity of Christ" is not an excuse for heresy, otherwise Docetism wouldn't be heretical.

I don't know what their idea is of "equal to the Father" with this. It's like saying if the Holy Spirit didn't co-beget the Son with the Father, then the Holy Spirit is not equal with the Father.

[William Wood]

29:30
Obviously how Aquinas felt is not an Orthodox concern, he reduces the three persons of the Trinity to pure relations, and advocated paying latria to icons and the cross

[Jaxson Bennett]

32:00
No, it will never, ever happen unless all Catholics are received and confirmed into the Orthodox Church. We don't even recognize Catholic baptisms (they become valid upon someone joining the Church, but not before they become Orthodox; or, if the bishop wishes he, he can give them an Orthodox baptism; baptism outside the Church is invalid).

[Ethan Anderson]

32:10
Ecumenical Patriarchs are literally just bishops with ceremonial recognition, they don't have any more power than any other bishop, how they feel is irrevent. Mount Athos was furious that Athenagoras lifted the anathemas (which was something he technically did have power to do, since his See pronounced them), so furious he got cut out of their prayers.

[Eli Martin]

32:40
There is no "Protestantization" going on, and hasn't been for hundreds of years, the last time there was, it was put down by a council.

Yes there are "currents", our liberal current wants to warm relations with Rome. Compare this with the liberal current in Catholicism, which wants female ordination and gay marriage.

[Brandon Cook]

34:00

Solovyov was heretical as heck, he was a Sophiologist. Some example

35:00
Laity are actually the least open, even the ones who are completely ignorant about theology.

[Samuel Ross]

Christians want people who have never been to church to show up. It's a big part of their gig.
Just walk into anything close to you that isn't Catholic or a Church of Christ and politely ask an old lady for some basic Christian history.

[Kevin Fisher]

>Because that is incoherent. The Orthodox see God's energies as God himself. You can't be simultaneously radiated with them and separated from God.
Ever watch the Magic School Bus? You know how they showed the Sun as being a very bright star from Pluto?

Considering truly complete separation from God ends in non-existance since His Love is what makes us exist to begin with, that residual love that lets us continue existing even in the face of seperation is what you believe Hell is.

>So it ceases to be a sin? Avoiding sin altogether is Sisyphean, that doesn't mean it isn't demanded, It's not a question of bring the standard down to fit the world, it's a question of bringing the world up to fit the standard.
Why is Usury sinful in the first place?

>No, Sheol doesn't purge you in Orthodoxy
What does it do? Also what do you think we mean by "Purgatory" and "Purging?"

>We consider it integral to spirituality.
Again, good for you. We probably could use a more Orthodox approach to Fasting in Catholicism (in fervor for and dedication to it) but we're not as stringent on WHAT to fast and HOW to fast. The most obligation is "No Meat on Friday" and even then if the Bishops went back to including "both in and out of Lent" to that requirement I wouldn't care and would keep obedient to the Bishops.

>We don't understand it either.
I don't mean Metaphysical whatsits. I mean they don't really get that it's truly Jesus and not a cracker. I was in Mass with my sister's family and during the consecration, my 6 year old niece said the Eucharist wasn't really Jesus. Protestant heresy as it is, she's 6 and it's not to be expected that she understands that it's LITERALLY Jesus' Flesh and Blood, not just some symbol.

It's like giving a 5 year old a Trust fund as their big Christmas gift. They don't have the capacity to fully appreciate it. Hence why we make such a big thing about teaching about what the Eucharist is and making the first participation in it such a big deal.

[Aiden Phillips]

39:10
There's not confusion, it's up to the bishop. I already explained that here

[Mason Murphy]

Where does Eastern Rite Catholicism fit in all of this?

[Gabriel Powell]

Being radiated by God's energies is acute, that's why the unpleasantness is. If it was faint, there wouldn't be much unpleasantness.

>Why is Usury sinful in the first place?
Ask God, it says usury is sinful in the Bible (and Christ hardly does away with that, if anything he says don't even ask for your principle back).

>What does it do?
It held faithful followers of God prior to Christ destroying it and getting them to heaven.

>Also what do you think we mean by "Purgatory" and "Purging?"
Expiation of sins in the afterlife.

>Again, good for you. We probably could use a more Orthodox approach to Fasting in Catholicism (in fervor for and dedication to it) but we're not as stringent on WHAT to fast and HOW to fast. The most obligation is "No Meat on Friday" and even then if the Bishops went back to including "both in and out of Lent" to that requirement I wouldn't care and would keep obedient to the Bishops.
Yes, I'm aware that fasting is not considered crucial in Catholicism

>I don't mean Metaphysical whatsits. I mean they don't really get that it's truly Jesus and not a cracker.
Infants partook of the Passover of the Old Testament, why not the Passover of the New Testament? Are they to be excluded from the Table? How are your arguments any different from Protestant arguments against infant baptism (and infants were circumcised in the Old Covenant)? Infants are to be part of the Body of Christ

Also, we don't use wafers. We use leavened bread, mix it with wine, and present it in spoon out of a cup, and it confess it is truly Christ's Body and Blood (and if you're six, you're old enough to join in that Confession).

[Oliver Turner]

...

[Jace Jackson]

Protestant here

Can you explain why Rome and the Eastern Church feel they have to pick one particular model of the atonement over the others?

To me it seems natural to draw on them all. They don't contradict each other, but rather emphasise different parts, which means you get a richer picture overall.

The Bible uses a few different models which highlight different aspects. I always understood that the reason for this was that the atonement is way more rich and complex than we can possibly understand, so it can't be explained to us in a single model. It's like in physics - we model complex events in multiple ways when no single method will give us all the insight.

[James Myers]

The Orthodox consider the idea that God was punishing Christ, to be heretical.

[Benjamin Martinez]

>Being radiated by God's energies is acute, that's why the unpleasantness is. If it was faint, there wouldn't be much unpleasantness.
Well, in the mass absence of most of God, even a twinkle in the distance is highbeams to the face.

>Ask God, it says usury is sinful in the Bible (and Christ hardly does away with that, if anything he says don't even ask for your principle back).
Yes but what reason is there for it to be sinful? Two men taking turns taking it up the ass is immoral for how it perverts the natural order and end to human sexuality as ordained by God. What's the reason for Usury being sinful?

>It held faithful followers of God prior to Christ destroying it and getting them to heaven.
So kinda like Purgatory...
>Expiation of sins in the afterlife.
Except you don't believe in showering off before getting in the pool?

Now what's your take on the Catholic's scriptural basis for the Purging part?

>Yes, I'm aware that fasting is not considered crucial in Catholicism
I'd say we consider it complimentary beyond the "No meat on Friday" part, but again, adopting Orthodox fasting stuff wouldn't be bad IMO, but I have no say in what the Bishops tell us to do.

>Infants partook of the Passover of the Old Testament, why not the Passover of the New Testament? Are they to be excluded from the Table? How are your arguments any different from Protestant arguments against infant baptism (and infants were circumcised in the Old Covenant)? Infants are to be part of the Body of Christ
Yes, but I'm not talking about presence in the Eucharist (I've seen plenty of infants and little kids go up for a blessing), I mean the actual consumption part. Plus I've been to a Sedar, they make a big deal about educating the next generation about the importance of Passover.

CONT

[Evan Wright]

Ran out of characters.

>Also, we don't use wafers. We use leavened bread, mix it with wine, and present it in spoon out of a cup, and it confess it is truly Christ's Body and Blood (and if you're six, you're old enough to join in that Confession).
So it's made into a semisolid? Okay, explains how you'd have a 1 year old consume it then.

[Kevin Foster]

>” Therefore, God alone constitutes man’s happiness.”
Amen.

Atheists, you better rethink your commitments. I don't think I would wish Hell on anyone, but you certainly risk going there if you die in your sins, the completion of a total rejection of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Do reconsider!

[Grayson Green]

"According to Christian theology, God offered to our first parents more than what was “owed” to us given our nature. In particular, he offered Adam and Eve the beatific vision – a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers. He also offered special helps that would deliver us from the limitations of our natures – that would free us from the ignorance and error our intellectual limitations open the door to, the moral errors our weak wills lead us into, the sicknesses and injuries our bodily limitations make possible, and so forth. By definition, none of this was “owed” to us, precisely because it is supernatural, that is, above or beyond what our nature required us to have. Hence while God cannot fail to will for us what is good for us given our nature, He would have done us no wrong in refraining from offering these supernatural gifts to us, precisely because they go beyond what our nature requires for our fulfillment. Still, He offered them to us anyway. But this offer was conditional.

[Zachary Garcia]

The penalty for Adam's rebellion was the loss of the supernatural gifts they had been given and that their descendants would have been given, and a fall back into their merely natural state, with all its limitations. In particular, it was a loss of all the helps that would effectively have removed those limitations -- and worst of all, loss of the beatific vision. In short, the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed. And it wasn’t the prospect of pitchforks and hellfire that Adam’s descendants had to look forward to because of what Adam did, but rather the privation of this supernatural gift. What is essential to Hell is the loss of the beatific vision, and while Hell can certainly also involve more than that (including the pains of sense) the standard view is that it does so only for those guilty of actual sin, and not those (such as infants who die without baptism) who merely suffer the penalty of original sin, without ever having committed actual sin.

[Jack Reyes]

The restoration of this supernatural gift is part of the meaning of the Incarnation, and thus part of the meaning of Christmas. But there is more to it than the restoration itself. As Aquinas says, the Incarnation was not in the strictest sense necessary for remedying the Fall, since God by His infinite power could have accomplished this another way. But it was necessary in a weaker sense, insofar as there was no more fitting way for it to be accomplished. (ST III.1.2) Quoting Augustine, Aquinas gives as one of several reasons it was most fitting the consideration that "Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?" Reason tells us to trust in God, but reason is cold, and falters in the face of a dying child. Yes, we are rational animals. But we are rational animals – creatures of flesh and feeling as well as of thought. And it is simply difficult to be a rational animal, a human being – to bleed, to feel one’s heart break, to suffer. The Son of God in His divine nature is beyond all that. Yet He took on human nature anyway, so that we poor men and women would not suffer alone. In Jesus Christ the God of the philosophers wears a human face. And in the end, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 21:4). But not before crying some of them Himself, on a cross, and in a manger."

[David Sullivan]

the Orthodox Way is pretty good book, written in a style where westerners can understand the sometimes strange eastern mysticism of Orthodoxy.

But honestly, you could just start with the New Testament, it's a pretty good read overall, compared to the Old testament, which as a beginner isn't really relevant. You sound like you want to dive into the core philosophy, so i would make an effort to understand Christ better

[Matthew Adams]

>e. In particular, he offered Adam and Eve the beatific vision – a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence
This is not compatible with Orthodox theology, which holds God's essence as distinct from his energies. God's energies is God as immanent and experienced by others, God's essence is God as infinitely transcendent and experienced by God. If you knew God's essence, you would know everything God does. God's energies is his face as experienced by others.

Privation can be seen as a penalty, but also as mercy. God's energies experienced in a negative relation with him is utter hell, that's what the fire of hell is.

The incarnation was necessary for remedying the fall, since it allows for heaven, which is God's energies experienced positively. Also it allows us to commune with God's Flesh and Blood. The cross is sometimes called the Tree of Life, and Christ the Fruit of Life. This is God giving us the chance to partake of the fruit originally denied to Adam.

[Noah Moore]

this may be the most intellectual thread on Sup Forums, well done everyone

[Colton Garcia]

>Well, in the mass absence of most of God, even a twinkle in the distance is highbeams to the face.
God is everywhere, he can't be distant in space like a star or the sun. Hell is being conscious of his energies, him being close, in the most acute way.

>Yes but what reason is there for it to be sinful? Two men taking turns taking it up the ass is immoral for how it perverts the natural order and end to human sexuality as ordained by God. What's the reason for Usury being sinful?
"Natural law" is not a thing in Orthodoxy. Or rather it is, but it means the conscience. Usury is sinful because it is a manifestation of greed. For us, God saying something is sinful is enough, trying to validate it through pure reason is not our concern and never was.

cont

[Matthew Butler]

What branch of Orthodoxy are you if i may ask?
I myself am Greek Orthodox

[Nolan Jones]

>Now what's your take on the Catholic's scriptural basis for the Purging part?
There is none. We believe praying and giving alms (no, giving the Church doesn't count as giving alms) can make help those whose sins were too great to get into heaven, but we don't believe there is a process they can go though themselves to expiate those sins. The only hopes they have is good works done in life, and those done in their name after they're dead. Or prayers. There is no special purging process in the afterlife that will get rid of them otherwise, at least none that was ever taught by Christ or in the Old Covenant

>Now what's your take on the Catholic's scriptural basis for the Purging part?
We consider it either applying to life, or to Gehenna (fiery hell)

>Plus I've been to a Sedar, they make a big deal about educating the next generation about the importance of Passover.
We educate our own on the importance of Communion. Your arguments still boil down to the same kind of arguments Protestants make against infant baptism

[Benjamin Wright]

Likewise.

[Levi Torres]

giving *to the Church

[Adam Murphy]

And then you get those namby pamby Eastern Rite Catholics who want to practice Orthodox traditions, but still swear to da freaking Pope.

[Adam Lewis]

yeah i always found that sub group to be very peculiar

[Jonathan Clark]

Here is an Orthodox hymn: youtube.com/watch?v=YRtETeYczTg

Here is the same hymn sung by Uniates: youtube.com/watch?v=jc7ShWw8RQE

[Lucas Barnes]

can someone cliff the first 8? I don't understand your big words

[Eli Johnson]

I'm curious as to how many Orthodox Christians on Sup Forums are actually dedicated to fasting.

[Ryan Jackson]

From what ive looked over the same accusations are made against Western Rite Orthodox

[David Barnes]

Google

I try to fast on every day appointed by the Church. I look up the calendar online. I'll break it if there is no other option (sometimes at work), but otherwise I try to stick by it, including not going on Sup Forums during a fast day.

[Owen Fisher]

Western Rite Orthodoxy is not about "Catholics in communion with Orthodox," whereas Eastern Rite Catholics claim to be "Orthodox in Communion with the Pope." Western Rite Orthodoxy is about reviving the Western expression of Christianity prior to the schism.

[Cameron Cooper]

>which Jewish derived middle eastern religion follows the Jewish text more accurately

Go worship your Semtic faith somewhere else (((Christians.