>Roman Papist >Just added in the filioque >Just straight out denies the first 8 Ecumenical Councils >Vatican I & II
>Protestantism aka Modern Day Paganism >Can leave whatever "church" and start your own church, yet will still fall under the blanket term Protestant, even though you just left a "church" and started your own thing. >Idolatry of the mind. Man imperfect, Bible perfect, man can interpret the Bible upon his own. >Just out right ignoring the complication of the Bible and the early church fathers who did it. >"YEAH DUDE, LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM, BUT JUST LIKE LEFT THEM RIGHT AFTER THAT! YEAH THIS DUDE 900 YEARS LATER IS RIGHT! EVEN THOUGH HE REMOVED 7 BOOKS AND 16-17 VERSES FROM THE BIBLE! BUT LIKE YOU'RE WRONG! I'D RATHER STILL TO THE PEOPLE WHO MURDERED JESUS! THEIR BOOK IS LIKE MORE RIGHT."
Lmao, just repent boys and come to the Orthodox Church, we got you. You'll have a good time and will make it. Or don't but we'll still be here doing the same thing over and over.
It's ironic considering they deny the biblical evidence for Peterine episcopal primacy and the filioque, as well as just ignore all the patristic support of these doctrines.
>The church as a eucharistic assembly
Catholic, Lutherans, High Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East all have that. Additionally as Justin Martyr taught the Church is for more than just Eucharistic gathering, So your either ignorant or lying.
Additionally if THAT is the best you’ve got then I don’t see why I or anyone should take Eastern “Orthodox” claims seriously? So would you like to try again and tell me Which teaching has the other failed to preserve?
Also again, Mary Christmas.
>Which teaching has the other failed to preserve?
Protestants? Monasticism, the eucharist, fasting, episcopial monarchate, iconography, veneration etc.
All of them which are eastern orthodox and not separated from the larger church. Impaired communion wasn't uncommon in the early church.
The situation is more severe than ever. The biggest Orthodox church (the Russian one) doesn't recognize the churches of Greece, Constantinople and Ukraine. Which one is right?
As the Roman Empire fractured, the State Church fractured with it. As the Roman State still existed in the Eastern Mediterranean, the State Church naturally remained a part of it, answering to the Emperor like it always had since Emperor Constantine had replaced the loose confederation of local church leaders that was early Christianity, with his well defined and bureaucratized State Church. The Western Bishoprics on the other hand, were left in the lurch, as the complete destruction and absence of the Roman Empire in the West left them with no State for them to be the State Church of. This led to the Bishop of Rome, who was by far the most powerful and influential western bishop, and already more or less who all the other Western Bishops looked to for leadership, to take for himself the Emperors position as "Head of the Church" and Pontifex Maximus. Wherein he reorganized the Western bishoprics into a kind of "State without a State" with himself replacing the Emperor as the man in charge. Now of course this didn't happen all at once, and the long years of fracturing meant both groups diverged from each other on several theological issues even before they formally denounced each other.
>Roman Papist
>Just added in the filioque
>Just straight out denies the first 8 Ecumenical Councils
>Vatican I & II
>Protestantism aka Modern Day Paganism
>Can leave whatever "church" and start your own church, yet will still fall under the blanket term Protestant, even though you just left a "church" and started your own thing.
>Idolatry of the mind. Man imperfect, Bible perfect, man can interpret the Bible upon his own.
>Just out right ignoring the complication of the Bible and the early church fathers who did it.
>"YEAH DUDE, LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM, BUT JUST LIKE LEFT THEM RIGHT AFTER THAT! YEAH THIS DUDE 900 YEARS LATER IS RIGHT! EVEN THOUGH HE REMOVED 7 BOOKS AND 16-17 VERSES FROM THE BIBLE! BUT LIKE YOU'RE WRONG! I'D RATHER STILL TO THE PEOPLE WHO MURDERED JESUS! THEIR BOOK IS LIKE MORE RIGHT."
Lmao, just repent boys and come to the Orthodox Church, we got you. You'll have a good time and will make it. Or don't but we'll still be here doing the same thing over and over.
>>Just straight out denies the first 8 Ecumenical Councils
Since when?
It's ironic considering they deny the biblical evidence for Peterine episcopal primacy and the filioque, as well as just ignore all the patristic support of these doctrines.
Petrine primacy != universal jurisdiction
>Eastern Orthodoxy is the preserved teaching of Jesus.
Which teaching has the other failed to preserve?
Also Merry Christmas Anon
Kourbania.
The church as a eucharistic assembly
>The church as a eucharistic assembly
Catholic, Lutherans, High Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East all have that. Additionally as Justin Martyr taught the Church is for more than just Eucharistic gathering, So your either ignorant or lying.
Additionally if THAT is the best you’ve got then I don’t see why I or anyone should take Eastern “Orthodox” claims seriously? So would you like to try again and tell me Which teaching has the other failed to preserve?
Also again, Mary Christmas.
>all these other Orthodox/high church churches that are very similar to Orthodox have what Orthodoxy has!!
>Which teaching has the other failed to preserve?
Protestants? Monasticism, the eucharist, fasting, episcopial monarchate, iconography, veneration etc.
*blocks your path*
E-christian larp
>Eastern Orthodoxy
Which church?
Look at who is in communion with another and you will know.
The situation is more severe than ever. The biggest Orthodox church (the Russian one) doesn't recognize the churches of Greece, Constantinople and Ukraine. Which one is right?
not the russoid one obviously
Problem solved xD
All of them which are eastern orthodox and not separated from the larger church. Impaired communion wasn't uncommon in the early church.
Jesus didn't exist. He's a fanfiction character.
As the Roman Empire fractured, the State Church fractured with it. As the Roman State still existed in the Eastern Mediterranean, the State Church naturally remained a part of it, answering to the Emperor like it always had since Emperor Constantine had replaced the loose confederation of local church leaders that was early Christianity, with his well defined and bureaucratized State Church. The Western Bishoprics on the other hand, were left in the lurch, as the complete destruction and absence of the Roman Empire in the West left them with no State for them to be the State Church of. This led to the Bishop of Rome, who was by far the most powerful and influential western bishop, and already more or less who all the other Western Bishops looked to for leadership, to take for himself the Emperors position as "Head of the Church" and Pontifex Maximus. Wherein he reorganized the Western bishoprics into a kind of "State without a State" with himself replacing the Emperor as the man in charge. Now of course this didn't happen all at once, and the long years of fracturing meant both groups diverged from each other on several theological issues even before they formally denounced each other.