Thinking about getting back to the Church. The question is, Catholicism or Orthodox?

Orthodoxy is more close to the early christianity in its forms of worship and tradition while Catholics are more modern but their style of worship etc changed over time

This does not mean orthodoxy=early christianity, all forms of christianity changed but I would say orthodoxy is the one which is closes to the early religion.

The Catholic church was basically conquered by protestants and reformed into their bitch.

The problem with the Pope is that he believes in Liberation Theology, the thing is that Francis is not there for forever and a new one could replace him.

He tries really hard not to create conflicts, which I could at least admire about Francis.

Protestants, more like proto-communists
Luther's intentions were pure and the Church who's domain is truth was corrupted because it maintained power, due to stepping in to provide order. Crawling out of the cracks between both him and powers in the church, a full fissure emerged spewing forth vile protestants smashing everything in their path.
Heresy, not even once

Christ founded a Church. Founded it on Peter, in fact.

He actually follows the teachings of Jesus, and the traditionalist edgelords of /pol/ don't like that. They think that actually caring about your fellow man makes you a 'le bluepilled cuq XDdd1!'.

Anyway, OP, you're a boring jaded neo-traditionalist who probably was an edgy atheist and is now trying to be an edgy theist. Why don't you stick to reading Evola, masturbating to the Palästinalied and leave normal people alone. We don't need you or your autistic neo-reactionary/alt-right religious fetish faggotry. Go to retardchan, to /christian/ and stay there. Go have endless, pointless debates on how Catholicism is the only true version of Christianity, while hating the Pope.

Whatever you do, don't contaminate mainstream Christianity with your /pol/ faggotry. You people are worse than furries

So, what you're saying is that Jesus was a cuck who lost his virginity to Pontius Pilate's negro slave?

>He actually follows the teachings of Jesus

Except on marriage and divorce, apparently.

Explain

Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8

And the Dubia it's generated

I feel ya, man. But this liberation mentality has to go.

I can refute that but I don't have time to argue about it, whatever they want you to believe, believe it, I don't care, But God does

t.retard

Right, but you don't replace leftist autism with traditionalist autism.

Seriously, if you go on /christian/, you'll understand. It's like an online version of the Holy See, except run completely by autists.

Sometimes, I honestly feel that after Occupy Waĺl Street and the SJW faggotry that came with it, all the cringy atheist edgelords just switched to theism. They're still the same cringy edgelords with zero understanding of other people, and you're definitely not going to beat leftwing faggotry with that shit

Except you realize the mainstream church is protestant, and the mainstream protestants aren't the evangelical tards but the progressives, following the path of holiness till they became holier than god. They didn't need priests and now they don't need god either. It's hardly an accident but rather an evolutionary inevitability that due to States always having an orthodoxy and the US not having an official church that the de facto US church would be one that disguises itself as if it weren't a church at all.

How can you believe something with such a low probability of being true? How can you believe something with such a high probability of being fiction? How can you believe something with such a high probability of being unnecessary? What makes you believe these things despite all evidence seemingly to the contrary? Do you just believe it because it sounds nice and comforting when you believe through desperation on the simple possibility that there could be a hell?

Catholics aren't Christian

The answer is to stop Christposting on an anime image board.

Edgy. What's it like being a heretic? Let me guess; you're an evangelical baptist or some shit, right?

Fuck off /leftypol/ stop complaining about how proper Catholics aren't degenerate enough

It's time to get saved, user

Well a good place to start with is firstly how did you come to Christianity over other religions?

Secondly "learned some of the history of the Vatican which repelled me" have you looked into the history the Orthodox Church from a critical angel?

All religions have skeletons in their closets. People who arent familiar with a group have a tendency to mistake their ignorance as proof of purity - which is a big thing that attracts people to Eastern Religions

Thirdly what criteria do you need to have met for you to believe a denomination protestant or aposoltic is the true one?

I would be interested to hear your views on either of these videos

youtube.com/watch?v=x07ys_NmNeA

or

youtube.com/watch?v=OTAz7XIUy_0

You mean degenerate like the Pope? A man scores of Veeky Forums "Catholics" hate, despite that disagreeing with the Pope makes them heretics by default?

Edgy

>have you looked into the history the Orthodox Church from a critical angel?
As opposed to an empathetic demon?

Or perhaps a sympathetic demon

>NWO

you're retarded.

I think Catholicism is a big scam. They took control over confession and repentance.
In the Gospel, it clearly states you need to repent directly to those that you have wronged to avoid their "personal judgement."
I screwed up as a kid and stole a bunch from elderly people, and now I might go to hell for it because I thought I could just go to church to confess.

>let me fuck up 2 millennia of tradition because otherwise my progressive friends are going to call me a bigot!

>despite that disagreeing with the Pope makes them heretics by default?
>how to make it overwhelmingly clear that I'm from leftpyol, the post
Shut the fuck up you moron, disagreement with the pope makes you a heretic only in matters he has spoken of ex cathedra. Pope francis is the latest failed PR attempt by a church that is declining because of progressive influence.

The Chaldean Syrian Church is the most historical in the region. Opportunistic Catholics and Jacobites stole followers from their fold in the 17th century. Whatever you do don't join the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, just look at what they did to the specially unique East Syrian liturgy.
youtu.be/rACyNMX4LS8

This has got to be bait. Calling refugee detention centers 'concentration camps' is retarded on every level.

If you follow G-d and his divine commands, no more and no less, then you are righteous and free from idolatry.

Where are you from? You can't separate the distinction between those two from the civilisation you belong to.

But basically if you're into rationalism it's Catholicism, if you're into mysticism it's Orthodoxy.

based user dropping the truth bombs

leftypol go away.

...

Here's your answer OP.

The true path is Calvinism of course.

Im Orthodox. Here's my OC copypasta regarding the differences, and books to read if curious:
>Bishop of Rome having power over all Bishops in Christiandom
>Baptism not being three submissions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
>Mary being born without Sin
>Thinking that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son and the Father, which destroys the Trinity aka "the filioque"
>removing canonical books from the Bible
>Papal infallibility in place of Ecumenical Councils
>Clergy not being able to be married as it was in the beginning
>the Eucharist not being mixed
>Not Baptism, Chrisimating (Comfirmation) and having First Communion together as it was in the beginning. Thus allowing even infants to become Closer to Christ instead of waiting 15 years for confirmation.
>Selling of Indulgences
>Purgatory
>Penal Crucifixion theory

That's a shortlist, but 1000 years later after they broke away they've been warped by this fallen world . No surprise Protestants came out of it, as heresy begets heresy.

Good starters for the curious:

Reading:
>The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
>The Path to Salvation by St Theophan the Recluse
>Orthodox Study Bible
>Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham

A decent secular history of it would be A History of Byzantium
amazon.com/History-Byzantium-Timothy-Gregory/dp/140518471X

>Heavy Reading
christianbook.com/the-early-church-fathers-38-volumes/9781565630819/pd/30815

discord.gg/nbG7N

The same applies (excluding the hell bit) for multiverse/pre-big-bang/ultimate fate of universe/abiogenesis as well though, honestly. And hard problem of consciousness.

Just because we have air conditioning and meme machines doesn't mean we know everything about life, the universe, and everything. Any theory pertaining to them that you accept as pure fact is just as prone to upheaval as our understanding of the universe progresses. They're just picking a claim and sticking to it.

>Catholics will defend what the papacy has become
Papal primacy is cool when it's first among equals, but total shit when he can be a dictatorial temporal ruler

Why are you worried about metaphysical claims that can't be tested?
It's okay if you disbelieve because they can't be tested materially but shut the fuck up about it at least.
You telling me my metaphysical beliefs are false because hey can't be tested with temporal means is meaningless, I already understand that, that's why it's called a belief

youtu.be/AE1FzSC8DBs

>It's Orthocux LARP as early Christians episode
Muh tradition is objectively invalid even if practiced by non catholics

Pedocommunion is satanic

I'm not christian, but to add; one of orthodoxies flaws is that it seems utterly rife with phyletism

Stop reaching and trying to bring Science down to the level of religion

>I'm not christian
Opinion discarded.

My apologies, I forget sometimes how infinitely superior a random user is in all his wisdom compared to Christ.

Want to know how I know you've never left America?

>protestants
Weird way os spelling Marxists, Freemasons and Jews.

>My apologies, I forget sometimes how infinitely superior a random user is in all his wisdom compared to a fictional character

That's not a rebuttal. All of our current existential theories require faith and cannot be proven, or at least have not as of yet.

That doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support it. Are you saying that these theories are based on nothing just like your notions of hell and a god?

>Purgatory
That's actually a sensible belief certainly better than prayers being able to pull a soul from hell to heaven as it completely misses the point of living according to the commandments in life. That would mean that God isn't perfect and all knowing and that his decisions are influenced by popular demand.

Site evidence for either abiogenesis or an initial cause for our universe.

Both of those are based on the fact we exist and working backwards,and the latter is based on nothing because it's generally considered scientifically unprovable.

Also I'm not religious, but the theory of a God is at least as valid as any scientific theory regarding the origin of the universe since it's not scientifically possible to investigate.

They re-created the building blocks for RNA in a lab setting.

>an initial cause for our universe
space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

Parallel universes are not falsifiable because the existence there of cannot be tested.

Also there are still no protocells or self-replicating RNA that isn't "bred" down from existing life forms.

That doesn't mean it's not Science and it's not based on anything, you fucking dolt. The concept of aa god is not only unfalsifiable but to creationists it's unscientific as well as in can't be measured by Science. What does it mean for a god to interact with reality? Or maybe he doesn't? A deistic god is much more plausible than a pure Theistic one. Does that mean that it's true? Why would that god even be necessary if it looks like things came about from a point of where it was already possible?

Preconditions of our universe can't be measured by science, either. That's my point.

You're calling one unscientific, which I don't disagree with, but failing to realize there comes a point where science cannot be applied, and trying to make it fit is equally unscientific.

No, because one has actual evidence to support it, like bringing together all the data then making an inference. As opposed to a god which not only seems unnecessary but also seems improbable. Except we know that the Universe started from a point of infinite density, you can surmise from that, that the universe was already possible.

It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, when you misunderstand Science, you tend to fail at understanding reality then fill the gaps with a god that is seemingly unnecessary