Yo whats up bros...

College towns seem to have them now that it's hipster.

>a non-ethnic wife.

A what?

sedevacantism is a retarded cringy LARPer cult that is more focused on dumb minutae about the liturgy than the actual religion. just go to tridentine mass at a church where there are licit sacraments by priests who aren't excommunicated. if you really want to circlejerk about modernism just go to a FSSP or SSPX church.

He wants his children to look like him.

>Sadly this couldn't be further from the truth if you tried, converting to Catholicism is often so painful and difficult people give up and go to another Church.

What happened? can you share your story?

muh soft wife

just googled it and it might be ok
as a non-catholic, catholic doctrinal issues are very opaque. the problem is that catholics seem to be all-or-nothing, no testing the waters. At least orthodox churches will accept a protestant baptism.

is english your native language? 'ethnic' is short for ethnic minority. obviously everyone has an ethnicity.

thats moderately depressing but thanks for the tip.

duly noted. i observed a tridentine mass once, only catholic church event ive ever been to. i dont care as much about the latin thing as i do about diverging towards popular opinion on social issues... ive seen what the results are first hand at many protestant churches.

this

i have no idea what this means

>. At least orthodox churches will accept a protestant baptism.

I thought the Orthodox were hyper strict on this and dont let anyone (even Catholics who allow Orthodox) receive communion who isnt baptised Orthodox

from what i understand you have to get confirmed, but if you've already been baptized elsewhere it carries over.

catholics are babylonian pagan idolaters

>i dont care as much about the latin thing as i do about diverging towards popular opinion on social issues... ive seen what the results are first hand at many protestant churches.
The fact that the Tridentine mass is in Latin is probably the least important aspect. What's important is ad orientem, the absence of the dozens of changes to the post-1962 missal, and the lack of liturgical abuse and things like altar girls. The people who attend are generally more pious and actually confess/fast/brush their teeth/kneel before receiving and the women wear mantissas. That's not to say that you should be focused on other people during mass or that there's anything wrong with Novus Ordo, but TLM gives a more reverent and beautiful atmosphere.

As far as the social issues, it's good that you're faithful to Church teaching. Your beliefs should be subservient to Christ/the Church and not the other way around. That includes traditionalism, as your religion shouldn't be an accessory like it seems to be for a lot of sedevacantists. Don't abandon the Church just because /pol/ says Vatican II is "cucked". There have also been a lot worse pope's than Francis. Luther lived during the time of Leo X, who most would consider to be a "bad" pope, but threw the baby out with the bathwater through his "reform". This is pretty analogous to most sedes today.

Just marry a hohol or something if you want to be an aryan

if you want to roleplay an orthodox or papist slav, fuck off to russia
Also this thread isn't Veeky Forums.

??? im not a slav. also Veeky Forums is by far the best board for this. people typically end up linking encyclicals and the like, which is more Veeky Forums than speculating about dfws suicide note.

>le blue eyes blonde hair meme

i really never understood whats 'babylonian' about the catholic church, given that they operate(d) in completely different territories. if you think francis is the anti-christ or something i already told you that i want to be sedevacantist...

>Don't abandon the Church just because /pol/ says Vatican II is "cucked"
I'm not, but the Church appears to be abandoning itself. I have no intention of following it into the void, I'd prefer to orient myself by the teachings of Jesus. Even Antonin Scalia hated VatII.

>currently going to an orthodox church
Heh did you start going there after reading Dosto?

>I'm not, but the Church appears to be abandoning itself.
Luther would have made the same argument after the Council of Trent.

If the sedevacantist church was the real Church, it will eventually go away since all the cardinals from before Pius XII are dead. Christ promised the gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the Church.

Even if many of the Popes have espoused incorrect teachings, no statements of heresy have been done ex cathedra. Pope Honorius I wrote in a letter teaching Monothelitism, a much more serious heresy, and yet he remained pope.

no I just got fed up with being a proddie and jumped ship. went to the closest ortho and catholic churches and with that experience + background knowledge i preferred ortho.

was too young when i read c&p for it to really affect me; i hardly even remember it desu

>Christ promised the gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the Church.

As along as the Church is not destroyed %100 and could never return that prophecy would stand.

The French prevailed against the Nazis despite not winning the Phoney War

It will be destroyed 100% once everyone in the "true Church" is dead.

I don't understand all these people who proclaim themselves to be traditionalists, but don't have arguably the most traditional value of them all: loyalty. Especially loyalty to something that deserves it.

>Louis XVI, I thought you were loyal to France, so why don't you support the Revolution?

still having a hard time buying into the "the church is a physical institution and not the body of believers" argument but im willing to be convinced. The early church (The Way) really did not resemble the contemporary Catholic church very much at all.

Catholicism doesn't sound like the religion for you. Catholicism is about obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. It is not about picking and choosing what you like or do not like. Abandon your heresy or GTFO, in other words

>It will be destroyed 100% once everyone in the "true Church" is dead.

Not really, so long as the teachings are preserved or capable of being recovered it can still prevail unless prevail is a bad English translation of the word

i dont know any smart catholics who arent at least somewhat disaffected by 20th century changes

Some of us are disaffected but also realize that the Church is still the Church, and God made a covenant with it.

Not when there are no bishops to ordain priests and no priests to offer valid sacraments.

I didn't say that the Church is a physical institution. Does it seem likely, though, that entirety of the Church and all of the clergy defect overnight in the 60s without knowing it? The sedevacantist church didn't even exist until around 8 years after Vatican II.

Schism is a very grave sin and I hope you're really sure of sedevacantism if you want to go that way.

i feel like theres plenty of biblical precedent for not going along with church error... the golden calf, the whacked out churches to whom epistles are addressed (throughout the NT and Revelation), Peter (the first Pope lol) being rebuked by Paul in Acts, priests rebuked a billion times in the major and minor prophets, etc.

Do I claim to be better than the Church? No. Do I claim that the old Church was likely superior to the new one? Yes.

I think you may be misreading Matthew 16:18
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Generally speaking, gates are not used to assault something. Peter (Petrus, which means rock), as first pope, is head of an institution which will smash damnation. Until Jesus, Jews saw fancied themselves as the only people capable of salvation, hence being called the Chosen People. The Church, through Jesus, came into existence in order to allow people salvation through an act of the will rather than ethnic lineage. Hence our general disdain for plebs (protestants) that think only believing in Jesus will save you. Sorry guys, but we think actions speak louder than words, especially in the dispensation of meritorious grace and sanctifying grace. The last thing you want to be is all talk and no action.
Anyway, Jesus is assuring us that hell will not be able to defend itself against Holy Mother Church, not the other way around. When properly examined in this context, we see that this is also a prophetic statement for when Jesus descends into hell after the crucifixion. That is, if you believe that miracles and divinity are real.

Putting the cart before the horse there user and assuming validity comes from men not God. But Ill stop posting because I realise I might be ruining the thread

You're correct in the idea that the Church is the one in assault against the gates of hell rather than the other way around, which is a common misunderstanding.

The principle still applies, however, since Christ's prophecy cannot happen if the Church were to go eventually away, which will happen to the sedevacantist Church since another Pope/new cardinals cannot be elected. It also goes against the principle of indefectability taught in Vatican I (although I'm not sure you were arguing for this, perhaps you were just confused regarding my reading of Matt. 16:18)

No one said you had to go along with Church error, and there is no doubt that error is being taught in an unofficial form. The issue is schism and a lack of faith in Christ's promise. The fact that Peter was rebuked by Paul even lends evidence against the claim that the Pope can't be in error.

It doesn't come from the clergy, but Christ taught that his Church would prevail. Most sedevacantists believe in a strict interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and it would seem misleading for Christ to establish a Church that would suddenly defect from itself and leave the 1 billion Catholics of the world (the majority of which have never even heard of the sedevacantism) outside of it.

I claim the new and the old are the same Church, unbroken in lineage.

Sedevacantism is heresy, I trust in the very Church founded by Christ himself. Heretics also go to hell, doesn't seem worthwhile to embrace it IMO. More like commenting on your interpretation of this verse.

It probably was, but the thing is that Christ has given the Holy Spirit to Rome. There have been bad popes, and good ones, but the Church's dogma have always stood.

I hate Vatican II, and I hate modernism above anything else. I considered becoming sedevacantist, like you are. The thing I realized is that despite my misgivings, Vatican II is an Ecumenical council. It requires belief by all faithful Catholics and mental assent intrinsically. Becoming a sedevacantist is essentially me saying I, of my own judgement, declare a council to be null and void because I do not like it. This makes me no better than a Protestant, who picks and chooses councils to believe. Picking and choosing what you believe is the literal definition of heresy, in Greek.

We have to trust that Rome will never fall into doctrinal/dogmatic error. If it ever does, if Rome falls, we can know that Christianity is a false religion because it makes Jesus a liar.

From what I understand Vatican II is not binding in the way that the first Vatican council was.
There has been a lot of discussion of error in this thread regarding Vatican II, but little substantial evidence of heresy or incorrect teachings. What specifically are your problems with the council? It seems like a number of people just dismiss it as "modernist" without any serious understanding of it.

Do any anons have any good books/videos on the Catholic/Orthodox debate? Particularly ones that arent just a new convert ragging on surface issues

The Catholic Church has been error for a long time though. The popes temporal authority is quite overblown out of the spirit of the original church, which orthodoxy maintains.

The differences that keep the churches separate are pretty easy to understand. Orthodox reject papal temporal authority. He is still the primate of the church, but not the tyrant of the church as the position has developed into (though modern popes haven't been too bad about it)
There are many other issues which have caused tension including filioque, leavened versus unleavened bread, and hesychasm

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

t. Vatican I
/thread

>The differences that keep the churches separate are pretty easy to understand.

I know the claimed difference. I was asking for actual debates and books that go into these arguments in depth. Not just the whole "no you misunderstood this passage/church father"

Why does Catholicism trigger libfag atheists so much?

>Catholic Church dogmatically declares heresy (papal infallibility, etc.) at Vatican I
>Falls to liberalism and all other manner of heresy over the next few decades

Makes you think

Papal infallibility ex cathedra*
There's a huge difference there, even though I don't believe in it mself

That's what's normally meant by the phrase. Regardless the text posted here is heretical.

Orthodox don't really debate. Most Catholic sources will either be overly simplistic apologetics material intended to deceive you or historically honest works written by Catholic scholars that will admit it's all bullshit. Take your pick.

Okay, it's actually starting to genuinely annoy me when people act like the Catholic Church, which still has in its catechism that gay sex sends you to Hell, has somehow become "liberal."

>Orthodox don't really debate
Is that a doctrinal/dogma thing?

>Most Catholic sources
And what of the Orthodox sources?

>Take your pick.
Do you have books and materials that prove these assertions?

All I see is each side do so far is accusing the other or misrepresenting history/a church figure adding a few cherry picked quotes and calling it a day.

>We allow our clergy and laity to openly promote homosexuality without any discipline, but we have it on paper somewhere that it's wrong, so it's okay we aren't liberal.

You could try The Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff.

because they realised its more humane to promote homosexuality than culling births like the chinese. gays are our population relief, we should be thankful they exist. i would rather have a man flirt with me than have the state go around sterilising people.

Thanks, what has your experience been with him as an author?

the state sterilizing people is the only true answer to overpopulation, might as well get used to the idea desu

>without any discipline

Clerics have been disciplined in the past.

Honestly I just find a lot of Orthodox-supporting posters on Veeky Forums disingenuous. They all stink to me of being former Protestants or atheists who are tired of their old theological positions but can't let go of their taught hatred of the Church. That's why every time there's an intense debate between East and West it always winds up with the Easterners abandoning the argument for insults. We are perfectly willing to debate, but not to have our Church insulted, especially when it's always them doing it to us rather than the other way around.

>We are perfectly willing to debate

I am orthodox because I believe the Orthodox Church as a whole has the best views on scripture and tradition. I would be Catholic if it weren't for papal temporal authority, but then if that weren't a problem the catholic and Orthodox Church would be in communion

what purpose did Christ give Peter the keys to heaven for if not to bind people to teachings?

That doesn't require the temporal power the papacy developed, and I think the orthodox view of papal primacy is more consistent with scripture.
The Catholic and orthodox churches are far more similar than they are different though and I hope reconciliation happens sooner than later.

I suppose I would say, in response to this, that the "temporal power" of the papacy that you take issue with has never been as great as it's been purported to be. Insofar as the papacy has had any secular power, it's been in an advisory capacity, a counseling capacity. The ultimate goal of the pope is to spread the Gospel and encourage all people to live as faithful Christians. I don't necessarily see what's wrong with the exercise of power, on occasion, in the service of those goals, keeping in mind that such power is, again, almost always purely advisory.

For that matter, until the fall of Constantinople the head of the Orthodox Church was the emperor. That's literal mingling of religious and secular power.

I am a normie conservative catholic who goes to latin mass once or twice a year. Currently reading Faith and Fraternalism about the knights of columbus

to convert to catholism you have to go though the RCIA Catholicism classes and that can take like 6 or 7 months. way easier to go to some random prod church and get baptised ASAP

Inst Orthodoxy like that as well?

What was painful or difficult about the classes?

If George Costanza can convert to Greek Orthadox just to get his dick wet, you can too.

they are not too difficult but there is a big time commitment and delayed gratification. Hey you want to be catholic? show up at tuesdays at 7 for an hour for the next 5 months until easter

NON-CATHOLIC DETECTED
>apostolic succession doesn't count man, it's all about my ~feelings~

I am pretty sure that converting to Christianity purely as a means to an end is a pretty heinous sin, and if the Christians turn out to be right you'll roast in Hell for eternity for it.

>Sedevacantist

Just join an SSPX parish you autist

>Mt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

>Mt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In Mt. 16 the power of the keys (binding and loosing) is given to Peter. In Mt. 18 the power is also given to all of the apostles. Note the change in pronoun. In Mt. 16 the keys are given to "thee" (singular), whereas in Mt. 18 the keys are given to "you" (plural). Christ is speaking to more than one person.

>I want to convert to the one true faith but I can't make the effort of taking easy classes that will explain it further to me
lmao

On the Errors of the Greeks by Thomas Aquinas.

naive

No, not this.
The sources Aquinas used to write this are dubious, and that is being generous.

But for real, why join a church if you fundamentally disagree with the leadership?

Are there Pius brothers in your area?

"Almost all" is an extreme overstatement. Some, and those aren't dubious for the most part, more likely they are genuine but lost. Athanasius isn't exactly obscure and he's his main point of reference alongside Augustine. They alone are 60-70% of the total references and we have those still.

because i like the church and im not going to let a few fellow and fallible men ruin it for me. if you unironically force yourself to agree with every word from the pontiffs mouth reevaluate your life

The Church in its foundations and teachings has only slowly evolved over time, and it's done so in an entirely orthodox way, as one might find after reading John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." The particular sayings of a particular pope are, for good reason, not taken as true. If that were the case we'd have been in trouble when, supposedly, Alexander VI espoused actual atheism.

And really, if the Church can survive Alexander VI it can sure as hell survive Francis.

This. I will only leave the church if they do something obviously heretical like allowing fag marriage.

What book is this again?
That's that I thought.

The Book

No, Orthodox theology is just way more sound.

It's rather the Catholics who assume every point of contention that the Orthodox have must be centered on the question of the Pope, when really its minor compared to Orthodox's brilliantly simple yet profound theology that never has to resort to mental gymnastics yet remains absolutely immune to critiques of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Orthodox theology not only evades all modern problems posed by atheists and by Luther but it can be understood by all and would probably convert a lot of Protestants and Catholics if only they knew about the teachings.

I mean, their conception of the after-life is a lot better than Catholicism. Putting purgatory in this life makes more sense. With Catholicism you need to believe in weird things Augustine said that to me at least are obviously wrong and too rational and already too modernist.

Catholic theology is way too much mental gymnastics and if one thing is wrong then it all falls apart.

Could you remind me why Protestantism is bad again?

t. Lutheran

American Protestantism is p digust t b h

t. person who never read actual philosophy

>vel
hilarious

That's it? That's your fucking argument?

In many ways I respect Protestants more than Catholics because a lot of Protestants refuse to mix their religion with liberalism, unlike nearly all western Catholics.

fpbp as usual

Swedish Lutheranism is also a lot closer to Catholicism compared with English Protestantism. Here's a short video of a Swedish Lutheran mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=6s2xPTCsSg8

It's only the Americans and some Irish who do the little white collar and black clothes for their priests.

Is there anything more annoying than larper Orthodox posters, honestly?

OK, Pinky, calm down.

Very nice. Good to see not all Scandis have gone full neo-pagan.

Us Danes also primarily use the white collar and black clothes, except for the most important holidays. Its a shame