Catholic or Orthodox?

Which one or both is correct?

Give reasons.

Genuinely curious.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/h5Sj265Fdt0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Try neither.

How about you get in the fucking sea, you cunt?

They both have a claim to being the original church. I'm catholic but honestly consider orthodox to be my brothers.

Nowadays Orthodox is obviously better.
In the past, my feelings towards Catholics are.. undesisive

neither hold the keys of the priesthood, so there's that...
>even Martin Luther said so, and was waiting for revelation

The correct answer is the Church of Latter Day Saints.
>stop on by one Sunday for Sacrament

Neither

Reformed

That's like asking which one is correct: psychology or phrenology? They're both pantsu-on-head retarded.

protestant

Right now? Orthodox.
If Catholics ever pick their testicle back up and bring back militant orders, then you can sign me up.
In the mean time, while the Orthodox have never been about slaughtering infidels, at least they're not kissing Abdul's feet.

Fuck off you atheist faggot it's your fault everything is now ruined from architecture right through politics.

None, because religion is irrelevant since we invented technology and philosophy.

I'm a zealous Christian, and you're high.
Lay off the petrol Flabbababbawabbajabbanoongah.

>muh apostacy
You're telling me in all their travels and teaching the apostles failed to leave anyone in the line of apostolic succession on this earth (despite historically having appointed bishops practically everywhere they went) and instead appeared to a manipulative american man on the other side of the world so he could have thirteen wives? Oh and despite the clear location of the Garden of Eden in Genesis you're gonna say it was in Mississippi? Native Americans wuz jews an sheet? Yeah fuck off.

Baptism?

Apostolic succession is a farce to begin with.

Catholic is the true Orthodoxy.

Eastern heretics are just tired old greeks still butthurt because Christ chose the Roman Empire to incarnate in History, WE WUZ Constantinopla cucked by the Ottomas.

This is literally the WE WUZ American version of eastern "orthodoxy".

tell that to the pope

neither
/thread

>Eastern heretics
Could you elaborate?

>muh pope
Fuck the pope

Lutheran, protestant.

The so-called "orthodox". They're in reality heretics that rejects the authority of the Church under the succesor of Saint Peter, and many other mistakes

>rejecting the filioque
>monophycism
>divorce

Etc. They're not TOO heretics, as say, the Lutherans, but they're definetively schismatics.

>inb4 Francis

It doesn't matter if the Pope is a faggot, you can ignore him as long as you dont' deny the dogmatic true of the Petrine Ministry, then you'd be an heretic :^)

Neither.

Oh hey guys let me extort people into thinking that giving me gold coins will save them from hell so I can pay off my buddy, the Pope, that way I can hold 3 bishoprics, violating the church's laws lol.

Martin Luther was a symptom of the disgusting corruption of his time as is Donald Trump today. Catholics were the original Hillcucks in spirit.

...

I'm Catholic and I have no animosity for my fellow apostolic brothers. It's the Protestants we should fight.

I don't see why this is so important
I'm Christian, I read The Bible. I visit Church every Sunday. I believe in New Testament but not Old. I don't need any labels.

Though I'm part of Evangelical Lutheran Church because it's national Church here.

Both have valid sacraments, but the Primacy of Rome should be considered. So they're both "correct", but the Orthodox are in schism.

Neither is closer to the original form of Christianity at this point. They really don't even have that many differences. Go with Catholicism is if you're altruistic and Orthodox if you're individualistic

youtu.be/h5Sj265Fdt0

Thanks. I'm saving and copying down everything you post here.

Never thought I would say this to you, but it appears you are a filthy heretic.

Apostolic succession is un-Christian.

And (((reformed))) Christianity is heresy.

Orthodoxy is the best IMHO.

I think that if you can't find an Orthodox Church, though, Catholicism would be an acceptable option -- IF you go to a traditional service. Norvus Ordo, ad populum etc is shit tier.

You want a service which is spiritually fulfilling, not a mediocre rock service followed by poor, personal exegesis with no backing.

Your proxy is showing, Ivan.

What do you mean "reformed"? I follow God whose Word is conveyed through Scripture. There's nothing "reformed" about it.

Southern Baptist/Baptist.
Also, there is no purgatory and praying to anybody other than God is a sin

>heresy
Is a meaningless word/phrase on par with anti-Semite. Catholicism is a joke

All you need to know is that the Successor of St. Peter - that is, the Bishop of Rome - has ALWAYS held a primacy in the Church, above all the other bishops.
So when you compare the two churches you just look for which has the highest authority.

>Catholic Church
>Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter

>Orthodox Church
>Bishop of Constantinople (Istanbul), Successor of St. Andrew (MAYBE, probably not really); Bishop of Moscow, Successor of ???

It's not even a contest really. Peter wins.
Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy = Rome vs. Constantinople, or Rome vs. Moscow. And ALL of the ancient sources put Rome as the highest seat in the Church, certainly above Constantinople and Moscow.

That being the case, obviously you should seek union with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.

Peter had no special authority, so naming someone a successor of Peter confers no special meaning whatsoever.

God has not given you the right to privately interpret scripture and start your own religion based on your own private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). God expects you to hear the voice of his apostles and follow them (Luke 10:16), and worship Him according to their apostolic teaching.

By what authority do you make this claim?

This actually makes sense.

God doesn't give anyone rights. There are no such things as rights. You're not entitled to a single thing in this life - it's only by God's Mercy and Grace that you even get to exist. No one has any rights because rights don't exist in God's Creation.

In the "There is spiritual authority granted me by those before me, who have taught me the proper ways to conduct myself and guide others" way, no. The apostles can't be replaced but they didn't leave the church without any leadership but all the same neither can Christ be replaced (he's alive, he doesn't need a vicar).

Both are valid.

Expect a merge of the two this century.

Syriac Orthodox. Because why would you convert from God's oldest denomination? It's the most true, pure, and unaltered version of His word. Just like He originally intended. Every denomination after it is just cherry-picked, fabricated and altered in order to be used as a method of control. Do feel free to learn more about us, in this time of Christian revival we all need to go back to the roots of our faith. I promise you that you will feel much more pure and true in your belief if you do.

>1054
>Primus inter Pares, Patriarch of Rome gets uppity about how he isn't the sole leader
>The other four Patriarchs remind him that the sole leader is God and that they are just serving Him
>"Kek fuck that i wanna be in charge"
>Queue the schism

Basically every Pope since then has just been an emo kid saying "fuck the rules i do what i want". Pope = uppity Patriarch of Rome. The only way for the schism to end is for the Patriarch of Rome to admit who he is and shut the fuck up, and unite the churches. No other way

No apostle ever had any "spiritual authority" over anything but their own actions, which all humans possess due to their God-given free will.

Unless you have read the Bible in both Hebrew and Greek, you cannot interpret it accurately. You cannot even interrupt it accurately even if that is the case.

Was the Pope considered Primus inter Pares prior to 1054?

I agree, Catholicism is a joke. So is reform.

The city of Rome had an honor in the early church because it was a place of martyrdom and the center of the civilized world; Christians there were heavily persecuted and so a respect was given to the Bishops of Rome. Peter held primacy because he was first, but he was always still equal to the other apostles. In the council of Jerusalem, he is overridden by the others who agree with Paul, who was last among the apostles. Peter appointed the bishop in Antioch too after having been it himself. The pope would simply claim primacy over paul and in so doing mandate circumcisions infallibly, but Peter did not do this. The pope claims to have more power over the church than Peter who saw the lord himself. Primus inter pares means "first among equals" not first over them, but for some reason every time someone of Rome claims the title, in politics or religion, they use it to lord power in a way that reminds me of the pigs in animal farm. Their were five other patriarchal sees in the early church for goodness' sake.

>Expect a merge of the two this century.
No need. Since the Catholic church usually changes acording to the political opinions of the time soon it will be super based and will make the Orthodox church look like fucking mormons.

I think so

There are at least three fallacies in this post.
Can you name them?

Unless you have read the Talmud in both Hebrew and Aramaic, you cannot interpret it accurately.

Funny, that's basically what Catholicism is. Crazy interpretation molded with pagan ritualism.
It's foolish to believe God influenced his word to only be understood by a few, instead of most. That's isn't to say it shouldn't be studied, but it insulting to my intelligence to tell me some child fucking, "holy man" appointed by other "holy men" must be consulted to properly explain anything from the bible to me.
Such as, "there is no way to the father but through me."
Better pray through some patron saint or Mary or something, huh? Better go confess your sins to another human man.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox sacraments as valid. They are all the same Church. Division is man made.

>it insulting to my intelligence to tell me some child fucking, "holy man" appointed by other "holy men" must be consulted to properly explain anything from the bible to me
This man gets it.

If you wish to devolve this into a matter of whether or not something is fallacious, instead of producing an argument in your defense, you are equally guilty. I don't care how fallacious my post is, that doesn't make it wrong.

Agreed.

Sure you are. Jesus said to love your enemies but hate other Christians. How about you go to church without your mom taking you for a change

Both are correct and it's only a matter of time before the join in communion.

>so is reform.
Learn english before you say anything

Read Numbers, Chapter 16, if you want to know about the Protestant Reformation. St. Jude references it in his epistle.

can you be an Orthodox Catholic...

Catholic but if you live in a area with only orthodox churches then orthodox.
PRAY THE ROSARY

Are you trying to imply that is grammatically incorrect? Because it isn't.

Not true. The Pope had always unversal juristiction, its only that before the Schism, Popes were more respectful towards the different church particularities, following the principle of subsidiarity. Later he started to consider himself an absolute monarch that could not be corrected. That itself is an hereropraxis, but sustaining that the Petrinie Ministry has no auctoritas over all the Church (one flock under one shepard), is heresy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Mathew 10:1, and Mathew 18:18?

Protestanism is the only true branch of Christianity. PETER WAS NOT THE ROCK, JESUS SAID WHAT HE SAID WAS THE ROCK. THAT RIGHT THERE INVALIDATES CATHOLISCM AND ORTHODOXY.

Need you ask?

>It's foolish to believe God influenced his word to only be understood by a few, instead of most.
Are you supposing that you know better? Please elaborate I am interested in hearing how you know this.

Then why call him Peter (Rock)? (Technically, the Rock is the Confession of Peter, not Christ or Peter).

>at least they're not kissing Abdul's feet
>majority of orthodox dioceses have been under muslim control for 1000 years

>hurr durr I cannot differenciate accidens vs. substantia

MFW Roman Catholicism is the western european version of Eastern Orthodoxy run thru the gauntlet of corrupting power and politics of heterogeneous barbarian peoples. You have to come back

>hurrrrrrrrrrrrr muh church
Just follow the teachings of Jesus that are written in the scriptures.

Yeah, that must be why Catholics changed the Ten Commandments, and also pick and choose what should be included in the Bible and what should not? Catholics are just as bad as Calvanists.

Mt 16:18
>And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I don't need to "defend" myself from non-arguments, like appeals to authority or implications that no intellectual methodology can reveal the truth to me but magically can to someone else.

>I don't care how fallacious my post is, that doesn't make it wrong
It makes it a non-argument which need not be addressed. My argument is that we're commanded to follow God and not men (which we are) by God Himself. Your argument is that there exists some super magical special power than only these arbitrarily selected random nobodies have that magically confers to them the power to dictate to others what Scripture actually says as if their word were divine law, except you can't establish that within the bounds of logic.

>mfw Eastern "Orthodoxy" is the eastern schismatic version of Catholicism under heretical patriarchs and human doctrines and inventions like the (((pentarchy))) to justify their treason to the Church

You have to come back.

youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg

Neither of those verses contradicts what I'd said. They have authority over there own actions and not over other people's.

...

Copy/paste -
Matthew 16:18 are words of encouragement and a bit of prophecy to one of Christ's apostles; an apostle who would break the proverbial ground in regard to bringing the Gospel to the rest of mankind. I don't think that's an unreasonable way to understand that verse. I think it's a bit more far-fetched to believe that singular verse confers upon Peter some kind of divine right to dictate to others exactly what ever facet of Christian understanding of Scripture necessarily is as a matter of perfect truth

>always had universal Jurisdiction
Are you aware of the historical origin of the idea of a diocese in the fading roman empire?

There is one single head of the Church as I said; it's the living Christ. He does not need a vicar, or any kind of substitute, as he's alive.

That principle originated in 1931 according to the page you linked btw.

How will you catholics get protestants to go back to ''one true church''

Wow, for someone who likes to point out something being fallacious, you sure like to engage in the same thing.

I didn't say that. I said that you cannot interpret it correctly because the LANGUAGE is lost AND CHANGED.

Which IS an argument.

>Reminder that the Church of England is the one true church. The Papacy lost its mandate when it tried to tell Henry the 8th what to do and is being punished for it.

>Show me one thing Henry VIII did wrong besides being too patient and not just raping Anne

They can't unless the Protestant in question is an idiot.

>apostolic succession is valid because tradition establishes it is
>tradition is valid because church authorities affirm it to be
>church authorities are valid because of apostolic succession

>I think it's a bit more far-fetched to believe that singular verse confers upon Peter some kind of divine right to dictate to others exactly what ever facet of Christian understanding of Scripture necessarily is as a matter of perfect truth
Not to mention, it is tremendously ironic for Catholics to rely on one instance of scripture to "prove" their legitimacy when they literally throw tons of scripture straight into the garbage for their traditions.

>I have nothing but contempt for your reliance on "scripture"
>So this argument wouldn't work on me
>But I know you like scripture
>So here is the sole reason why we are the boss
No.

they're both nearly identical perversions of the Gospel

If I can't interpret it correctly even as a possibility, then no human can without magic powers that they can acquire but I can't. So it's a necessary conclusion of your post that if I can't even possibly accurately interpret Scripture then either nobody can or only magical powers can. If you actually hold the position that *NO ONE* can actually rightly understand Scripture (lol) then I would be wrong in how I read what you were implying. But otherwise I'm absolutely right as a matter of propositional necessity.

Neither. All religions are versions of the same untruth.

Give reasons please. I am open.

Absolutely. They toss virtually the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount right out the window because they find it inconvenient.

>zealous Christian

aka - Paul Washer is my pope. (replace Washer with Piper or MacArthur depending on your age/hipsterness. Piper for hipsters, MacArthur for 50+)

More strawman absurdity.

You could, if you learned the original languages.