He just had to become Orthodox. And it would be better for everyone. Why didn't he do it?

He just had to become Orthodox. And it would be better for everyone. Why didn't he do it? Why do modern Protestants stay in Protestantism and not convert to Orthodoxy if they disagree with Catholicism?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Worker

    Because Orthodoxy is just as bad as Catholicism (some might say it's slightly better than Rome, while others say that it's even worse). Whatever, the case, it's a false religion which denies basic aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's a false religion which denies basic aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
      What exactly?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Gospel is an Icon itself. Christ came in the flesh and changed the whole fabric of physical reality: Divine and Human in one person, blessing the nature of the physical world in the Resurrection.
      I'm not Orthodox myself, but you're no better than a israelite and Muslim. Except they have a slight excuse: they still don't know Christ. Yet you claim to know him, and still want to larp as a israelite with limited revelation. You've been given the gospel and it is both spiritual and material:
      >That which was from the beginning, which we have *heard*, which we have *seen with our eyes*, which we have *looked upon*, and *our hands have handled*, concerning the Word of life-1 John 1:1
      An icon is not the incarnation itself, but celebrates God coming into our world.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You've lost every debate you have ever had with a Catholic.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Orthodox would claim that tradition was always a vital part of the Gospel. Paul himself commands Christians to adhere to both his words and the traditions he passed down.
      >So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
      Note how he differentiates between his letters and what he has spoken about orally.

      The Orthodox would claim that they are adding nothing to this tradition by stating that image creation and even veneration is necessary; they are simply reaffirming and making clear what was consistently taught from the beginning (in this case, by word of mouth).

      Is it unusual to consider such images as holy? Well, the Old Testament specifies that the reason the Israelites were not permitted to make images of God was because they had ever seen Him. Yet Christians believe that Christ is the very icon, or the image, of God. Therefore, at least insofar as the practice is considered in abstract, it would not seem all that strange.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the Israelites were not permitted to make images of God was because they had ever seen Him.
        They never saw him, but they were promised they would.
        >Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.-Isaiah 7:14
        God did indeed command against images in the Torah, but he would turn this on it's head with the Incarnation. You can't keep repeating this old Law like israelites and Muslims do when Christians live by a New Covenant. One where the "Word became flesh and tabernacled among us", where God was "with us".
        And he also provided theophanies in the OT foretelling israelites that this could happen. Christ is the Lawgiver himself - the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses in the first place. And it was he who told Moses to take off his sandals, for he stood on holy ground. Just his mere presence turned physical space into something holy. And before, Hagar worshipped the Angel of the Lord and built a shrine to him. To the "God who sees me" - the God who actually comes down to her and interacts and helps. The Torah was general guideline until this blessing would be poured out on all in the Incarnation.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    He wanted to be Pope of Lutheranism

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Worker is just a moronic dirk

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Luther was a western Christian and so am I. That’s why I won’t convert to larpodoxy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you think that Protestantism is not a larp, but Orthodoxy is a larp? Even the way you wrote about the Orthodox says that you are not a Christian, you clearly show aggression towards people, the desire to humiliate them

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Persecution complex
        Get thicker skin

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do you think that Protestantism is not a larp, but Orthodoxy is a larp?
        Because people actually practice Protestantism, but no one by definition practices "Eastern Orthodoxy". It's a nebulous internet concept invented on Discord by contrarian dweebs. Real, actual, ethnic Orthodoxies exist, and they're focused entirely on converting Blacks and Amerindians, they don't give a shit about the filioque or getting Ron DeSantis elected to the US Presidency.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >but no one by definition practices "Eastern Orthodoxy"
          yeah if you just ignore everyone at church on sunday
          >It's a nebulous internet concept invented on Discord by contrarian dweebs
          oh your throwing a tantrum about fringe internet optics figures

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you clearly show aggression towards people, the desire to humiliate them
        I’m so sick of the fake and gay crocodile tears from Palamites.
        You ritually curse other Christians and often say anyone who isn’t a Palamite isn’t even a Christian at all.
        But the moment people critique your theology is “wahhhhhhhhhh why are you so hateful?”

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          well I'm glad it makes you seethe so much but you've presented no argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I said one word and you cried that you projected I’m a hateful nonchristian. Lmao.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            well you outted yourself as a hateful nonchristian

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Projection

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

  5. 6 months ago
    Dirk

    Instead of asking "why didn't he" tell us why he should have

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      To be a part of God's Church and not start a heretical one

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        How are you defining gods church?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Continuation of OT Judaism, apostolic succession, established by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, valid sacraments

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            >buzzword buzzword buzzword
            Ok bud

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the stance of the Roman and the eastern churches on the "gospel" of James?

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Why?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I'm kinda wondering about the origins of Mariology.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >graph "proving" that we wuz the tr00 church
            Anyone can make this sort of argument, you know
            Even Baptists pull this "we're the direct descendants of the early church" spiel

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            sure but no one else can defend their protestant or papal heresy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
            AHAHAHAHAHBAHAHAHHAHA
            A literal wojak chart is more honest than you.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would becoming Orthodox expose the church’s corruption

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really get why he didn't tbh. Orthodoxy addresses almost all of his problems with Catholicism. Less infallible councils that made recent theological developments into non-negotiable essentials, no indulgences, no pope, limited divorce, purgatory less defined. I guess he just really wanted to be his own pope and make a new religion according to his personal ideals

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      He didn't care about any of the problems. He cared about excusing his sins with a lie called "Faith alone". The so called calls for justice were just a cover. He had peers like Erasmus who were sympathetic to reforming corruption while still being Catholic, but none of that mattered to Luther in the end. He even had a trip to Rome and was invited to a personal meeting with the Pope, but got overwhelmed at the last minute and went back home. Then decided to trash talk through books and tracts.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's all a lie built on one man's neuroses. He just cared about not feeling guilty. His spiritual instruction was to "sin more", rather than fight. Alleviating bad feelings is the goal, rather than seeking God. By feeling good, he then pretends this is actually finding God instead.

        >Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes" [J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248]

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >stupid strawman argument brought to you by a literal who

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, a few important points here...
    1) The only Protestants that have some claim to religious rigor are the Early Protestants. So Lollardism, Lutherism, Hussitism etc
    The newer offshoots can get so crazy that they can't really be considered Christian anymore. For example Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
    2) The oldest continuous large member church denominations are the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
    3) Luthor lived much of his life under Catholicism and so understood very well how it had turned into a corporation-like affair with the selling of indulgences. So he likely assumed the Orthodox being a large, organized church was just the same.
    4) The orthodox church never promoted the personal ownership of bibles in native tongues which makes them similar to the Catholic church in forcing people to learn about god through the church.
    5) The Orthodox church has definitely made less changes to their faith over the centuries when compared to the Catholic church and have held onto many very early Christian customs such as the sacrifice of lamps in Armenian and Greek orthodox churches.
    6) If you want old-school Christianity without the issues of Catholicism, orthodoxy is pretty much your only option. Lutherism may be a good transition faith from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons
      These are not Protestant at all. They don't even agree with the soli.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >These are not Protestant at all. They don't even agree with the soli.
        They literally came from protestants.
        They are offshoots of Protestantism.
        Protestantism is "protesting" against a current church.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No the name Protestantism originates in the Protestation of Speyer, where Lutheran (and not Calvinists/Zwingliists) princes of the Holy Roman Empire protested against certain religious policies put forward by the emperor.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No the name Protestantism originates in the Protestation of Speyer
            Nope, that's the origin and original protest.
            The later day saints literally came from protestants.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then Protestanism is Roman Catholic because it came from Roman Catholicism.

        • 6 months ago
          Dirk

          >protestantism is "protesting" against a current church
          Catholics are such illiterates

          >No the name Protestantism originates in the Protestation of Speyer
          Nope, that's the origin and original protest.
          The later day saints literally came from protestants.

          ...and therefore are not themselves protestants, moron

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            is "protesting" against a current church
            >Catholics are such illiterates
            That's literally what it means...

            >...and therefore are not themselves protestants, moron
            Thus they are most related to Protestants moron....

            Arianism is the white mvn's Christianity. Reject the insanity of Trinitarians, there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son.

            >Arianism is the white mvn's Christianity. Reject the insanity of Trinitarians
            Trinitarian is one of the few purely pagan adoptions of Christianity.
            Non-trinitarianism is closer to Islam and Judaism.

            >Why do you think that Protestantism is not a larp, but Orthodoxy is a larp?
            Because people actually practice Protestantism, but no one by definition practices "Eastern Orthodoxy". It's a nebulous internet concept invented on Discord by contrarian dweebs. Real, actual, ethnic Orthodoxies exist, and they're focused entirely on converting Blacks and Amerindians, they don't give a shit about the filioque or getting Ron DeSantis elected to the US Presidency.

            >and they're focused entirely on converting Blacks and Amerindians
            Why are you even Christian if you're concerned about that. All denominations Christians do that.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            >that's literally what it means
            It's not. That's a false etymology you assumed from a radtrad on /misc/. I don't think your apologists even use that line.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >He just had to become Orthodox.
    Which Orthodox?
    Old Believer Bespopovtsy Orthodox?
    Oriental Orthodox?
    Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
    Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
    Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
    Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
    Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
    Or “True” Orthodox?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
      >Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
      this one

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are in schism from one another. Or are you one of the fence sitter “orthos” like the Bulgarians and Romanians.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          They're still the Orthodox Church
          The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church with approximately 220 million baptised members. It include the fourteen autocephalous churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Albania, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So if you are a member of the one true church, there are other member of the church with which you banned from taking communion together?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And this sacrament which are being denied to some members of the true church, is it required for salvation?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And this sacrament which are being denied to some members of the true church, is it required for salvation?
            Yes

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have nothing to add.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            your concession is accepted then

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What concession? All I did was posing questions.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you failed to make any counter arguments

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I'm Orthodox now.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They're still the Orthodox Church
            Wrong. Look at the church, yours is dishonest.
            In a Schism (in palamite theology) ONE side must be THE CHURCH, the other MUST be outside it.
            Stop bearing false witness, it’s dishonest. If you really believed in your church you would represent it’s current situation honestly.

            Yes

            So the church is actually invisible?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong. Look at the church, yours is dishonest.
            >In a Schism (in palamite theology) ONE side must be THE CHURCH, the other MUST be outside it.
            word concept fallacy, the schism between Moscow and Greece isn't the same as the schism palamas was talking about.
            >So the church is actually invisible?
            no its the Orthodox Church see pic related here

            They're still the Orthodox Church
            The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church with approximately 220 million baptised members. It include the fourteen autocephalous churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Albania, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes

          Orthos
          >The papacy turned Christianity into a political machine!
          Also Orthos
          >Sorry we are no longer allowed to receive sacraments from each other because we were born into different sides of the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
            This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
            There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      (1/2)
      >Old Believer Bespopovtsy Orthodox?
      No sacraments, no priesthood, apocalyptic focus.
      >Oriental Orthodox?
      Non-chalcedonian, split from the main church, practice myaphisitism. They also practice stuff like dietary laws similar to the mosaic law and circumcision as a customary practice among the copts, etiopian and Eritrea, with churches in Kenya requiring for membership.
      >Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
      The church venerates Nestorius and his theology.
      >inb4 some scholars say nestorius wasn't actually nestorian
      Scholars in general will say the bible wasn't written by eye witnesses, so why should I listen to the ideas of a few scholars, when there are others who disagree with this idea.
      John I of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus, the supporters of Nestorius who pettioned for him for him to use theotokos, either reconciled with St Cyril (John I) or condemned nestorius as chalcedon (Thedoret). Nestorius himself knew and took counsel in Theodore of Mopsuestia, the supposed real nestorian, according to Evagrius Scholasticus' ecclesiastical history, who John I of Antioch says in a letter to have denied the term theotokos before recanting. The assyrian church also venerates him, so their theology thoroughly nestorian and therefore have no claim to call themselves orthodox.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia
      >Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
      Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
      Both of them are still in communion to some degree with other churches, there are multiple russian clergy who are against the war, along with the patriarch of constantinopole recognising a schismatic, illegitimate OCU.
      They aren't in schism on the level most want you to think.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        (2/2)
        >Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
        Depends. There the ones who think only their sacraments can be considered valid and those who see the sacraments of the main church as valid, they just don't like the new calendar ecumenism.
        The first are basically considered donatists while the latter are just churches in schism.
        Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
        Those are either their own thing separated from EO or OO or are part of the latter.
        Or “True” Orthodox?
        Similar to the old calendarists who are basically donatists.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Non-chalcedonian, split from the main church, practice myaphisitism.
        Presupposition. They say you split from them. How is a man supposed to know when both claim to be “”orthodox””.

        >The church venerates Nestorius and his theology.
        Presupposition. They say he was correct. How is a man supposed to know when both claim to be “”orthodox””

        >Both of them are still in communion to some degree with other churches
        That makes the problem worse.
        >They aren't in schism on the level most want you to think.
        In a schism one must be the church and the other outside it, it’s really that simple. Any other position is a cope or reduces to the church being invisible and Protestantism is correct.

        (2/2)
        >Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
        Depends. There the ones who think only their sacraments can be considered valid and those who see the sacraments of the main church as valid, they just don't like the new calendar ecumenism.
        The first are basically considered donatists while the latter are just churches in schism.
        Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
        Those are either their own thing separated from EO or OO or are part of the latter.
        Or “True” Orthodox?
        Similar to the old calendarists who are basically donatists.

        >Depends
        Stop pretending the church is invisible. In a Schism ONE side must be THE CHURCH in Palamite theology, the other MUST be outside it.
        >Those are either their own thing separated from EO or OO or are part of the latter.
        So we come back to the earlier problem when you tried to brush off OO claim.
        >Similar to the old calendarists who are basically donatists.
        In a Schism ONE side must be THE CHURCH in Palamite theology, the other MUST be outside it.

        All this just proves that it’s all built on presupposition. There is no “orthodox” church just a bunch of sectarians kvetching they are le one true and unchanged church.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Presupposition. They say you split from them. How is a man supposed to know when both claim to be “”orthodox””.
          >Presupposition. They say he was correct. How is a man supposed to know when both claim to be “”orthodox””
          They split from the main church, which included East and west, so they were separated from the catholics too. The chaldean and assyrian catholics still had to submit to the christology of the catholics. They still venerate nestorius on the theory that he wasn't nestorian which has a lot of holes as described here

          (1/2)
          >Old Believer Bespopovtsy Orthodox?
          No sacraments, no priesthood, apocalyptic focus.
          >Oriental Orthodox?
          Non-chalcedonian, split from the main church, practice myaphisitism. They also practice stuff like dietary laws similar to the mosaic law and circumcision as a customary practice among the copts, etiopian and Eritrea, with churches in Kenya requiring for membership.
          >Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
          The church venerates Nestorius and his theology.
          >inb4 some scholars say nestorius wasn't actually nestorian
          Scholars in general will say the bible wasn't written by eye witnesses, so why should I listen to the ideas of a few scholars, when there are others who disagree with this idea.
          John I of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus, the supporters of Nestorius who pettioned for him for him to use theotokos, either reconciled with St Cyril (John I) or condemned nestorius as chalcedon (Thedoret). Nestorius himself knew and took counsel in Theodore of Mopsuestia, the supposed real nestorian, according to Evagrius Scholasticus' ecclesiastical history, who John I of Antioch says in a letter to have denied the term theotokos before recanting. The assyrian church also venerates him, so their theology thoroughly nestorian and therefore have no claim to call themselves orthodox.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia
          >Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
          Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
          Both of them are still in communion to some degree with other churches, there are multiple russian clergy who are against the war, along with the patriarch of constantinopole recognising a schismatic, illegitimate OCU.
          They aren't in schism on the level most want you to think.

          there's also the fact they are now venerating both St Cyril and Nestorius which just doesn't work at all.
          We are orthodox because we claim to follow the apostolic teachings and the church fathers.
          >That makes the problem worse.
          Not really, look at the Meletian schism. St Meletius believed in the consubstantiality of the trinity, but people thought he was aryan, St Athanasius ended up siding with Bishop Paulinus and the whole thing was cleared up decades later. This is first millenium church ecclesiology. Your understanding of schism as being one or the other is black and white.

          The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
          This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
          There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

          This.
          Ironically enough, Jerusalem and Antioch have reconciled recently

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They split from the main church, which included East and west, so they were separated from the catholics too.
            Damn didn’t realise it was a popularity contest.
            Okay guess I’m going Catholic, sorry Palamites but this anon said “orthodoxy” boils down to what popular.
            >We are orthodox because we claim to follow the apostolic teachings and the church fathers.
            So does everyone.
            >Not really, look at the Meletian schism.
            Boring I’ve done this one before. TLDR version is the Paulicians we’re in the wrong in that instance so they were OUTSIDE the church and always were. As always in palamite theology one side MUST be the church and one side must be OUTSIDE the church otherwise the church is invisible. If you believe that please just say so and we can move on and save time.

            The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
            This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
            There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

            This is just admitting the church is invisible,
            >The Church is not only one inwardly, but also outwardly. Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of canonical order. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 3rd Edition, pg 240)
            There is no “oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy”. Meaning either one side of your church is fricked or the church is invisible.
            Please pick 1.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay guess I’m going Catholic, sorry Palamites but this anon said “orthodoxy” boils down to what popular.
            thats literally how synods work
            >This is just admitting the church is invisible,
            no it isn't
            >There is no “oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy”. Meaning either one side of your church is fricked or the church is invisible.
            again no this is not what that means.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >thats literally how synods work
            Synods can error, even you believe that.

            >no it isn't
            Then whichever side of the palamite churches are in schism are fricked.

            >again no this is not what that means.
            Cope. I keep being palamite sources and you keep saying “Nooooooo it isn’t saying that cause it just isn’t okay!”
            There is no consistency in your theology because it’s built on a false presupposition. Retvrn to Christianity brother, Christ will welcome you home.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Synods can error, even you believe that.
            ok and?
            >Then whichever side of the palamite churches are in schism are fricked.
            both and valid Eucharist so there is no issue
            >Cope. I keep being palamite sources and you keep saying “Nooooooo it isn’t saying that cause it just isn’t okay!”
            this is just a cope no argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ok and?
            And your popularity argument collapses. So you are once again presupposing.
            >both
            So both sides are in schism from the church. Yikes! So they are both fricked.
            >this is just a cope no argument
            this is just a cope, no argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And your popularity argument collapses. So you are once again presupposing.
            how
            >So both sides are in schism from the church. Yikes! So they are both fricked
            not what was said at all

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
            This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
            There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Damn didn’t realise it was a popularity contest.
            >Okay guess I’m going Catholic, sorry Palamites but this anon said “orthodoxy” boils down to what popular.
            No, but to right belief. Catholics welcomed the chaldeans and assyrians if they submitted to their christology.
            >Boring I’ve done this one before. TLDR version is the Paulicians we’re in the wrong in that instance so they were OUTSIDE the church and always were. As always in palamite theology one side MUST be the church and one side must be OUTSIDE the church otherwise the church is invisible. If you believe that please just say so and we can move on and save time.
            Paulinus was supported by St Athanasius and his followers. By your logic, they were outside the church, no? This doesn't work cause otherwise how can catholics and orthodox venerate both if both did nothing wrong and were excluded on a technicality? It works with the first millenium ecclesiology of the church, which is still the same with the orthodox.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    False christians are all wrong

  11. 6 months ago
    Chud Anon

    Why did he do it?

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do modern Protestants stay in Protestantism and not convert to Orthodoxy if they disagree with Catholicism?
    Just a different brand of idolatry

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Indulgences were already on the way out by the time Luther did his thing and the Reformation was spearheaded by secular princes that wanted to seize church property it wasn't about religion.
    >B-but-
    You're wrong. Search your feelings you know it to be true. All western christianity had to do was stay the course and the church would have reformed on its own.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Indulgences were already on the way out by the time Luther did his thing
      Complete and utter bullshit lol.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what's the council of Trent

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Arianism is the white mvn's Christianity. Reject the insanity of Trinitarians, there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything Protestants got filtered by in Catholicism exists in Orthodoxy.

    Once you get past the first generation or so of reformers Protestantism turns into this weird attempt to simultaneously destroy every pleasing aspect of Christian tradition while also pretending to be a return to an idea of "Early Christianity" that never actually existed the way they wanted it to.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Complete nonsense post.
      >Priesthood of all believers
      >Veneration of the Saints
      >Zoelibat of Orthodox bishops
      >sola scriptura
      >sola fide
      >Mariology
      >Monasticism
      On all of these issues Protestantism disagrees with Orthodoxy, while Catholicism agrees.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Daily Reminder: Baarlam did nothing wrong

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Protector of Orthodoxy
      >Converted to Catholicism

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >loses the debate

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        There is nothing “orthodox” about Palamism.
        Reject Gnosticism, Retvrn to Christanity.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          no argument?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            no argument

            tfw palamite apologetism is indistinguishable from low effort shitposting

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            what apologetism? I'm just calling out your cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're right, all I can see is low effort shitposting.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            low effort shitposting in response to low effort shitposting. but I'm glad you don't like it :^)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for admitting it 😉

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            admit your low effort shitposting? no problem

          • 6 months ago
            t. Shitposter I concede, but this post is for real

            Dude you're really just here for some silly concessions from somebody who does not matter to your life at all. I hope you'll be doing better in the future.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're really just here for some silly concessions from somebody who does not matter to your life at all
            you just summed up the entire internet

          • 6 months ago
            t. Shitposter I concede, but this post is for real

            The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
            This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
            There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            parody is the highest form of flattery
            thank you

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Projection

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    'Russian Orthodox Church' isn't a church though, it's a government agency
    ROC died(went into exile) during the Bolshevik takeover, the current 'ROC' is a literal KGB branch established by Stalin during WW2

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >'Russian Orthodox Church' isn't a church though, it's a government agency
      No its a Church
      >ROC died(went into exile) during the Bolshevik takeover, the current 'ROC' is a literal KGB branch established by Stalin during WW2
      KGB and Stalin aren't around anymore boomer

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        kgb cope

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          you're coping now? good

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ROC died(went into exile) during the Bolshevik takeover

      More like during Peter The Great's autism.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow this thread has sure gone to complete shit

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      kgb cope

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Your coping now, good. I provide a more accurate map of your church (I even provide a palamite defintion of a schism in the bottom right of my map) because your map was dishonest (possibly even a lie given that you may know better). I point out your church is divided by internal schism and that one side must be outside the church. At this point I’m still waiting for you to either name the side that is doomed to outer darkness or admit you actually believe the church is invisible.

    Don’t worry anon I don’t actually need to hear you admit you are wrong. Just admit it to yourself and consider converting to Christianity.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      no argument?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        kgb cope

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          projection

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            no argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >loses the debate

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            well at least you admit you lost

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kgb cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            projection

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            no argument

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          kgb cope

          Kek, thanks anon, I’m done with him. He isn’t offering any real arguments. It’s just “the church is invisible so there is no real schism” and “the church is one clear visible United institution” the next.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're free to make an argument but you can't substantiate any of your claims

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s just “the church is invisible so there is no real schism”
            literally the opposite of what was said

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The articles you link were from the orthowiki, with both articles not mentioning St Palamas AT ALL, so how do you know he was reffering to this type schism, especially when both articles present different types of schism and you conflate St Palamas' with the entire church theology and ecclesiology.
      https://orthodoxwiki.org/Schism
      >Usage within Christianity
      >The words schism and schismatic have found perhaps their heaviest usage in the history of Christianity, to denote splits within a church or religious body. In this context, schismatic as a noun denotes a person who creates or incites schism in a church or is a member of a splinter church, and schismatic as an adjective refers to ideas and things that are thought to lead towards or promote schism, often describing a church that has departed from whichever communion the user of the word considers to be the true Christian church. These words have been used to denote both the phenomenon of Christian group splintering in general, and certain significant historical splits in particular.
      Thus, within Christianity the word schism may refer to:
      >The offense of inciting divisions among Christians.
      >The event of two groups of Christians ceasing to be in communion with each other, so that, whereas they formerly could worship together, they decide they must worship separately because of disagreements between them.
      >The Great Schism; either of two rifts within the Christian church.
      >See Old believers and Raskol for schism within the Russian Orthodox Church.
      >Any Christian communion or sect that has left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Which church constitutes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has long been disputed: for instance, the Roman Catholic Church claims that title and considers the Eastern Orthodox Communion to be in schism, while the Eastern Orthodox Communion also claims that title and holds that the Roman Catholic Communion is schismatic and heretical;

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The orthowiki also distinguishes between heresy and schismatics.
        https://orthodoxwiki.org/Heresy
        >Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church..."
        >While the term is often used to indicate any nonorthodox belief such as Paganism, by definition heresy can only be committed by a person who considers himself a Christian, but rejects the teachings of the Christian Church. A person who completely renounces Christianity is not considered a heretic, but an apostate; a person who renounces the authority of the Church, but not its teachings, is a schismatic, while an individual outside of the Orthodox Church who considers himself to be Christian might be called Heterodox.
        Here's the article on full communion too.
        https://orthodoxwiki.org/Full_communion
        >Full communion is the normal relationship among autocephalous and autonomous churches of the Orthodox Church. Clergy may concelebrate and the faithful of those churches may worship and receive the sacraments at each other's parish and monastic communities.
        >A break in communion is known as schism, and may be brief or prolonged. Usually the term schism is not used except when the break has no definite end in sight. A suspension of concelebration is not the same as a break in communion—faithful and clergy may still receive the sacraments together at each other's altars, but clergy may not celebrate divine services together. When a suspension in concelebration has occurred, the phrase full communion is not typically used to describe those churches' relation with each other. Thus, while the word communion and the phrase full communion generally have the same meaning, the use of just communion may imply an impediment exists such as suspension of concelebration.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The articles you link were from the orthowiki, with both articles not mentioning St Palamas AT ALL
        Oh this is all so tiresome, I’m just gonna start linking at this point. (See

        [...]

        )

        https://orthodoxwiki.org/Full_communion
        >A break in communion is known as schism, and may be brief or prolonged.
        NEXT!

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
          This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
          There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
            This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
            There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

            >more examples showing that the church is invisible.
            I feel like we are going in circles.
            I’ve got more important things to do, so I’ll stop giving you (yous) sorry.
            Hope you convert to Christanity one day tho.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of those show the church is invisible you just keep asserting it
            but now you're running away so your concession is accepted

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, my mistake.
          However, schism can be caused not just by heresy, but conflicts or other reasons as shown below.
          >Thus, within Christianity the word schism may refer to:
          >The offense of inciting divisions among Christians.
          >The event of two groups of Christians ceasing to be in communion with each other, so that, whereas they formerly could worship together, they decide they must worship separately because of disagreements between them.
          >The Great Schism; either of two rifts within the Christian church.
          >See Old believers and Raskol for schism within the Russian Orthodox Church.
          >Any Christian communion or sect that has left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
          Schism can be of different types either geopolitical, like the ukraine one, or on suspecting theology, the meletian one or completely breaking off from communion with any churches on the other side, the great schism. St Meletius believed in consubtantiality, but was hated by other orthodox nicene people on that suspicion, while having St Athanasius on his side. By your logic, since the schism never ended withing their lifetimes, either one or the other was outsidd over a misunderstanding/technicality. This is a really legalistic approach that's solved by the ecclesiological system of the orthodox church, as described here

          The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP), the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The only other patriarchate that has reciprocated this break in communion is the Patriarchate of Alexandria. None of the others did. And Russia didn’t break with any of the 9 other universally recognized autocephalous churches. So Russia is still in communion with the majority of the Orthodox Churches and all but one have not broken communion with it.
          This is not yet a break of communion with the whole church.
          There is almost always one Patriarchate or another who's temporarily not concelebrating with another. That's why the Antiochians weren't at the meeting in Crete in 2016: Because it would have meant concelebrating with Jerusalem, with whom they were on the outs at the time. When one local Church offends against another and won't listen to complaints, then at times a synod of bishops chooses to stop concelebrating with them. That makes their offense a matter of public record that no one can ignore. And in most cases the issue is resolved and communion restored within a decade or two (our sense of time is in generations, not media cycles.)

          Further, schism doesn't necesarrily denote heresy.
          >by definition heresy can only be committed by a person who considers himself a Christian, but rejects the teachings of the Christian Church. A person who completely renounces Christianity is not considered a heretic, but an apostate; a person who renounces the authority of the Church, but not its teachings, is a schismatic, while an individual outside of the Orthodox Church who considers himself to be Christian might be called Heterodox.
          Finally, the severing of full communion doesn't necesitate the complete stop of worship togheter there are different degrees to it as shown here

          The orthowiki also distinguishes between heresy and schismatics.
          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Heresy
          >Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church..."
          >While the term is often used to indicate any nonorthodox belief such as Paganism, by definition heresy can only be committed by a person who considers himself a Christian, but rejects the teachings of the Christian Church. A person who completely renounces Christianity is not considered a heretic, but an apostate; a person who renounces the authority of the Church, but not its teachings, is a schismatic, while an individual outside of the Orthodox Church who considers himself to be Christian might be called Heterodox.
          Here's the article on full communion too.
          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Full_communion
          >Full communion is the normal relationship among autocephalous and autonomous churches of the Orthodox Church. Clergy may concelebrate and the faithful of those churches may worship and receive the sacraments at each other's parish and monastic communities.
          >A break in communion is known as schism, and may be brief or prolonged. Usually the term schism is not used except when the break has no definite end in sight. A suspension of concelebration is not the same as a break in communion—faithful and clergy may still receive the sacraments together at each other's altars, but clergy may not celebrate divine services together. When a suspension in concelebration has occurred, the phrase full communion is not typically used to describe those churches' relation with each other. Thus, while the word communion and the phrase full communion generally have the same meaning, the use of just communion may imply an impediment exists such as suspension of concelebration.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, schism can be caused not just by heresy, but conflicts or other reasons as shown below.
            Okay I’ve read your post but it doesn’t address the issue.
            >The Church is not only one inwardly, but also outwardly. Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of canonical order. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 3rd Edition, pg 240)
            There is no “oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy” and if the “outward unity” is manifested by the “oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy” than that means their is no outward unity, which is what we see, and thus the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Palamite churches is proven false. Now tbh it’s proven false for a number of reasons this is just the clear one

            To the palamite church ecclesiology and theology CANNOT be separated. The entire identify of the church and it’s claims to authority rest on the there not being a distinction from the visible church institutions and and the
            Spiritually church that constitutes the body of believers (invisible church).

            >Schism can be of different types either geopolitical, or on suspecting theology, or completely breaking off from communion with any churches on the other side
            Okay let’s look at another example. Raskol (schism of the Russian church) saw the widespread persecution and murder of old believers on claim of heresy which would later turn out was not only a lie but the old believers were right. The persecution went on until 1905 and only really re-entered communion in serious note in 2017.
            Now during that time the rest of the Palamite churches stayed in communion with Russia, and did not excommunicate them despite their murder and persecution of the faithful. Now if the church is NOT invisible and is directly tied to the institution of the church. Where was the church then?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By your logic, since the schism never ended withing their lifetimes, either one or the other was outsidd over a misunderstanding/technicality.
            Yes one side was outside the institutional church that existed at the time. I don’t believe that’s the limit of the church other. THE CHURCH is constituted by the body of believers (invisible church).
            Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
            Mark 9:38-41
            “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *