Catholicism Vs. Orthodoxy

I may be biased, being a practicing Catholic myself, but I feel the sheer weight of history comes down on Catholicism's side. All the churches--including every Protestant sect--have had their moral failings and their turns at being filled with terrible people. But it's Rome that seems to possess both power and authority in spite of all that. It's proud and massive, yet at the same time seems constantly put-on and able to make people on both sides of its issues angry simultaneously. If you were to pick a branch of Christianity and label it the One True Church, Catholicism seems the one, based on both its teachings and its history--Scripture and Tradition, you might say.

>You're trying to copy Papist legalism

How so? All I'm doing is clarifying the possible implications that come from the claim that other churches lack ontological continuity with the original Church. (whilst of course not pigeon holing it by Saying ALL Orthodox).

For people unfamiliar with Christianity its important to understand why this ontological continuity is seen as being so important.

>Whether or not someone goes to hell, we can't know

Which is why I didn't say that Orthodox or Catholics do - even when they excommunicate someone.

What do you respond to regarding the claims made by the Orthodox having the true continuity with the early Church and its practice and dogma

there gay

I would tell them to read Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."

>Essay
>480 pages

Jokes aside what about it/ specific arguments did you find in particular to be so convincing?

You're saying that it is close to saying someone isn't saved by saying they aren't in the Body of Christ. For us, it is not close at all, and in fact we are taught to hold salvation as the default assumption for everyone but oneself. We also believe hellfire is precisely the same as the light of the Transfiguration

>Cardinal Marx criticized the Church for not being at the forefront on homosexual rights in Germany and said the Church must express regret for not acting to oppose the former law against homosexuality.

>It must be recalled, Cardinal Marx said, “that the Church has not exactly been a trailblazer as far as the rights of homosexuals are concerned.”

>“We must express our regret that we did nothing to oppose homosexuals from being prosecuted,” he continued.

lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-marx-homosexuals-deserve-an-apology-from-the-church

>“The advice to refrain from sexual acts in the new relationship not only appears unrealistic to many,” Cardinal Marx stated. “It is also questionable whether sexual actions can be judged independent of the lived context.”

>In 2014, Marx responded in an interview to the issues under consideration at the Synod of Bishops concerning the Church's treatment of people that are gay: "I have the impression that we have a lot of work to do in the theological field, not only related to the question of divorce, but also the theology of marriage. I am astonished that some can say, “Everything is clear” on this topic. Things are not clear. It is not about church doctrine being determined by modern times. It is a question of aggiornamento, to say it in a way that the people can understand, and to always adapt our doctrine to the Gospel, to theology, in order to find in a new way the sense of what Jesus said, the meaning of the tradition of the church and of theology and so on. There is a lot to do".[25] He went on to say, "Take the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives. How can I say that this has no value?" [26]

Never let anyone get between you and God, even the Church. Follow the teachings of Jesus and you will never go wrong. All that matters in the end is following the teachings of Christ with full sincerity. End of story.

Please STOP "developing" your doctrine

>Catholic parish celebrates homosexuality, sells Gay Pride t-shirts after Mass

>At a New Ways Ministry conference in November 2016, Fr. Muth proposed developing a Pre-Cana course designed specifically for gays and lesbians. He went on to say that he already meets with gay couples getting married and has directed them to “older gay couples in the parish” that can offer “the benefit of their experience.”

lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-parish-celebrates-homosexuality-sells-gay-pride-t-shirts-after-mas

>In April 2012, the election of a young gay man who was living in a registered same-sex partnership to a pastoral council in Vienna was vetoed by the parish priest. After meeting with the couple, Schönborn reinstated him. He later advised in a homily that priests must apply a pastoral approach that is "neither rigorist nor lax" in counselling Catholics who "don't live according to [God's] master plan".[38]

>Schönborn is a member of the Elijah Interfaith Institute Board of World Religious Leaders.[31]

>Elijah Interfaith Institute is a nonprofit, international, interfaith organization which was founded by Rabbi Alon Goshen-Gottstein in 1997.

>You're saying that it is close to saying someone isn't saved by saying they aren't in the Body of Christ.

Allow me to clarify then -

"Saying they cannot receive Gods Grace or valid sacraments is a close as it gets to validly saying they will go to hell"

In case you are in any further doubt Ill even state my intention of my original post.

"When discussing ontological continuity with the original Church it is flippant not to also discuss the seriousness and consequences of this"

Also nice inception icon.

>autistic screeching

>Archbishop Paglia commissioned homosexual Argentinean Ricardo Cinalli to paint the cathedral mural in 2007. Covering the entire back wall of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia, it depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.

lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-archbishops-x-rated-mural-reveals-an-indiscreet-sex-happy-manp

The archbishop was later appointed by Francis to head the Pontifical Academy for Life

Not that user you are responding to what do these news articles have to do with Newman's Essay?

Catholics believe that they too have apostolic succession. I don't know if the opposite is true.

Even the shitty anglican church believes in the apostolic succession. The real debate among Catholics and Orthodox is one of rite and practices.

The Orthodox Church is literally, ontologically Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23)

>Saying they cannot receive Gods Grace
We say no such thing. You literally cannot even exist without grace

Newman's essay is about how doctrine changes over time. This theory, now popular among Catholics but rejected by Orthodox, is the primary basis of the lobby for okaying homosexual relations in Catholicism

>The real debate among Catholics and Orthodox is one of rite and practices.
That's wrong, Catholics have Eastern rite and Orthodox have Western rite (looks like Medieval Catholicism )

nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst." Luke 17:21

Aye, literally "among you"--the Kingdom of God is the Church. But "within you" is an equally valird reading (or translation), since we are icons (image or reflection) of God. To see God, you must look inward and observe him through reflection of his light, which becomes brighter as you become holier and purified of the sinful dirt

Vatican II proved that the Catholicism is a false religion. The Pope together with pretty much every bishop in the world taught moral error which contradicted past binding teachings, which was supposed to be impossible because of the protection from error accorded by the Holy Ghost.

I really don't see how this can be unclear to anyone. Orthodoxy is the true religion of Christ.

>We say no such thing. You literally cannot even exist without grace

Just basing it off of these articles

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

>his theory, now popular among Catholics but rejected by Orthodox

What about when it comes to contraception?

V2 is slowly being undone though. Many churches in my country are reverting to full Latin mass

Anyone here read this?

I picked up a copy on the cheap recently, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Why does one have eastern and one western? Shouldn't the orthodox have eastern rites since they are geographically to the east?

Condoms weren't a method of contraceptive for most of history, the only kinds could work as abortifacients. Coitus interruptus wasn't considered a sin in the east , though, and we equate condoms with that.

Vatican 2 can be interpreted in light of Tradition--or it can not be. As states, the idea that it's a break from the past is a strange relic of the 1960s, and nowadays that view is probably in the minority. This minority unfortunately includes Francis and some of his more influential bishops, but most of them are in their 80s. Their time is almost up.

There are Orthodox in the West as well. French and Celtic Orthodox rites, for instance.

if the church wants us to have more kids how about making it possible to get a living wage job without a phd from yale

Wages are a lot higher now than in ancient times in terms of what you can buy. Major difference is kids are no longer a retirement plan

the church needs to set up a venture capital fund so catholics can succeed in capitalism, the jews have tons of capital available for their people, and protestants also have opportunities, but if you're catholic your best bet is probably pitching to some chinese mother fuckers, but even that's a long shot

We're working on the whole capitalism thing, user. Give us a few decades, it took almost a century to topple communism.

Both are bastardisations of what Jesus actually taught.

>Dmitri Lubomudrov, the Orthodox Church’s legal adviser told the media at that time, “We realized we couldn’t stay dependent on the Western financial system, but must develop our own. As with the Islamic system, the Orthodox one will be based not just on legislation, but on Orthodox morality as well, and will be an invitation to businessmen seeking security at a time of crisis.” Among its features would be interest-free credit issuance and prohibition of investment in gambling casinos or such activities going against Church moral values.

The system would take Russia off the IMF

globalresearch.ca/interest-free-banking-russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/5495331

>that necklace

god damn he must do massive crit damage

Which you know best about

Bold comment friend. I'm with you so far but I hope you're not a crazy person.

ok, so what did jesus actually teach

This thread makes me sad. Let the church breathe with both lungs :(

As soon as the Schism is healed, it will. I have hope and faith for the Third Council of Nicaea.

We don't consider Rome to be a lung of our Church. The Pope who said that kissed the Quran anyway, we don't want any part of that.

With the Copts, on the other hand, we might actually repair the schism. That's because they haven't changed since the schism, but Rome has. A lot. If Bede and Augustine were here today, they'd be Orthodox

There won't be one. Bulgaria literally boycotted Crete for referring to Rome as a church (as opposed to just heretics). The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't have any special authority, he just is the chairman

ayyyy this outfit is fucking fire

>Bulgaria literally boycotted Crete
By that I mean the church and the council, respectively

All you Orthodox ever do on this site is bitch about the Vatican. Over and over. All the Orthodox Sees ever did was bitch about Rome, for a thousand years. Meanwhile we went out and evangelized the world. We actually did what Christ asked and brought the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. You stuck around in the Slavic world and now your Church is merely a cultural artifact.

>Meanwhile we went out and evangelized the world.
>we

I bet you've never evangelized a single person in your entire life.

Can the church nut out of both balls and through its huge protestant dick?

I actually have proclaimed the truth of Catholicism to people IRL, sometimes in heated debates. And that's to say nothing of all the evangelizing I've done online. I do a lot of evangelizing on this very site, for that matter.

Catholicism has a lot of pagan influences in their dogma. The existence of a place cold Purgatory would be one of them. If you read the book of Apocalypse properly, you would find out that the souls are resting until Jesus will come for their final judgement. This is not the case with catholicism, because they come from a pagan environment, they would never accept the thing that the souls do not go anywhere after death. That is why they even have a Purgatory, a celtic influence, to give souls a chance. When Jesus will come, the Purgatory will disappear too and there will be just Hell and Paradise. Constantin was right when he decided to change the capital city. Rome was impure, catholicism is impure.

His essay is about how Doctrine gets clarified and more detailed without contradicting itself.
Trinity was an unknown term for a few centuries, but now it's one of the most important terms. Children weren't baptized before, now they are. Confession was firstly not allowed, then it was a once in a lifetime and then a common sacrament and so on.

book of apocalypse is fag shit

In comparison, at least theologically and philosophically, Orthodoxy is infinitely inferior. They never could resist the Catholic claims by argument, which is why they had to resort to banning Jesuit universities and Aquinas in Ukraine and Russia, which at the time were some of the few free Orthodox countries, the rest being under Turkish control.
They also accepted the Catholic claims during the council of Florence, all except one legate did, but when they came back, being slaves to the state as they are rejected the legitimacy of the council because it would mean political submission (not that it helped them much tho, since the Turks got them anyway).
There's no figure in Orthodoxy that can compare not to Aquinas, but his commentators even.

Are those articles false?

>we equate condoms with that.
Which is why something that has been around for 150 years was only equated with that 24 years ago?

Was meant for

>Meanwhile we went out and evangelized the world
By the sword

In regard to the rest of your post

>Conversions gradually transforming Orthodox Christianity

>More than 70 percent of the roughly 75,000 Antiochian Orthodox Christians in the United States are converts. The Orthodox Church in America, with roots in Moscow and about 85,000 adherents, reports a 50 percent figure. In Greek Orthodox Christianity, by far the largest branch in the United States with almost 480,000 members, it's about 25 percent.

>"We have these ethnic titles in our names, but they refer to where our hierarchies reside," Gilbert says. "None of these [jurisdictions] believes the church is for Greeks or Russians or Serbs. It's a church for humans."

>The strength of Orthodox Christianity— also known as Eastern Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy or Greek Orthodoxy — stems from the conviction that its traditions are the same as those practiced by Jesus' original followers, the 12 apostles, and the theologians who codified those practices in their writings over the first few centuries after his death.

baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-non-greek-greek-orthodox-priest-20170624-story.html
>Children weren't baptized before, now they are. Confession was firstly not allowed, then it was a once in a lifetime and then a common sacrament and so on.

That's not actually true. Some people, mainly heretics, limited confession, but that was never a church-wide practice. And child baptism was always done. And the term Trinity is just a term, not a change in doctrine or understanding of such

Maybe I have the wrong impression but I always felt like the Orthodox churches are very interlinked with their respective countries and that it would be sort of weird for me as a Western European to attend one of those churches if I have nothing to do with the country. Catholicism always struck me as more universal in that way...

>but when they came back, being slaves to the state as they are rejected the legitimacy of the council
You do realize the state including the emperor backed the council?

We don't so much "wait", it's just that making any alteration of official position takes us a very, very long time to do, even if just in wording. We are like paranoid meth addicts when it comes to changing anything, that we believe the price we must pay to remain true to orthodoxy. If things could be quickly altered, we could too easily lose our way. A hundred years is seen as a reasonable wait

>Catholicism
Waaaaay better intellectuals. Orthodox are somewhat anti-intellectual if you ask me, and I was baptised in an Orthodox church.
>Orthodoxy
Better dogma. Much less changed than the Catholic dogma.

Take your pick.

How much of the conversion figures that get floated around are people marrying into it now that tribalism isnt that big a issue among Europeans and Arabs?

It's not weird, I tell you as a convert. Antiochian and OCA parishes are full English services in the U. S.

Your ignorance amazes me, but I guess that's why you are Orthodox.
Read the Church Fathers, chronologically.
And the Trinity isn't just a term, it includes an explanation based on adopted pagan metaphysics, that Father, Son and Spirit share a substance, but are different persons. Here substance is a key term.

You forgot the "Are the articles false?" part of the question.

>We don't so much "wait", it's just that making any alteration of official position takes us a very, very long time to do, even if just in wording.

What are some other offical positions that have changed?

The ousia/hypostasis distinction is just the distinction between species and specimen (humans also share one ousia/substance), according to the Cappadocian Fathers. Sure, Athanasius used the term "ousia" in Aristotles use, but the species/specimen distinction wasn't "discovered" by "pagan metaphysics".

We don't change any position on doctrine except in wording. We do change canons, though

>Marrying into it doesn't require conversion and conversion is probably harder

That doesn't really answer my question. I didn't say it was a requirement for marriage. I was hoping there might be actual statistics. -Even your own article says that the majority of converts are for marriage rather than people seeking Christ.

>We
Who's "we"? There is no one Orthodox church and you're a LARPing Westerner who was born in a different faith and handpicked orthodoxy when you last went religion shopping.

>We do change canons, though
What are the canons that have been changed?

I would say converts to Greek come mostly through marriage, but OCA and Antiochian for other reasons. Greeks are more ethnic, BUT people who convert for marriage in 100% of the cases I've seen, it was because they a lot of exposure to the faith through their spouse and loved it

No, I spent years as a catechumen and I practice the fasts.

Considering it was taken from the philosophy of the time, where the most important authorities were pagan and that the schools which taught many of the fathers, from Justin Martyr and Anexagoras to st. Augustine, it's pretty safe to assume they simply cartied the knowledge over, after all natural metaphysics isn't a revealed religion. Substance is different from species on the other hand and it's closer to identity than anything else, hence the persons are consubstantiental. They used terms of philosophy because it shed light and helped everyone understand the Trinity with a reason, they could and would have avoided the terminology if they didn't want to connect it with Aristote. It's not an uncommon view amongst the Fathers to compare Plato to a prophet because he prepared the way for Christ amongst the pagans.

Bishops have to be celibate for instance, not a requirement of the early church.

>Substance is different from species on the other hand and it's closer to identity than anything else
Wrong. According to the Cappadocian Fathers, it is just general category. But we say one God instead of three gods because God is acts as one (one energia/operation)--Christ says for instance he only does what the Father does.

Some fathers (you have to be saint to be one for us) found Plato useful to bring pagans to the faith. Chrysostom said he was a moron, though

>I would say converts to Greek come mostly through marriage,but OCA and Antiochian for other reasons.

Is that just anecdote or are there some statistics or records online for that kind of thing?

>it was because they a lot of exposure to the faith through their spouse and loved it

Or perhaps its just an anecdote. In my experience 100% people who Ive seen marry into the Serbian Orthodox Church tended to do it to make their wives families happy and just become another holiday christian. However I don't think it would be reasonable to make any conclusions on that alone.

Is that it?

The schism is unrepairable, Catholicism is in decline because of their doctrinally-unsound modernization, Orthodoxy doesn't have the same intellectual vain running through it that makes it truly compatible with Veeky Forums.

There's a lot of things like that. Priest celibacy, baptism of children and multiple confessions (people used to be baptized late in life and often before death so confession wasn't something you could do multiple times, it was also public), changes in terminology from primitive theology of Herma's Sheppard and Didache to complex language of Athanasius of Alexandria and Augustine, later on defining purgatory as such (they used to pray for the dead as well and Christ speaks of the purgation many will go through) and so on are 'developments' or rather clarifications of what was already implicit into what's explicit. Really people here should give John Henry Newman a try, best theologian of the 19th century. Scheeben is great as well, but it's foundational theology.

The modernisation is slowly turning around again. Heresy usually brings around a rebirth, like it was with the Arians or Protestants, and soon with the modernists. The hated manuals and scholastics that were thrown out after V2 are now slowly being reprint. 10 years ago getting a copy of Scheeben or Garrigou-Lagrange was impossible, now they are all reprint and on Archive.

It was forbidden by the canons in ancient times for priests to eat in restaurants (since gambling and prostitution were generally connected with them). We changed that. There are probably dozens of canons that have changed, I wouldn't know them all. Canons are rules that are very useful, but not taught by Christ and the Apostles and therefore subject to becoming obsolete or changed

>eople used to be baptized late in life and often before death
That was because penance was onerous and so some put off as long as ppossible to avoid it, not because of church policy against baptizing children

Orthodox pray for people in hell, not purgatory

Newman is wrong

Like the subjugation of the Jews. It is allowed, but not necessary.

>tfw Catholicism appears to be dying out in my country
>tfw I'm the youngest in church at 20 yo
>tfw nobody has the faith, not because they chose so but because they simply don't care
>tfw I've never even met another believer my age

I feel so alone

Baptism of children has been practised since the 1st-century, It was recorded in the Didache.

>multiple confessions wasn't something you could do multiple times
Multiple and frequent confessions was the norm by the 3rd century and canonized by the 5th century.

>it was also public
Not always, and In the case of mortal sins they have always been confession privately to the priest alone.

Nobody can get out of Hell and different Orthodox churches will explain why they pray for the dead differently.
You haven't read Newman. Try it. Very useful. There hasn't been such a learned theologian since. It's impressive than the 350 page essay has 100 pages of footnotes and references.

What country? younger people mostly attend FSSPX churches.

I'm well aware that it was by the 3rd century. But it wasn't the norm for the very first community and baptism of children wasn't the norm. Augustine was baptized when he was in his late teens if I remember correctly. I know it was postponed once when they realised he wasn't about to die.
Only the priest would be aware of the specific sins, but the rite would be public.

>Augustine was baptized when he was in his late teens if I remember correctly
That's because Augustine was a pagan who converted to Christianity, and even as a pagan he was unsanctimonious.

All we can do is proclaim the Gospel and remain in the Faith. We should never cease proclaiming the Gospel, but at the same time, the salvation of a person's soul is ultimately up to them. If the young people of this age don't adhere to Catholicism, that's their fault, not the Church's. Especially because so many of them have such terrible reasons for it.

>muh gay friends

He wasn't a pagan, what are you talking about?
His father was a pagan, but he also converted to Christianity due to his wife's prayer.