Orthodoxy and Catholicism

From a historical and theological perspective; does the Orthodox Church have the original apostolic and catholic faith of Christianity, while the (Roman)Catholic Church has innovated?
Or, are things like papal infallibility, or the immaculate conception, original sin, and so forth always apostolic and/or early church understandings?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Dirk

    Those things are objective accretions and so are several eastern orthodox distinctives like their polity and iconism

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You must be a Ortlund viewer

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        Of course

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm a Catholic and even I'm an Ortlund enjoyer. It's hard not to be, he makes great content, does great research and its very polite in all his videos and debates.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depending on which church you ask the answer changes. As a Catholic myself, my answer is biased, but I would say that the Catholic perspective is the correct one because of the writings of the Church Fathers. There is also the evidence through action on behalf of both churches post-Schism, and one can then make a biased assumption on which church God has thus favored more and revealed succession on.
    The evidence itself exists, for example St. Clement of Rome states that those who do not recognize the primacy of the Roman Bishop are heretics, and there is of course more flinging to be done. I would recommend searching it yourself and coming to your own conclusions, because both churches disagree.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for your response

      I come from a protestant tradition, but this last year starting around February or so, I have delved much deeper into my faith, and wanting to be able to defend it and so forth. So I went deep, and long story short I have completely dismissed protestantism as complete error.

      and I was pretty set on Catholicism, and began going to mass, and im even currently in rcia. However, after discovering orthodoxy, I am still discerning that now, and have spoken to an orthodox priest as well and he has told some very different perspectives. The most compelling being atonement theory, and original sin. The orthodox view seems to make so much more sense, though there is some parallel as well. However, he told me the immaculate conception is not true, which I 100% whole heartedly agree. It doesn't make sense that God would dwell inside of sin(Mary). God cannot be present in sin, so it just makes sense that she was conceived without sin to me. Plus her being the new eve and all that.

      Hopefully some of that background also helps,

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I 100% whole heartedly agree with hat she was conceived without sin***

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        Do you ever read or watch Jordan Cooper?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          no, idk who that is. who is he?
          I enjoy bishop Barron, and catholic answers a lot. Pints with aquinas also is a great podcast I enjoy, if youve watched that.

          I am assuming you are protestant, what tradition do you belong to?

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Congregationalist
            Jordan Cooper is a lutheran
            https://youtube.com/@DrJordanBCooper?si=O2AHpcS0BRvWDON2

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >St. Clement of Rome states that those who do not recognize the primacy of the Roman Bishop are heretics
      If papal supremacy has always been a thing, why were there ecumenical councils before the schism?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why has there been no ecumenical councils on behalf of the Orthodox after the schism?
        Catholics have continued to hold them well after the Schism and into the modern day, the Orthodox do not call them Ecumenical Councils anymore.

        Thanks for your response

        I come from a protestant tradition, but this last year starting around February or so, I have delved much deeper into my faith, and wanting to be able to defend it and so forth. So I went deep, and long story short I have completely dismissed protestantism as complete error.

        and I was pretty set on Catholicism, and began going to mass, and im even currently in rcia. However, after discovering orthodoxy, I am still discerning that now, and have spoken to an orthodox priest as well and he has told some very different perspectives. The most compelling being atonement theory, and original sin. The orthodox view seems to make so much more sense, though there is some parallel as well. However, he told me the immaculate conception is not true, which I 100% whole heartedly agree. It doesn't make sense that God would dwell inside of sin(Mary). God cannot be present in sin, so it just makes sense that she was conceived without sin to me. Plus her being the new eve and all that.

        Hopefully some of that background also helps,

        A lot of it is semantic at best, I personally favor Catholicism for cultural reasons as well, but many parts of Orthodoxy are quite as nonsensical as Catholic doctrine from an opposing position as well. I would recommend reading the Summa as well as the writings of recent Popes (John XXIII is a good start)
        I, as a Catholic, would obviously recommend against Orthodoxy, but do your own research, God will show you the rest.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I feel what you mean about cultural reasons too. Orthodoxy seems great on paper, but I feel like I would never be greek enough, or Russian enough, or whatever enough--especially as an Anglo American.
          However, I dont want to not be apart of the truth just because of cultural reasons too. If that was the only reason, then that would be a disservice, yknow?

          its funny you mention Aquinas, because they hate Aquinas in orthodoxy. They disagree with western theology in that they dont like that they take philosophy from the greeks and romans and what not, and try to make that part of the Gospel and overall theology. He explained it to me much better than I can, but essentially was saying that the western mind towards theology is in error due to Aquinas and his philosophy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            As an Albanian, we have a very troubled history with the Orthodox, and their repeated crimes against my people have led me to believe that there is no possible way for them to truly be servants of God in this world, but again, simply my perspective.

            Additionally, the Easterners have hated Western theologians since Augustine for differences in schools of thought. That being said, as I stated previously, the Orthodox and Catholic differences in theology are very semantic. Especially regarding the essence and energy distinctions, and the competition between Thomism/Scholasticism and Palamism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            As a bosnian, leave that garbage behind brother, christianity is a spiritually dead religion that nobody takes seriously
            The trinity is paganism
            Icons are idolatry
            Jesus was a prophet of Allah and wasn't crucified
            Christianity has been overrun by secularists which is evidence enough that God isn't on their side, even they don't know what they believe in anymore, nothing sacred is left in that "religion"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            okay black stone kisser, you pagan. islam is the purest form of paganism

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only reason the churches don't heal the schism is because of political reasons. The theological disputes can easily be resolved.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What history is this? I am interested in knowing. Any books or articles would be greatly appreciated.

            Yeah I’m completely sympathetic to that, it’s just that if Christ’s church was meant to spread across the world and for its message to be heard by as many as possible then maybe the things that happened to the Armenians are a sign that their church isn’t the true church. This isn’t for lack of piety or effort on the part of the Armenians, just fate, which is God’s plan. So I ask you, would God intentionally limit the geographic spread of his country to so small an area?

            [...]
            Yeah I’m aware of that, I just think it would be weird for the true church to have about the reach of a major Protestant sect and put 1/10th of the effort into preaching to lost sheep.

            In regards to yoru response to the anon about the spreading of Church. Wouldn't that go against Free Will? Isn't that a form of determinism? Orthodox is virtually unheard in North American, yet the attention it's been getting lately seems to be growing because of what we've been seeing in Protestantism and Catholic Church allowing homosexuality. Also, doesn't that make Christianity just another number game? Defining it based upon numbers?

            while i will not deny the idiocy and malice of justinian the first, egyptians have had a long history of conflict with the imperial centre of power in both ethnic and religious matters which transcends an individual ruler (just like armenians and any relatively influential ethnic group which was politically sidelined)
            they did, after all side with the muslims to screw over the empire

            Not that anon, but do you have any recommended readings regarding this? I tend to prefer books.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Orthodox is virtually unheard in North American
            not so, it was just not in the spotlight.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >its funny you mention Aquinas, because they hate Aquinas in orthodoxy
            The most daring ones, like John Romanides, go even further and condemn the teachings of St. Augustine. He firmly believed the Church canonized a man who professed extremely grave errors, like Origen

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Origen and his ideas are critically important to orthodox theology and the orthodox Christian bible. The Septuagint you use was compiled by him, you owe him your gratitude.

            His political enemies condemned him and burned his writings all across the Mediterranean, despite this campaign of mass destruction Origen's writings are so voluminous and important that we still have enough of him to fill a library. For this he is given the title, Adamant.

            It is ridiculous and absurd that the eastern churches recognize Justinian I, a known demoniac and husband of a literal prostitute, as a saint but condemn Origen based on so little in comparison.

            Justinian literally murdered innocent people, 30000 unarmed people in the hippodrome and the nephews of political enemies among others. But because Greek orthodox patriarchs are dogmatically beholden to secular and profane authorities they have to pretend he was a saint. It's him, personally, who declared Origen anathema and ordered the burning of his books.

            Talk about double standards.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Septuagint you use was compiled by him, you owe him your gratitude.
            What are you talking about
            The Hexapla was lost
            The oldest LXX is from Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus which he had nothing to do with

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Hexaplar rescension is the core of the LXX used by every orthodox church.

            >Origen's Hexapla, here labelled with the adjectival Hexaplar, is shown as the source of the Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Vaticanus (B)

            It's the source text from which the other three manuscripts were derived.

            Vaticaninus was discovered (or finally made public) in the 19th century. Just because its the oldest book in the world doesn't mean other versions of the LXX werent used in liturgy for centuries before that.

            Those are just the oldest versions we have that still survive.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fantastic, but he still upheld doctrines completely at odds with Christian doctrine. The circumstances seem to indicate he was never a formal heretic, he was a very pious and virtuous man, but he failed as a theologian

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            nta, but that implies Church doctrine was handed down as is rather than something that developed over time, which we know it did.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, the fact you hold him in this kind of standard he doesn't deserve says everything we need to know about you

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know a damn thing about me, Satan.

            Fantastic, but he still upheld doctrines completely at odds with Christian doctrine. The circumstances seem to indicate he was never a formal heretic, he was a very pious and virtuous man, but he failed as a theologian

            Then why did St Jerome explicitly say that his condemnation was not due to any doctrinal differences?

            Why does Eusebius defend him?

            Most of his contemporaries had great respect for him. It wasn't until centuries later that a demoniac Emperor issued the order to destroy all his works.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you catholic? Then your church also anathemised Origen by that logic. Further, you have people respecting him, but these people include not just the Cappadocian Fathers and St Athanasius, but the arians too.
            Origen wrote a lot, so much so you could have diametrically positions being inspired by him.
            Even St Ephiphanius of Salami, who was the first person to be against him, thought he was originally orthodox christian who started to err in his ideas. I doubt he would have gone against him if there were no theological differences of note.

            You don't know a damn thing about me, Satan.

            [...]
            Then why did St Jerome explicitly say that his condemnation was not due to any doctrinal differences?

            Why does Eusebius defend him?

            Most of his contemporaries had great respect for him. It wasn't until centuries later that a demoniac Emperor issued the order to destroy all his works.

            Even during his life the orthodoxy of his writings was questioned.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am confirmed, but not a very good one.

            I take issue with many things in the V2 Church and especially the provision that israelites are saved despite their rejection of Christ. That just isn't true, Jesus makes this clear when commenting on the faith of the centurion.

            Not only that, another huge problem for me currently is how they tolerate the Chinese Communists appointing bishops for them and issuing rewritten scripture. That is a massive violation, plain and simple. Communism has NO place in the church, full stop.

            One more thing while I'm at it. The current pope didn't speak out against the genocide, mass rape, forced starvation, and martyrdom of our Tewahedo brothers in Tigray at the hands of the Ethiopian feds and their heathen allies, to say nothing of the widespread destruction and desecration of their ancient churches and monasteries. He could have demanded an end to the media blackout on the world stage, fought tirelessly for recognition of these crimes, but he didn't. That is a despicable failure, and I fear the hellish destruction they faced alone will be delivered unto the rest of us one by one. First Tigray, then Ukraine, who could be next? If we do not stand together, we will surely fall separately.

            I venerate saints who's veneration has been banned for more than a thousand years, I have even considered the validity of Miaphysitism because the absolute inseparability of the two natures of Christ in hypostatic union seems like a different way of saying the same thing.

            I prefer to think of myself as simply orthodox at this point with a few heretical leanings I need to work out, but retain everything I learned and accepted in the Latin church. As for Origen, Catholics are a lot more lenient on him now than they used to be now that his theological importance is more widely recognized.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A lot of it is semantic at best

          Especially the controversy over the Filioque lol.

          Orthodoxy has failed spectacularly on the front of spreading their faith, which is something that even the Protestants do more with. They’ve basically only spread to places like America via immigration. Relative to Catholicism, they suffer to a less extreme degree from a big issue I have with Oriental Orthodoxy. Why would God make a universal faith and then confine it to the highlands of Armenia in a church that barely tries to convert anyone?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would God make a universal faith and then confine it to the highlands of Armenia in a church that barely tries to convert anyone?
            orthos will literally become baptists as soon as you bring this up

            uhhhh aktually catholic doesnt mean universal in the sense of the entire world but how t-true the faith is... ok sure pastor jim bomb

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >big issue I have with Oriental Orthodoxy. Why would God make a universal faith and then confine it to the highlands of Armenia in a church that barely tries to convert anyone?

            Dude, it was literally illegal for them to try and convert anyone for literally hundreds of years. They lived under Sharia law, Muslims would kill you if you tried to convert members of their community.

            That they persist in their ancient rite for so long despite such dire persecution should leave you impressed, not wondering why they didn't try hard enough to evangelize the entire world. They're only men, we have to make do with what we're given.

            Like, Armenia is literally the oldest Christian nation of the planet. They did lots and lots of outreach and preaching before the spread of Islam. Asia Minor as a whole was basically the center of the Christian world for centuries and exported many, many evangelists in that time.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I’m completely sympathetic to that, it’s just that if Christ’s church was meant to spread across the world and for its message to be heard by as many as possible then maybe the things that happened to the Armenians are a sign that their church isn’t the true church. This isn’t for lack of piety or effort on the part of the Armenians, just fate, which is God’s plan. So I ask you, would God intentionally limit the geographic spread of his country to so small an area?

            >Orthodoxy has failed spectacularly on the front of spreading their faith, which is something that even the Protestants do more with.
            Dude, protestants are basically a term for multiple sects that don't agree on the basics, most of which have at most three mysteries/sacraments, don't need to build churches since they just rent empty buildings and have life style that's barely different from those of a secular person. It barely asks much out of a person. No wonder they spread faster than those who literally lived under persecution for centuries.

            Yeah I’m aware of that, I just think it would be weird for the true church to have about the reach of a major Protestant sect and put 1/10th of the effort into preaching to lost sheep.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christ sent his apostles and disciples far and wide among the nations to start their own churches.

            It's not just one of them that's supposed to spread over the whole world, it's all of them forming members of one body.

            Christ doesn't have one just church in the same way he doesn't have one toe or one eye, he has many churches. There are many different churches that all enjoy apostolic succession, and they are indeed worldwide.

            >maybe the things that happened to the Armenians are a sign that their church isn’t the true church

            Their perseverance and works despite dire persecutions are exactly what show them to be most blessed by God and inherit the apostles. Is Iesu not the true Lord because he suffered and died? No, of course not!

            Christians think of martyrdom and suffering for the faith as perfections of their gifts, bearing the cross.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again you’re missing the point of my original post. I don’t even disagree with what you’re saying, it’s just that *assuming* I’m supposed to pick a specific denomination, it wouldn’t be the OOC.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Orthodoxy has failed spectacularly on the front of spreading their faith, which is something that even the Protestants do more with.
            Dude, protestants are basically a term for multiple sects that don't agree on the basics, most of which have at most three mysteries/sacraments, don't need to build churches since they just rent empty buildings and have life style that's barely different from those of a secular person. It barely asks much out of a person. No wonder they spread faster than those who literally lived under persecution for centuries.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >board meetings existing means there's no CEO

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >St. Clement of Rome states that those who do not recognize the primacy of the Roman Bishop are heretics,
      proofs?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The evidence itself exists, for example St. Clement of Rome states that those who do not recognize the primacy of the Roman Bishop are heretics, and there is of course more flinging to be done. I would recommend searching it yourself and coming to your own conclusions, because both churches disagree.
      Thing is, there's debate what the primacy of the pope entails. Us, orthodox say that it just meant Rome was like Constantinopole, first among equals. We also have stuff like Pope Honorius being anathemised being against papal infallibility and Pope Gregory being against a universal bishop.

      Why has there been no ecumenical councils on behalf of the Orthodox after the schism?
      Catholics have continued to hold them well after the Schism and into the modern day, the Orthodox do not call them Ecumenical Councils anymore.
      [...]
      A lot of it is semantic at best, I personally favor Catholicism for cultural reasons as well, but many parts of Orthodoxy are quite as nonsensical as Catholic doctrine from an opposing position as well. I would recommend reading the Summa as well as the writings of recent Popes (John XXIII is a good start)
      I, as a Catholic, would obviously recommend against Orthodoxy, but do your own research, God will show you the rest.

      Thre are orthodox who consider the 4th council of Constantinopole, which was pre-schism and was supported by Pope John VIII, and the 5th Council of Constantinopole. There multiple things that prevented the orthodox to have a council of an ecumenical scope.
      To me, the councils were there to state the position of the church on basic theology regarding the Holy Trinity, the Theotokos and Icons. After that, there wasn't much to explain.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Orthodox are perfectly fine with theological innovation, they've just been too disorganized to do any for the last thousand years.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This eternal manifestation and energy/essence distinction are important innovation

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    From a historical perspective the original apostolic faith is probably lost to time, even assuming all the apostles agreed on what a Christian should believe, there is absolutely no proof that they did, and more probable that they did not.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You've got to roman catholic mass, now go to orthodox divine liturgy and see for yourself. Don't talk yourself out of what you know in your heart.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So base your decision on which mass gives you the best feels? Should they check out a TLM and the eastern Catholic liturgies to be sure?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I am leaning more Catholic than I am Orthodox ngl. The authority of the church appeals much more to me, and the magisterium, the pope, etc. It just seems like in orthodoxy it's whatever your local bishop says, and they're not really able to define things. Which I believe the church should be able to do.

      However, I do also see the beauty and reverence of the Divine Liturgy, and I see the post 2V nonsense in the church, and not to mention Pope Francis. I see more.... spirituality in orthodoxy? Maybe I haven't seen the catholic spirituality enough, but it seems like(at least online) the orthodox just have such a better sense of being at peace with our Lord, they seem much more pious, and even laity developing some forms of monasticism, etc. Im sure someone else could probably articulate that better than I can, but hopefully you get my point.
      Orthodoxy also just looks way cooler than catholicism, hahaha. Perhaps I should try TLM to see what thats like. I feel like if 2V council never happened, I would be 100% catholic, but with so much liberalness in the church, I then consider orthodoxy. I just want to find *my* church, and be able to find a wife, and Lord willing have kids and be able to raise them into the church. Give them what I never had. but sometimes bros, I feel like this will never happen, and I am wasting my life. I pray for God's discernment and to ask for his will, and not my own, but I receive nothing. Worse yet, I continue to sin against him.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't like telling people you have to choose between the Latin and Greek churches. I wish they were reconciled.

        >These [Eastern] Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15)

        The Latin church recognizes the sacraments of the Greek church. I would say start with the autocephalous churches, but be wary.

        Personally, the thing that holds me back from joining a Greek Orthodox Church is that fact they believe various profane heads of state have the authority to decide who is a bishop. So called "caesaropapism".

        For example, after the Ottomans took Constantinople the Sultan decided who the new Archbishop would be. Surprise surprise, he chose someone who was most opposed to reconciliation with the Latin church.

        Jesus warned us about mixing the church with worldly powers when he said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

        State churches, like the Anglicans who have the King as the head of church, have always made me nervous.

        You haven't received nothing.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >For example, after the Ottomans took Constantinople the Sultan decided who the new Archbishop would be. Surprise surprise, he chose someone who was most opposed to reconciliation with the Latin church

          >tfw the Council of Florence paved the way for reconciliation between east and west, even with the Coptic and Aethiopian churches

          >tfw a few years later the Ottomans take Constantinople and install bishops who vehemently oppose reconciliation because no secular authority wants to deal with a united Christendom

          >tfw it's been almost 600 years since then and no reconciliation yet

          🙁

          we were so close...

          Bros, what? Did you guys not hear St Mark of Ephesus who was against the council before the fall of Constantinopole happened?
          Even then, there's the fact that no theological middle ground was properly established or found. The council of Florence's position went against stuff like St Maximus the Confessor's letter to Marinus i.e. the Son not being a a cause of the Holy Spirit.
          Here's a huge article on the orthodox view of it.
          https://open.substack.com/pub/alexandros0828/p/did-the-orthodox-church-accept-florence?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2rqfpj

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Son not being a a cause of the Holy Spirit

            IIRC procession isn't cause, cause and effect are part of creation and the temporal world whereas God is eternal

            the filioque just makes clear that it is not the Father only from whom the Spirit proceeds, but also the Son with whom he is one in being

            if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he proceeds from the Son too because the Father and the Son are consubstantial

            otherwise you could get ideas like the subordination of the Son to the Father, the old controversy of Arian

            none of this is worth splitting the church over, it was originally forced by the Latin church as part of a power grab and the eastern protests weren't so much based on theology of the Trinity but because they weren't consulted on such a change to the Creed but were instead told to accept their subordination

            and to this day it's still politics and the interference of secular authorities rather than differences in understanding of the Trinity that keep east and west apart

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's the eternal hypostatic procession from the Father in the mode existence. The cappadocian fathers formulated the view on John 15:26 on procession being the hypostatic trait that is unique to him, with the Son's being begoteness and and the Father being uncaused. They also talked about only the Father having causality. This view seems to be visible in St Theophilus of Antioch. "Elsewhere He says that the Father sends the Spirit; now He says He does: Whom I will send to you, thus declaring the equality of the Father and the Son. That He might not be thought however to be opposed to the Father, and to be another and rival source, as it were, of the Spirit, He adds, From the Father, i.e., the Father agreeing, and taking an equal part in sending Him. When it is said that He proceeds, do not understand His procession to be an external mission, such as is given to ministering spirits, but a certain peculiar, and distinct procession, such as is true of the Holy Spirit alone. To proceed is not the same as being sent, but is the essential nature of the Holy Spirit, as coming from the Father." Then there's the temporal proccession/sending of the Holy Spirit in time or economy, the west using "proceeding from the Father and Son" and the east using "proceeding from the Father through the Son". You have St Cyril of Alexandria use both formulas at different times, but when confronted by Theodoret of Cyrus, he explained he didn't believe the Spirit had existence or cause from the Son, which fits St Maximus's letter.
            The Latin fathers used mostly from "the father and the Son" when explaining the consubstantiality of the trinity, while also sometimes using "through the son", so these two were used synonimous.
            The problem arised when it was introduced in the creed, which was focused on the hypostatic proccession, hence Pope Leo III being against it's inclusion and Pope John VIII reinstating St Photius.
            Some catholics still hold to the Florence view though.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >do not understand His procession to be an external mission, such as is given to ministering spirits, but a certain peculiar, and distinct procession

            This is my understanding. That procession is contiguous within the Godhead. I don't consider it to be a function of the kind cause and effect we are familiar with in the world, but rather is more of an emanation in one being.

            It's not a complete understanding, I am only a layperson and this stuff is way above my pay grade so to speak.

            >hypostatic trait

            Same, hypostasis itself is nigh incomprehensible to me. I get the general idea, but if I had to rigorously formulate it I would fail.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your 'Orthodox Church' anathematized St. Gregory Of Nyssa

            This video proves that he taught the fillioque

            ?feature=shared

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I am leaning Orthodox but that is besides the point. I feel for you brother. I pray for the same things and for the Lord Jesus Christ to have mercy on me, and also feel like my prayers are in vain. I hold fast to the faith because I have nothing left. I am 22 and many things can still happen if it is God's will, but all I can do is preserve and continue in prayer. May God help you with discernment and may you find the right Church with God's help. (I know I hope to be baptized in an Antiochian Orthodox Church just because they're the closest Orthodox Church to me).

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >does the Orthodox Church have the original apostolic and catholic faith of Christianity, while the (Roman)Catholic Church has innovated

    Many churches inherit the apostles. All the Oriental churches, the autocephalous Greek and Russian churches, the Latin church, among others.

    Apostolic succession isn't limited to one church, one tree with many branches. Even if they disagree with one another over theological minutae, the apostles did too and eventually reconciled because they all recognized the body of Christ.

    There are false churches however, that do not have apostolic succession or even the core rite of mass. Most protestants fall under this category, though there are many examples of exceptional virtue in individual protestants and particularly Anabaptists IMO.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >From a historical and theological perspective; does the Orthodox Church have........
    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?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nor was the admiration for the great Alexandrian less outside of Egypt. St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave significant expression to his opinion (Suidas, "Lexicon", ed. Bernhardy, II, 1274: Origenes he panton hemon achone). In collaboration with St. Basil, he had published, under the title "Philocalia", a volume of selections from the master. In his "Panegyric on St. Gregory Thaumaturgus", St. Gregory of Nyssa called Origen the prince of Christian learning in the third century (P.G., XLVI, 905). At Caesarea in Palestine the admiration of the learned for Origen became a passion. St. Pamphilus wrote his "Apology", Euzoius had his writings transcribed on parchment (St. Jerome, Illustrious Men 93). Eusebius catalogued them carefully and drew upon them largely. Nor were the Latins less enthusiastic than the Greeks. According to St. Jerome, the principal Latin imitators of Origen are St. Eusebius of Verceil, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose of Milan; St. Victorinus of Pettau had set them the example (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, ii; "Ad Augustin. Epist.", cxii, 20). Origen's writings were so much drawn upon that the solitary of Bethlehem called it plagiarism, furta Latinarum. However, excepting Rufinus, who is practically only a translator, St. Jerome is perhaps the Latin writer who is most indebted to Origen. Before the Origenist controversies he willingly admitted this, and even afterwards, he did not entirely repudiate it; cf. the prologues to his translations of Origen (Homilies on St. Luke, Jeremias, and Ezechiel, the Canticle of Canticles), and also the prefaces to his own "Commentaries" (on Micheas, the Epistles to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians etc.).

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw the Council of Florence paved the way for reconciliation between east and west, even with the Coptic and Aethiopian churches

    >tfw a few years later the Ottomans take Constantinople and install bishops who vehemently oppose reconciliation because no secular authority wants to deal with a united Christendom

    >tfw it's been almost 600 years since then and no reconciliation yet

    🙁

    we were so close...

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      nicaea 2025 here we go

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >does the Orthodox Church have the original apostolic and catholic faith of Christianity
    No.
    Cult of Icons, literally every single council held, developments in theology all represent innovations on their part. Jerking off about the Catholic church innovating things is moronic because the Orthodox Churches did just as much.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The very first Christian messes were not in latin for sure

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just don't get why Catholics think the Bible says anything about the bishop of Rome having extra authority over other bishops, and stuff like that

    Even if we grant that Peter had special powers, and was more powerful that the other followers. I just don't see why they power would be passed on the bishop of the same geographic location.
    Like, you bribe the big-hats to elect a Borgia pope, and suddenly he has the power of St. Peter? Hello??? Does this make sense to anyone
    Sounds really made up

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not about geographic location.

      It's about the inheritance of office through blessing, apostolically.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Like, you bribe the big-hats to elect a Borgia pope, and suddenly he has the power of St. Peter, apostolically.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          How did the Borgia become an ordained priest, then a bishop, then cardinal? They put hands on him, apostolically.

          Now one thing. If at any point in this chain the Borgia committed the sin of Simony, the sin of purchasing your church office with money, the succession from ordination is made void instantly.

          In this way, even though your Borgia who bought the chair of Peter may sit in it for a time it was never really his because he didn't really have true apostolic succession.

          "Canon 149.3 notes that "Provision of an office made as a result of simony is invalid by the law itself."[16]"

          Protestants talk a lot about indulgences, which really aren't what they claim and built many cathedrals, but they forget that the real problem was with the practice of Simony.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      if you're an ortho making that argument i have some church fathers quotes for you, including your own saints.

      if you're a protestant, shallom

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Or, are things like papal infallibility, or the immaculate conception, original sin, and so forth always apostolic and/or early church understandings?
    They are the original ideas. The Catholic Church traces its succession from Saint Peter (and Paul) based out of Rome.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Church of Rome is genuinely not a valid religion. It's just a bishop that went rogue because he thinks he should be special.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just don't get why they think it's true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's quite clear that the Orthodox Church failed to innovate and adapt to the changing world, while the Catholic Church recognized the need to evolve with the times. So maybe the question should be, who has remained faithful to the spirit of Christianity? Is it the stagnant, unchanging Orthodox Church, or the dynamic and progressive Catholic Church?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Unchanging 'orthodox church'
      Orthodox were so butthurt by the church that they became palamists, a grave heresy against the immutability of god, and even refused to debate about this during the council of florence. They lost bizantium in the process during the feast of pentecost and became subject to Muslim authorities while the church converted countless souls in the americas. their pride ruined them.very sad

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I actually have mad respect the Hesychast monastic praxis, and think the essence / energy distinction is interesting.

        What about the light of Tabor violates immutability? Would you define that term?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The light of tabor was not uncreated light but a vision of Jesus glorified humanity as St Pope Leo the great taught, a position which the Palamite 'Orthodox’ church anathematize as heresy.

          Leo is correct about the Light of Tabor because the bible tells us that Jesus’ face was shining with this light. Jesus’ face and body were created. That’s a Christian dogma. Hence, a human face and body cannot shine with an uncreated splendor or brightness. To state otherwise is to promote the heresy of Eutychianism, that is, to confuse or fuse the two distinct natures in the one person, which is in fact what Palamas repeatedly falls.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus’ face and body were created.
            Adam was created.

            Jesus is eternally begotten united with the Holy Spirit in the Father, and born of the blessed virgin Mary in fulfillment of scripture.

            One man was made of clay, and the Lord literally breathed the breath of life into him.

            The other man is the Lord born Son of Man, Son of God, in whom we take communion with the saints.

            If only the breath of the Lord raises base clay made in his image to manhood, what will his very body and blood win in us who already are of Adam?

            >confuse the two natures
            No chance.

            How do you feel about the joint declaration of 20 May 1973, between Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI expressing reconciliatory formulation of the agreement between their understandings of Christ's nature?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you feel about the joint declaration of 20 May 1973, between Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI expressing reconciliatory formulation of the agreement between their understandings of Christ's nature?
            Nothing? Paul VI was a notorious israelite and heretic. This declaration is not part of the magisterium, we catholics are bound to the council of chalcedon regarding the natures of Christ which your church refused. You are therefore in schism with the catholic church.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the council of chalcedon was mistaken regarding the natures of Christ, how could you go about figuring that out?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry i dont understand your question? We catholics confess the dogmas of the chalcedon council, a Copt is by default an objective heretic schismatic by denying them

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm trying to get at something super simple
            If your church is wrong, and the other church is right, how could you figure that out?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry i'm neither a nestorian or a monophysite. These heresies make no sense. No early church fathers hold these heresies. Jesus had two natures, otherwise the incarnation makes no sense. But I still dont understand your question, how could the coptic church be right when they had no miracles for 1500 years, barely tried to convert anyone (isn't the church universal? Didn't jesus asked us to teach all the nations?) History and Mark 16:15 prove your church is wrong.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus had two natures, otherwise the incarnation makes no sense.
            Autism.

            The incarnation is a holy mystery. You literally can't rationalize or ever mentally understand it. "Making sense" of it misses the point entirely.

            Formulations are fine for teaching, but we only know in part. Knowledge in full will come with His return. And you shouldn't split the church over theological misunderstandings while they retain the 7 sacraments, the rites, apostolic succession, etc.

            >How do you feel about the joint declaration of 20 May 1973, between Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI expressing reconciliatory formulation of the agreement between their understandings of Christ's nature?
            Nothing? Paul VI was a notorious israelite and heretic. This declaration is not part of the magisterium, we catholics are bound to the council of chalcedon regarding the natures of Christ which your church refused. You are therefore in schism with the catholic church.

            I'm not a Copt.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry i'm neither a nestorian or a monophysite. These heresies make no sense. No early church fathers hold these heresies. Jesus had two natures, otherwise the incarnation makes no sense. But I still dont understand your question, how could the coptic church be right when they had no miracles for 1500 years, barely tried to convert anyone (isn't the church universal? Didn't jesus asked us to teach all the nations?) History and Mark 16:15 prove your church is wrong.

            this is correct, however copts did moderate their views and are a lot less crazy than they used to be

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Literally the only reason the Miaphysites were ejected from the Church is because the mad demoniac Emperor Justinian I decided to consolidate his personal power over the church and started persecuting their bishops for not kowtowing to him.

            see

            [...]

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            while i will not deny the idiocy and malice of justinian the first, egyptians have had a long history of conflict with the imperial centre of power in both ethnic and religious matters which transcends an individual ruler (just like armenians and any relatively influential ethnic group which was politically sidelined)
            they did, after all side with the muslims to screw over the empire

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh man, you probably know more about this history than me.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodoxy sticks more to what the original church said and what the Bible teaches. Catholicism is intermixed with gnostic teachings.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Very funny since the doctrine of theosis as presented by the Palamite 'orthodox' church is gnostic. They believe in partaking in "uncreated light", which is a repackaging of gnostic "unmanifested aeons". theosis is not sanctification, it's what the devil promised in the garden, and it's what manicheans sought after, too. Palamas taught that 'uncreated energies' have a beginning which is against god's immutability. The Papacy is true, and they reject what Christ instituted on that matter.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They believe in partaking in "uncreated light", which is a repackaging of gnostic "unmanifested aeons". theosis is not sanctification, it's what the devil promised in the garden, and it's what manicheans sought after, too.
        St Athanasius of Alexandria: "The Son of God became man, that we might become god", [the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully. II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." "becoming by grace what God is by nature" (De Incarnatione, I).
        St Irenaeus: “If the Word is made man, it is that man might become gods.”
        St Gregory of Nazianzus: "Man has been ordered to become God.”
        Basil the Great: “From the Holy Spirit is the likeness of God, and the highest thing to be desired, to become God.”
        Bro, do you even read? Theosis was instituted by St Athanasius, with origins dating from St Iraneus who fought the gnostics, up to the cappadocian fathers.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I will ask the same question to you, theosis as presented by the palamite 'orthodox' church is gnostic by nature. Where st athanasius, irenaeus or the cappadocias fathers said that theosis was by partaking in "uncreated light (energies)"? Nowhere. I know that theosis was taught, but as Peter said it is by the grace of god, sanctification of our flesh

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