There is only ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Isn't orthodox like a "Russian" church?

Wew

That's funny I could have sworn Jesus put Peter in charge. Last I checked he was the patriarch of Rome.

Catholicism is Truth

Peter was the leader, but nothing like the powers given the Pope. Or else they wouldn't have needed a Council of Jerusalem, they'd just say,"Well, Pete, what do you say?"

Peter just groups himself as a fellow bishop in 1 Peter 5:1-2.

A Latinist Pope would never start an Encyclical with, "Bishops, I appeal to you as a fellow bishop." But if the Pope were Orthodox, that's how a Papal Encyclical would go.

Anyway, Peter was the rock, not his chair. A rock is a foundation, Peter has that title as a founder. The current Pope didn't have a role in founding the Church

Genuinely curious, do roman catholics and greek orthodox actually have any significant doctrinal difference, or is it just a political thing whether you adhere to the patriarch of Rome or Constantinople?

The Patriarch of Constantinople is not an alternate Pope, he's just a bishop with ceremonial privileges.

We had some doctrinal differences over the schism, and they built since, but it is was really Vatican II which made us impossible to doctrinally reconcile.

We don't object, by the way, to the bishop of Rome being called "Pope", anymore than we object to the bishop of Alexandria being called that. It is his traditional title. But we do object to the Papacy being an *office* above bishops.

But Vatican II didnt change any doctrines, it was about aesthetics

>expecting Constantine to know what the fuck he's talking about.

>watch a cathcuck video
>he calls the kingdom of the ostrogoths the west roman empire

It affirmed the doctrine of "anonymous Christian", it recognized the baptism of Protestants, among other things.

Here are some issues

>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

-Nostra aetate

>But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
-Lumen gentium

This sort of thing could be done, due to Vatican II

>On 6 May 2001 he became the first Catholic pope to enter and pray in a mosque, namely the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. Respectfully removing his shoes, he entered the former Byzantine era Christian church dedicated to John the Baptist, who is also revered as a prophet of Islam. He gave a speech including the statement: "For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness."[92] He kissed the Qur'an in Syria, an act that made him popular among Muslims but that disturbed many Catholics.[186]

>condemn Nestorius as a heretic
>adopt dyophysitism as the official doctrine
Absolute madmen

That doctrine of two natures just means that Christ was both man and God, as opposed to just man, or just God. Those natures share a one existence.

Oh it's a Constantshill constantshilling for memeodoxy again.

First I should say I am not a Catholic, so I defend them as an outsider.

While Vatican II led to a shift toward more liberal interpretations, they remain that, not dogma.

Second,

The church recognizes baptism from protestants, but treat them as estranged Catholics not in proper communion with Rome and subscribing to heretical beliefs.

As for Muslims, those statement are not confirming their salvation, but basically saying by subscribing to the one God, the God of Abraham, they are closer to the truth than other groups that are atheistic or polytheistic.

Now you might disagree with all of that anyway, but you have to understand that those statements do not by themselves change doctrines, they are largely statements of interpretation

>While Vatican II led to a shift toward more liberal interpretations, they remain that, not dogma.
From an Orthodox perspective, the understanding of dogma is part of dogma. Dogma isn't relative with "new perspectives".

>The church recognizes baptism from protestants, but treat them as estranged Catholics not in proper communion with Rome and subscribing to heretical beliefs.
How are you baptized outside the Church? Baptism is a sacrament from within the Church, how can you say a sacrament can be administered by those outside it?

Why would an omnipotent and infinite God care if you followed some rituals according to some ancient traditions or not?

Seems suspiciously like something something a mundane human organization would impose.

The Catholic church considers all Christians baptized in the Trinitine tradition to be technically part of the church

They're not just rituals, they're are interfacing with the divine.

Yes, this is an irreconcilable difference between Catholic and Orthodox

>They're not just rituals, they're are interfacing with the divine.
Sure thing Ivan, pull the other one.

Again, why would a god so incomprehensibly perfect beyond all time and space care which robe or bowl or spot on earth is more important than anything else?

I know why humans care so much but why do they think that God cares too?

The way really hardcore ritualists describe God, he sounds like more of a computer program that can only accept specific inputs to function as opposed to anything with intelligence and agency. God seems to be simply the software of the universe and if you deviate a single microsecond or choose the wrong shade of purple for your robes he gets confused and the world ends in a fatal error.

None of those things are doctrinal for us. They are important as *expressions* of doctrine, how to best express worship is very important, but the pattern on the robe and the style of the bowl isn't doctrine. Doctrine is only what Christ himself passed on, and he obviously didn't pass on any of that.

>he sounds like more of a computer program
You're on the right track. Ever heard of the... reptilian brain? It's obsessed with stereotypical, repetitive and ritualistic behavior.

We have different colors to mark certain occasions but none of that has to do with dogma, it varies throughout the Church

If dubs Constantine will go away to live in a cavern.

Instead of computer program, you could use the word law.

There are supernatural laws that operate the universe, but it is intelligent to operate on its own

Computer programs are subject to viruses but laws that operate on a plane above the law we commonly accept on earth are eternal

How mystical.

I'm Catholic but David Bentley Hart is a very good writer

Intelligent in terms of computing power, maybe. But if God cannot genuinely tell the difference between Rites A and B that are so identical minus the direction the priest faces or the congregation moves, it is pretty clear God has no actual ability to interpret anything. Thus, a computer program, simultaneously much more intelligent and much dumber than a human. Yahweh is just the software of the universe.

youtu.be/XG5H8CHo9DY?list=PLW7pbhhZBfZsTBBiDHgueP0HdOtB6nTNq
Start at 11 minutes and watch to about 14 minutes.

Christianity and science maybe intertwined at the very heart of our understandings of the Universe.

> only ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

ANYONE CLAIMING to be the one and only TRUE Church, is denying the teachings of Christ and HIS REVELATION.

Christ only founded one sort of Christianity, not 50,000 conflicting sorts.

And it wasn't the disgusting Orthodox church

So what are you saying, that the Christianity Christ founded died and was only brought back to life in the early modern period?

Nope
Just that the Orthodox church isn't the church Christ founded.

There is no other that stretches back continuously before the early modern period, except Latins.

I set a choice before you, with a question. Do you love Me? Will you follow Me? Will you become My servants? Or will you continue to love the knowledge of Me? Will you still follow what you believe? Will you still serve yourself and your pride? Will you live in Me?

Not all that you believe is from Me. And not all that you do is pleasing in My sight. And not all that you say or think is of faith. But My servants will not be so in the days to come. Everything they believe will be from Me, and they will speak My words, and they will do the things that are pleasing in My sight. And I will love them.

I hate your assemblies. I loath your offerings. I despise your service. Your prayers I do not hear, because they are for your own lusts. Your hands are dirty, and your lips have become numb. Your ears do not hear, nor do your eyes see. Who among you has a soft heart? Who is seeking truth in My Father's presence? Who has lost themselves for Me and to Me? Who has lost every other love, to know My love? Who has become My servant?

I am coming quickly. I am coming with a sword. I am coming to make war, to make an end, a complete ending of all the lies. I am coming to reward My servants, and to gather those who love My appearing. Will you be ashamed at My appearing, or will you have great joy? Either way, I am coming quickly.

>except Latins

And there is your answer.

Copts, Nasrani, and Syriacs also stretch back that far.
>inb4 they're Orthodox too

They went modernist with Vatican II.

They are, their Christological formula was approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and they recognize validity of all Eastern Orthodox Sacraments (but not Catholic). We can and do take communion with each other under frequent circumstances.

Constantine how many times do you need to be BTFO before you stop posting the same things over and over again?

>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Orthodox poster had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

>schismatics
>catholic
lol

didn't an actual Oriental orthodox come on here before and tell you they dont consider themselves united with your church? Which you hand-waved as a legalistic matter?

Yeah, nothing modernist about saying the Church should apologize for offending sodomites.

If by offending you mean advocating outlawing them then yes they should apologize, under their own doctrines on homosexuality they should apologize

No, no such thing ever happened. Someone did try to theological dispute the issue as the Orientals being correct and the Easterns being wrong, but they weren't Oriental Orthodox themselves.

We're not formally and administratively united, though. We haven't lifted the anathemas. We are, however, Sacramental united.

How many times have you been shat all over on this Constantine?
At least once today it seems >The Orthodox poster had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Why? Do you think advocating for laws is incompatible with Christianity? Or rather do you just think advocating for laws that don't agree with modernism liberalism is?

When was the last time you achieved Knowledge and Conversation with any of the entities you worship??

It's quoting a polemic from Mein Kampf, you can insert anyone there

Last time I prayed.

I find it describes you and only you just too perfectly. It was a paragraph inspired by the divine with foreknowledge of you at the front of it's mind.

The catechism itself says that while homosexual relations are immoral, there should be no public discrimination against them.

So if your a catholic, you must believe that outlawing gays is immoral. period.

I think that if being a modernist is synonymous with not killing/castrating gays then the church should be modernist.

If being a traditionalist means that we should bring back every horror of the ancient regime then no one should be a traditionalist

Do you recall Alan Turing being forcibly sterilized, and later killing himself as a result because he was a homosexual? Or the large number of homosexual teens who were kicked out of their houses by families for their sexuality? The number if homos that ended up killing themselves because of it? Are sodomy laws something you want back?

You're like that "ARE YOU KIDDING ME???" guy

And their Catechism is modernist, very influenced by Vatican II

I don't know what you have to kill or castrate gays for homosexuality to be considered morally repugnant and unacceptable behavior.

What does that have to do with the Catholic Church? Because they said sodomy is morally wrong, they should apologize for any harm that came to sodomites that they had no part in/

I hope you're being retarded on purpose Constantine I really do

Want to rephrase that last sentience, it doesn't make any sense.

>And their Catechism is modernist, very influenced by Vatican II

Are you saying there is something wrong with their stance that there should not be public discrimination against gays? what types of discrimination would you advocate?

Gay marriage should be banned, gay parades should be banned. Homosexuality should not be normalized. it is sexually deviant and wrong. Yes, some people are 'oriented' that way, but that's not an excuse. We are ALL oriented to sin. The point is to overcome that orientation, not make an identity. The Church does not owe sodomites an apology anymore than they owe fornicators in general an apology.

would you support sodomy laws?

No gay marriage, no gay parades, no 'gay bars'.

Not really, since they'd be hypocritical if they weren't enforced on both sexes, which they wouldn't be.

Alright Constantine since you're so fucking stupid I'll explain it to you. The Pope flat out stated that when he said "The Church" he did not mean the institution. When he said "The Church" he meant individual Christians that had done harm to homosexuals should apologize for what they'd done.

So your only qualm with it is that it would not be enforced equally? not that the government has no business in peoples bedrooms

Yes, for offending them, he said. he said Christians must apologize for offending gays. This is not a call just for Christians who beat up a gay, for instance, but for all those who offended them

That is some obtuse logic

How can you say the government has no business in the bedroom? This is a modernist mentality that places sex as the new Church, the sacred space.

Because I am not a Christian, not that most Catholics would object to what I said, though perhaps a handful of the clergy would

Including things they didn't personally do, but implied any offense caused by the Church in the past

>"I believe that the church not only should apologize to the person who is gay whom it has offended," the pope told reporters, "but has to apologize to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labor; it has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons."

>How can you say the government has no business in the bedroom?
Because it doesn't

What about the community?

Nope

There bedroom is not in the town square, or your church so I dont see how it should effect you.

What criterion do you use to determine where they have business?

A community is a relationship between human beings, it's not a material thing.

individual righst?
the principle of limited government?

If something absolutely cannot be handled at the local level then it's for the government.

Are these rights and principles metaphysical, or only existing as legal statutes?

So community business, then

>Are these rights and principles metaphysical, or only existing as legal statutes?

No idea, not that it matters for practical purposes if your a deist then the first, if your an atheist than the second

Community business can be handled by the community.

If it's the second then basically you're saying their business is whatever the law happens to say it is.

They generally have their own governments.

Indeed they do. But two people consenting to fuck each other in private is none of those governments business according to the principle of subsidiarity.

You could use that logic to justify abortion.

Abortion being no different than murder would be something for the government to handle.

Government handling it goes against the principle of subsidiarity, from a gang's perspective.