Oriental Orthodoxy

It makes sense that God would be with those forgotten about “ethnic” Christians two communions removed from Rome

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    their theology makes no sense

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      More sense than the Palamites.
      If I was to ever any of the self styled “””orthodox””” I would go OO long before I went EO.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then you must elaborate on your reason why

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          He's this one TradCath anon who hates Eastern Orthodox.
          Kind of wierd because Eastern Catholics have St. Gregory Palamas influence

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Their theology is incompatible though. Their christology is one fully divine and fully human nature, which makes one question how that functions. Since he had a full divine nature before the incarnation, after it he would have one that's both fully divine and fully human, essentially mixing the two, which contradicts previous church fathers, along with St Cyril of Alexandria changing to the dyophisitism formula since he only used the mia formula to emphasise how the two natures are two "what's", but wasn't against the dyo formula even then if it functioned on the logic of one person in two natures.

            Eastern catholics literally venerate Palamas as a saint.
            The dude isn't even a tradcath, since he calls EO funko pop lovers when catholics follow Nicea 2 with Pope Adrian rebutting charlegmane when he presented the libri carolini, nevermind their use of icons and statues.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't monophysites that's a slander

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Monophysitism is that he only had a fully divine nature, whereas miaphysitism is a fully divine AND fully human nature.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

            The two aren't mixed, thats not Orthodox theology. Christ is perfectly divine and perfectly human in one body, not half divine and half human.

            Dyophisitism is one person in two natures, one fully divine and one fully human.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyophysitism
            Myaphisitism is one person fully divine and fully man of one nature. I've seen orientals talk about them being mixed.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism
            This is literally what I said.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've seen orientals talk about them being mixed.
            What? In the Oriental Orthodox liturgy they literally declare that they aren't mixed. Maybe you were speaking to some novices:
            >This unity of the iron and the white heat is symbolic of our Saviour’s Incarnation, whose Divinity never parted from His Humanity, not even for a moment, nor the twinkling of an eye. Yet though His Divinity parted not from His Humanity, their union was without mixing or fusion, or change, like unto the union of the iron and white heat. This unity is defined as ‘the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate’ and is synonymous with Saint John’s saying, `The Word became flesh’.
            https://www.stmary.org.au/thecopticchurch

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the thing. How can they be without fusion or mixing if he only has one nature, not two nature since the divine has it's own nature and humanity has the same?

            If you go OO then you don’t need to do the autistic mental gymnastics EOs have to do with the Council of Florence
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of rampant caeseropapism in the 6th and 7th ecumenical council and either of the 8th
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of the general history of caeseropapism
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of mandatory EED and “uncreated light”
            You don’t need to deal with the fact the Church invalidated it’s own existence for over a century by persecuting believing Christians and then woops turns out 2 fingers in the sign of the cross is actually allowed.
            OO have a easier time consistently rejecting the filioque.

            >If you go OO then you don’t need to do the autistic mental gymnastics EOs have to do with the Council of Florence
            The only ones who really signed it were constantinopole and Alexandria for a short period. A council is ecumenical if all the bishops agree. If a party doesn't agree to it, that's how a schism occurs.
            >caeseropapism
            The process for patriarchs for most of the byzantine empire was the same as popes with the ostrogoths, byzantines and franks, so I could argue the same thing.
            >You don’t need to deal with the autism of mandatory EED and “uncreated light”
            Pope Pius XII said thomism is mandatory for understanding and affirming catholic dogma.
            >The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
            Further, if you're going to join a church, it makes sense to follow what they see as dogma. Catholics disregarded EED and hesychasm as magic, just didn't ratify at a council.
            >You don’t need to deal with the fact the Church invalidated it’s own existence for over a century by persecuting believing Christians and then woops turns out 2 fingers in the sign of the cross is actually allowed.
            I could say the same with the old catholics and the council was made the pope infallible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only ones who really signed it were constantinopole and Alexandria for a short period.
            All but 1 bishop present signed it.
            >A council is ecumenical if all the bishops agree.
            Then yet another reason to go OO.
            Not all the Coptic Bishops sign on to Chalcedon, ergo it wasn’t an ecumenical council.

            >The process for patriarchs for most of the byzantine empire was the same as popes with the ostrogoths
            Yep and that was a problem.
            >byzantines
            Yep the Byzantine papacy, that was a problem too.
            >and franks
            No so much with the Franks. Regardless all you have done it go, “but other problems exist in other places” it’s not a point that is in anyway relevant to the topic, it’s just shadowboxing.

            >Pope Pius XII said thomism is mandatory for understanding and affirming catholic dogma.
            You seem to be trapped in a cycle of shadowboxing. You aren’t actually address the point, you’re talking with yourself about unrelated topics.

            >I could say the same with the old catholics
            Again more shadowboxing. I hope you are having fun debating yourself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All but 1 bishop present signed it.
            Pope Eugenius IV said that if St Mark (who represented Antioch together with Isidore of Kiev) not signing meant that what they did was useless, so for the pope it was integral to a degree or another. Also, the patriarchs of Serbia and Cyprus never attended it at all, the georgians left before discussion on the filioque even started, the patriarch of constantinopole died before it and the supposed letter agreeing to everything is most certainly a forgery, so they couldn't even agree or disagree to it before finding a new patriarch. The council also needs to be ratified. When Isidore of Kiev, who represented russia, read the union decree, he was sent to prison. The patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem rejected it as uncanonical since the delegates were instructed not to accept changes in the creed. Constantinopole really also didn't like the union and the pro-unionists only included it around the period of pentecost, with the city literally falling then.
            Also, good for OO not to sign it too, I guess.
            That's the thing, the pope used forgeries to gain power and this split the church, way more damaging than caeseropapism ever ended up. Also, Charlegmane thought the filioque was always in the 381 creed and had the libri carolini made, which was rebutted by the pope for denying Nicea 2, along with carolingian bishops making it harder for them to ratify, so they could also be called caeseropapists.
            Your complaint is basically that they established EED as dogma, when RC had a similar view regarding thomism. It itself isn't bad since they saw these as the philosophical principles of the faith, which they see as affirming and necessary. Orientals have a different view on grace, salvation, sacraments etc which they ratified as dogma. It's weird complaint since if you're going to join a church, you know you're going to have to affirm certain things as dogma.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pope Eugenius IV said that if Mark (who represented Antioch together with Isidore of Kiev) not signing meant that what they did was useless,
            The pope could have said if “Oranges aren’t Vegetables it’s was useless”, and with out be as relevant to our discussion. It still doesn’t change the fact they all signed it (with the exception Mark). Same as a Pope said using a fork was vain, in truth it’s entirely irrelevant.
            >Also, the patriarchs of Serbia and Cyprus never attended it at all
            Irrelevant if we follow your logic of people not being invited invalidating the Council then we need to invalidate Nicea II cause not a single Western Bishop was invited.
            >the georgians left
            HAHAHAHAHAHA so you concede the point that OO are in the right because we loop back to Chalcedon with the Coptic Bishops leaving.
            >That's the thing, the pope used forgeries
            More shadowboxing.
            >Also, Charlegmane
            More shadowboxings.
            Stop trying to change the topic.

            >Your complaint is basically that they established EED as dogma
            No see my post here (

            If you go OO then you don’t need to do the autistic mental gymnastics EOs have to do with the Council of Florence
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of rampant caeseropapism in the 6th and 7th ecumenical council and either of the 8th
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of the general history of caeseropapism
            You don’t need to deal with the autism of mandatory EED and “uncreated light”
            You don’t need to deal with the fact the Church invalidated it’s own existence for over a century by persecuting believing Christians and then woops turns out 2 fingers in the sign of the cross is actually allowed.
            OO have a easier time consistently rejecting the filioque.

            ) for the points on why OO is superior to EO.
            Your having a debate with yourself.

            You actually didn’t address A SINGLE POINT. You just rambled on about Catholics and how they clearly live rent free in your head, when clearly we are discussing OO.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The pope could have said if “Oranges aren’t Vegetables it’s was useless”, and with out be as relevant to our discussion. It still doesn’t change the fact they all signed it (with the exception Mark). Same as a Pope said using a fork was vain, in truth it’s entirely irrelevant.
            Considering the union was between catholics and orthodox, the pope's view of it is important. Since the pope is the supreme bishop his consensus is followed by everyone.
            >Irrelevant if we follow your logic of people not being invited invalidating the Council then we need to invalidate Nicea II cause not a single Western Bishop was invited.
            They sent delegates at Nicea 2 though. The serbians also didn't bother to send any at Florence. My mistake.
            >HAHAHAHAHAHA so you concede the point that OO are in the right because we loop back to Chalcedon with the Coptic Bishops leaving.
            Both OO and EO bishops left, so it's the same thing, therefore, since both did it, it's moot to point it out as an advantage if both have it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Considering the union was between catholics and orthodox, the pope's view of it is important.
            No it isn’t.
            Yes or no, did all the bishop present (minus mark) SIGN onto the conclusions of the council?

            > They sent delegates at Nicea 2 though.
            2 papal delegates were present, but no Western Bishops (aside from the Pope) were invited.
            Now does that negate the council. I would argue no.
            However I’m not the one demanding everyone be present an agree.

            >The serbians also didn't bother to send any at Florence. My mistake.
            Thank you for admitting your mistake. But that further proves the point. Serbian failing to send a delegate doesn’t invalidate a council.

            > Both OO and EO bishops left, so it's the same thing, therefore, since both did it, it's moot to point it out as an advantage if both have it.
            Your problem is YOU are the one making the point. See

            >All but 1 bishop present signed it.
            Pope Eugenius IV said that if St Mark (who represented Antioch together with Isidore of Kiev) not signing meant that what they did was useless, so for the pope it was integral to a degree or another. Also, the patriarchs of Serbia and Cyprus never attended it at all, the georgians left before discussion on the filioque even started, the patriarch of constantinopole died before it and the supposed letter agreeing to everything is most certainly a forgery, so they couldn't even agree or disagree to it before finding a new patriarch. The council also needs to be ratified. When Isidore of Kiev, who represented russia, read the union decree, he was sent to prison. The patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem rejected it as uncanonical since the delegates were instructed not to accept changes in the creed. Constantinopole really also didn't like the union and the pro-unionists only included it around the period of pentecost, with the city literally falling then.
            Also, good for OO not to sign it too, I guess.
            That's the thing, the pope used forgeries to gain power and this split the church, way more damaging than caeseropapism ever ended up. Also, Charlegmane thought the filioque was always in the 381 creed and had the libri carolini made, which was rebutted by the pope for denying Nicea 2, along with carolingian bishops making it harder for them to ratify, so they could also be called caeseropapists.
            Your complaint is basically that they established EED as dogma, when RC had a similar view regarding thomism. It itself isn't bad since they saw these as the philosophical principles of the faith, which they see as affirming and necessary. Orientals have a different view on grace, salvation, sacraments etc which they ratified as dogma. It's weird complaint since if you're going to join a church, you know you're going to have to affirm certain things as dogma.

            >the Georgians left.
            Either brought that up as a point and are a hypocrite for only selectively applying it.
            Or you only brought it up to poison the well.
            Which is it?
            Serious question btw, yes or no does a delegate walking out of a council invalidate the council?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oops, my mistake, it was Pope Pius X,

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's the thing. How can they be without fusion or mixing if he only has one nature, not two nature since the divine has it's own nature and humanity has the same?
            They've conceded that it's a semantic issue and basically the same as the post-Constantinople II Chalcedonian definition after 1600 years.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not just a semantic issue it’s an emphasis issue. Harshly dividing the divine out from the human the way Chalcedonian Christianity does places a greater distance between God and man. As if divinity and manhood were in contradiction that you have to say there are two natures. It leads to a more pessimistic view of mankind and a more somber spiritual atmosphere. This difference is no more present than in miaphysite iconography, which is much much more cheerful and even has a slight sense of humour.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Harshly dividing the divine out from the human the way Chalcedonian Christianity does places a greater distance between God and man. As if divinity and manhood were in contradiction that you have to say there are two natures. It leads to a more pessimistic view of mankind and a more somber spiritual atmosphere.
            What are you on about, bro? EO see humans as made in the image of God, so humans are the most similar creatures to God in creation. That's what the idea in condemning both monolethism and monosynergism, if I remember right.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Monophysitism is that he only had a fully divine nature, whereas miaphysitism is a fully divine AND fully human nature.
            And the accusation is that if he had one nature the divine would necessarily supplant the human making it synonymous with monophysitism, or that he has a nature that is neither properly human nor divine.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The two aren't mixed, thats not Orthodox theology. Christ is perfectly divine and perfectly human in one body, not half divine and half human.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you go OO then you don’t need to do the autistic mental gymnastics EOs have to do with the Council of Florence
          You don’t need to deal with the autism of rampant caeseropapism in the 6th and 7th ecumenical council and either of the 8th
          You don’t need to deal with the autism of the general history of caeseropapism
          You don’t need to deal with the autism of mandatory EED and “uncreated light”
          You don’t need to deal with the fact the Church invalidated it’s own existence for over a century by persecuting believing Christians and then woops turns out 2 fingers in the sign of the cross is actually allowed.
          OO have a easier time consistently rejecting the filioque.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's no problem with me being fully a mason, and fully a man. Right?
    The problem with being two things, fully, arises when there's a contradiction between the properties.
    Like me being fully a virgin, and fully a sex-haver. That's a contradiction.

    In the same way Jesus cannot be fully God, and fully human. Because humans are limited, and Gods are unlimited.
    A contradiction.

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