Thinking about this shit gives me a massive fucking headache. I grew up in a mixed-faith family, so I have experience with both of these churches. Both of them have good arguments in favor of being the True Church™, both of them have good theology, but only one of them can be correct, and if I pick the wrong one I'm an apostate. What is an autist like me, burdened with this cursed knowledge, to do?
>become protestant
I don't see how sola scriptura is possible when the first Christians didn't even have scripture. Or how the teachings of scripture can be sufficient when there are 6 gorillion mutually contradictory denominations.
>stop believing in fairy tales christcuck
I wish it were that simple, but I know God too well to deny Him.
>Well you see, Jehova
Fuck off JWanon this thread isn't for you.
>both of them have good arguments
false
>both of them have good theology
false
>I know God
no you don't
Pray on it
I do so all the time, but I still have my doubts one way or the other. I know that prayer cannot hurt, but at some point I need to make a choice.
Christianism starts with Paul, before Paul, before scripture, that's Islam.Christianity is inovation, and all inovation is bad.
So either you can continue to follow that demonic path of Paul, regardless if it's catholic, orthodox or Mormon or you can return to the proper path, that Abraham, Moses and Jesus also followed: Islam. Submission to the will of God.
No religion named after a human being can be be truthful or have the best intention to your. The proof how demonic christianity is, lies in it's name.
Begone, shitskin!
No, you begone you americanized homosexual
The Holy See has the Pope. Everything else is cope. Simple as.
Fake popes since 1958.
welcome to Sedevacantism
The Pope is the 4th person of the trinity
papal seat is antichrist power
If you deny the divinity of the Pope you will not be saved.
"Hersey" simply fuels the Pope's divinity
whatever he does, is divine by definition
Sedevacantist. Then you get the Catholic doctrine without heretical stuff in Orthodoxy like Palamism and without the errors of Vatican 2.
Sedevacantism just seems like a cope to me. There have been antipopes in the past, but there was never *only* an antipope as the sedevacantists claim is the case presently. Even entertaining this idea, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which the See of Peter is once again "occupied" given the state of the Vatican, or how anyone would even be able to tell the difference. There are just too many logical holes.
Most Holy Family Monastery doesn't claim that Francis is the only antipope. They claim we've had only antipopes since Vatican 2, that heresy crept in the church during the 1800s, and that we've had antipopes before Vatican 2. They claim the seat of Peter won't be occupied again because in the end times, the Vatican will be the whore of Babylon and the beast and they are the remnant church, the chosen people, and Israel of the new covenant.
You're not supposed to say St. Pope Pius is divine.
God as man is an antichrist doctrine so says Most Holy Family Monastery.
Pic related is heresy
The Pope, as the successor of Jesus Christ, is the physical incarnation of God on Earth.
I'm not JW. I'm Sedevacantist. JWs are heretics who deny that Jesus is Lord and savior.
Sedeprivationism is the only correct position. Sedevacantists will burn.
The current Vatican is the end times beast.
I don't trust any sedes who aren't 60+ year old Italian men. You're a former agnostic who decided to ride the LARP train because being an ordinary Catholic isn't special enough for you.
>Everyone is agnostic just because you are
I've always been Catholic.
No I don't. They're considered heretical.
I've been Catholic, Protestant, and Sedevacantist. Now what?
You feel guilty for being protestant so you doubled down on your Catholicism. You can keep being a sede, it's an alright position even though I think it's a little corny, but you have nothing to prove to the outside world. Mistakes happen
I believe a lot of what the Dimond brothers say make sense. If God is truly in control, invincible ignorance saving is not a thing because a sovereign God would bring his chosen the message using a missionary or angel.
Fair enough. If that's what you want to believe, go for it.
Then you don't trust the Dimond brothers.
the pope isn't even real
Papal primacy being warped into papal supremacy was politically motivated and essentially the Latin clergy resisting to the Byzantine Emperors, and achieving temporal power as well as spiritual power.
Rome was not the first patriachate to be established, and delegated no additional roles when it was created, it being considered first among equals was only due to the city being the imperial capital at the time. It wasn't even the first established by Peter.
The Great Schism was primarily a dispute over jurisdiction, with the only notable theological difference being the filioque and purgatory at the time. The Emperor being considered the Viceroy of Christ and therefore the head of the church was an afront to the Pope's near total control of the West.
Orthodoxy makes more sense personally for me, considering how Catholicism only went on to further differences later on with such things as papal infallibility.
My main thing is how much more corrupt and degenerate the orthodox were historically. For all of the stupid shit the papacy did, the westerners were the ones who spread Christianity all over the place. And the worst debauchery in the papal court still wasn’t comparable to what was going on in the Byzantine palaces (and the patriarchs were naturally puppets of whatever emperor usurped his way into power and blinded his opponents). Also their whole pederastic eunuch culture is despicable.
>My main thing is how much more corrupt and degenerate the orthodox were
I disagree, the Catholic Church to me seems far more tainted when you have the likes of the Bad Popes to compare with, and more.
>westerners were the ones who spread Christianity all over the place
This wasn't done by the church, but by Catholic states like Portugal, Spain, and France legitimising their imperial ambitions under the name of Catholic Christianity. And by that means, you could apply the same logic to Russia during their Conquest of Siberia.
>wasn’t comparable to what was going on in the Byzantine palaces
This is a gross simplification and exaggeration of the worst excesses of Byzantine intrigue, not every single emperor was a usurper, not every one had their rivals blinded, and many times patriachs took stances in opposition to emperors despite typically being appointed with their consent.
>whole pederastic eunuch culture
Cunt what? Eunuch have nothing to do with theology or the church. And if you're concerned with pederastic eunuchs, the Catholic laity are certainly regarded as pederastic and are practically eunuchs.
If these are your main concerns, then they're all incredibly superficial and have nothing to do with theology, which should be the only concern when considering your salvation. Look at the churches themselves if you're concerned about corruption. Catholics had paid indulgences, Orthodox did not. You gripe at, frankly misconceptions, of the Byzantine Empire, but shy away as to how the Papacy gained its temporal power with such fraud as the Donation of Constantine, and justified it with claims of papal supremacy as Christ's Vicar.
If you're concerned only about aesthetics, outward appearances, and historic reputations, then you're missing the point of faith. Just because man is corruptable, regardless of denomination or faith, does not mean their flaws should undermine your faith. The Pharisees were concerned with appearance more than God.
>This wasn't done by the church, but by Catholic states like Portugal, Spain, and France legitimising their imperial ambitions under the name of Catholic Christianity. And by that means, you could apply the same logic to Russia during their Conquest of Siberia.
It literally was done by the Church. The thing is there were much, much fewer Siberians who converted to Christianity as a result of the Orthodox compared to the massive amount of people who converted as a result of the Catholics.
>This is a gross simplification and exaggeration of the worst excesses of Byzantine intrigue, not every single emperor was a usurper, not every one had their rivals blinded, and many times patriachs took stances in opposition to emperors despite typically being appointed with their consent.
The patriarchs seldom ever opposed whoever was emperor, when they did it was generally became he made some pact with the papacy. Likewise, patriarchs fought each other under the Ottomans in order to win over the favor of the Turks. The Orthodox Church has far more often been the slave of despicable tyrants.
>Cunt what? Eunuch have nothing to do with theology or the church. And if you're concerned with pederastic eunuchs, the Catholic laity are certainly regarded as pederastic and are practically eunuchs.
Deflection. The Byzantines, who are the foundation of Orthodox Christianity and who were among the only Orthodox for many centuries, castrated their own children in order to get better positions in the government. Byzantine literature attests to the lust felt towards eunuchs. The Latin West did not have the widespread castration of young boys nor the sexualization of their mutilated genitalia.
I don't know if you are a western convert to Orthodoxy or something, but I would encourage you to look into the history and culture of these people you venerate some more. And again, I'm not Catholic. But it does seem that the western Christians were better than the Greek Christians.
*because he
>It literally was done by the Church. The thing is there were much, much fewer Siberians who converted to Christianity as a result of the Orthodox compared to the massive amount of people who converted as a result of the Catholics.
There were also much fewer Siberians total, and orders like the Jesuits who eventually the Catholic Church purged.
>The Orthodox Church has far more often been the slave of despicable tyrants.
I won't argue that the Orthodox Church has not been intertwinned with the various states which it existed in, with many calling it caesaropapist despite this never officially being a policy. Your point is fair. All I can say I suppose is render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and unto God, what's God's.
>Deflection.
Irrelevant to the main point, and if we're going down this path, Latins did the same to sing in the fucking choir, see castrati; and have the current taint of child abuse. Moreover, you're thinking of China where families did that, Byzantine eunuchs were slaves.
> But it does seem that the western Christians were better than the Greek Christians.
I was born Orthodox, and am aware of bias, but have done my best to expand my worldview too. I would encourage you to focus on religion when determining your faith and not the sins of men in the name of religion. If you are swayed by Catholic theological justifcations, then by all means, but if you're going off of historical happenstance, then I see this as a poor foundation.
>nonsensical theological concepts
How can the nature of God and the Trinity be nonsensical? Do you reject the councils too?
>There were also much fewer Siberians total, and orders like the Jesuits who eventually the Catholic Church purged.
And? The Orthodox converted much, much fewer people. This is largely because they were more lazy with the faith.
>Irrelevant to the main point, and if we're going down this path, Latins did the same to sing in the fucking choir, see castrati; and have the current taint of child abuse. Moreover, you're thinking of China where families did that, Byzantine eunuchs were slaves.
I'm aware of the castrati. This happened on an infinitely smaller scale. And no actually, freemen and even aristocrats castrated their children. I'd advise you to read on the matter.
>I was born Orthodox, and am aware of bias, but have done my best to expand my worldview too. I would encourage you to focus on religion when determining your faith and not the sins of men in the name of religion. If you are swayed by Catholic theological justifcations, then by all means, but if you're going off of historical happenstance, then I see this as a poor foundation.
I'm going off theology, but religion does not exist as a void. Orthodoxy as we know it is borne out of the Byzantine Empire, this is an unavoidable fact. I don't see how you can separate Orthodoxy from its history. I've exposed myself to many different religions and their justifications.
>How can the nature of God and the Trinity be nonsensical? Do you reject the councils too?
I'm a Trinitarian. I agree with the seven ecumenical councils in terms of theology, as far as canons are concerned I don't see them as being particularly relevant. Things that I do reject include tollhouses, I also don't see how you can claim to have unbroken apostolic succession with Orthodox bishops. And I don't see the point of energy essence distinction. Just to name a few.
>And? The Orthodox converted much, much fewer people. This is largely because they were more lazy with the faith.
you do realize numbers of converts isn't a litmus test on truth right?
I do realize it, but when I see one people being far more pious than the other, who are comparably spiritually lazy and who are considerably more degenerate, it makes one think.
no it has nothing to do with the truth of God's church
And what is the exclusive truth of the Orthodox Church? Please tell me. And it would seem disingenuous to discount the practices of "God's Church" for a thousand years and to claim all of the silly things weren't "real orthodoxy."
>And what is the exclusive truth of the Orthodox Church
It was started by God
Sorry gigachad memes converted me to Manichaenism
well the evil naturally hate the good
explains your whiny attitude
/thread
Yes I am le evil for not blindly submitting to a church and larping as such. If you post more gigachad memes, I'm sure you will eventually retake Constantinople and the entire world will begome ordodog.
/thread
>presented with God's Church
>rejects it with no ability to make an argument
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter
I already stated my possession. Their concepts of apostolic succession and tollhouses are unbelievable. Moreover, if you would ever study history, it would become abundantly clear that this is not the infallible "Church of God." To call evil good and good evil would be precisely to cling to X people and justify all of their very obviously sinful actions under the guise of piety.
>I already stated my possession. Their concepts of apostolic succession and tollhouses are unbelievable
you not being able to understand something is not an argument
>Moreover, if you would ever study history, it would become abundantly clear that this is not the infallible "Church of God.
If you actually studied history you'd see it is God's church
>To call evil good and good evil would be precisely to cling to X people and justify all of their very obviously sinful actions under the guise of piety.
yes that is you calling God's church evil
Have you ever read any books on Byzantium? Or have you gotten all of your knowledge on history from Reddit and Discord?
no argument?
It's a simple question
you're free to make an argument at any point
I already stated my positions, you can refute them if you wish. Are you that 14 year old American Chinese Byzantine LARPer by the way?
for the third time you're free to make an argument.
You should move to Russia and have a big based Orthodox family there with redpilled village batushkas. It's very tradpilled.
I made you seethe to the point you can't make an argument lmao
Not seething at all, you're entertaining. Tell me about how Turkey will invade Greece, how Russia will retake Constantinople for Greece, and how 1/3 of the Turks will die 1/3 will be expelled and 1/3 will convert and begome Greek.
has nothing to do with the truth of the Orthodox church
>Theophylaktos, in his Defense of Eunuchs, identifies two kinds of castration: one, performed after puberty, which he holds to be akin to murder and an act against nature; castration "arranged for a young child by a concerned parent who is helping that child to fulfil God's plan for his life' is regarded, in contrast, positively."
What about trannies?
based anti trannydox
Sorry Alexios God has planned for you to be a tranny 😉
glad it makes you seethe so hard
I do personally think that amputating the genitals from prepubescent boys is wrong, but maybe that's just me.
ok? cry about it i guess
I haven't cried about it, but I do hope that the practice will end in modern America as well.
ok schizo
>The Orthodox Church has far more often been the slave of despicable tyrants.
As opposed to the Catholic Church, where the leaders of the church are the despicable tyrants.
>As opposed to the Catholic Church, where the leaders of the church are the despicable tyrants.
Again, I'm not Catholic. But there are far more redeemable popes it seems, who genuinely did a lot of good for the world, compared to emperors and their puppets. And in terms of temporal power, the papacy was impotent for much of its history.
Also the Renaissance Italians got the degeneracy of the castrati from the Greeks
>But there are far more redeemable popes it seems
It seems how? All the medieval popes were effectively royalty and participated in a fuck ton of debauchery just like the emperors of the time. The modern and early modern popes were better in terms of not being completely irredeemable scumbags, but you could say the same about the Orthodox clergy.
>It seems how? All the medieval popes were effectively royalty and participated in a fuck ton of debauchery just like the emperors of the time. The modern and early modern popes were better in terms of not being completely irredeemable scumbags, but you could say the same about the Orthodox clergy.
Read about medieval history. The thing with the Orthodox clergy is they were comparably irrelevant, as they were slavishly bound to the state. Or in the case of places such as Russia, were often just extensions of Byzantium (for the entirety of the Kievan Rus, the high clergy was dominated by Greeks with very few Slavs).
Instead of having an obvious distinction between the clergy and the secular rulers like in Orthodox nations, the medieval latin church was a unique fusion. The papacy played an active role in medieval history but this role was entirely political. When the papacy wasn't ruling directly it was acting as a mediator between European kings. This would be fine if it didn't cause them to fundamentally alter their doctrine for the sake of power politics. It's no coincidence that the doctrine of papal supremacy first started being defined during the medieval era.
I'd say that it's the reverse. The secular-religious distinction only exists in the west because of its lack of any centralized empire, any caesaropapism. So from the very beginning, you had the kings and you had the church. This became more solidified as the papacy grew in power to become a truly supranational entity. Meanwhile, in Byzantium, the Caliphate, and the Sassanid Empire "secular" was completely fused with divine.
My claim isn't that the Orthodox church and state were separate, but they were distinct. It was easy to tell who was the church and who was the state, even if their roles were intertwined. The Latin church was both a church and a state, but it also had to play ball with other European states loyal to its church, which is where the idea of separation of church and state comes from.
It really wasn't easy though, the emperor and tsar had privileges that only the clergy had (such as being able to enter reserved areas). The Byzantines literally viewed their emperor as the chosen vicar of Christ and that as such, he was the universal ruler of the entire world. They also thought that their empire would last until the Apocalypse, so it was pretty disappointing when it actually wasn't the case.
The Papacy and the Byzantine emperors did make similar universal claims; however, there is a strong person between a layperson who (for a time at least) ruled over a large area compared to an elected clerical figure who ruled (ineffectively) a tiny stretch of Italy.
The church and state was merged in the Papal States, yes. But this is such a tiny amount of the population of the West. Outside of it, there was an extremely clear distinction between the secular (under the rule of the local king/duke whoever) and the religious (under the rule of the church, who ultimately were under Rome first).
*strong difference
>the emperor and tsar had privileges that only the clergy had
The emperor as a world leader was appointed by God to his position. This does not just apply to the Byzantine emperor, but to all world leaders throughout all ages, even the non-Orthodox ones. Being an Orthodox emperor, however, he was granted special privileges willingly by the church.
>The Byzantines literally viewed their emperor as the chosen vicar of Christ and that as such, he was the universal ruler of the entire world.
That was a heretical belief back then and it sure as hell a heretical belief now.
>Outside of it, there was an extremely clear distinction between the secular (under the rule of the local king/duke whoever) and the religious (under the rule of the church)
I do not deny this, but what my assertion is is that the papacy still acted secularly. When they didn't have worldly authority they had the moral authority, and they used this to benefit themselves.
>The emperor as a world leader was appointed by God to his position. This does not just apply to the Byzantine emperor, but to all world leaders throughout all ages, even the non-Orthodox ones. Being an Orthodox emperor, however, he was granted special privileges willingly by the church.
The divine nature and importance of the Byzantine emperor and tsar was unique to their peoples. I'm not talking about divine right in general.
>That was a heretical belief back then and it sure as hell a heretical belief now.
Well that's how it was back then. But religions change over time to deal with whatever the current political reality is.
>I do not deny this, but what my assertion is is that the papacy still acted secularly. When they didn't have worldly authority they had the moral authority, and they used this to benefit themselves.
And you don't think the Orthodox Church acted corruptly and used power to benefit themselves (especially in areas without a strong central power, such as Bulgaria and Russia with the Strigolniki, Bogomils, and Judaizers)? And you don't think that emperors used the church to justify whatever horseshit they were doing? This is something inherent to institutions.
>And you don't think the Orthodox Church acted corruptly and used power to benefit themselves?
I would never claim such a thing, but I am disputing the idea that the Latin church was somehow 'better' in this regard compared to the Orthodox churches.
I see, my main argument is basically what I've already said. Different cultural norms and more fruits for their actions.
>would you serve in heaven, or rule in hell?
God is the epitome and ultimate standard of the objective truth. To delude myself into defending the abhorrent, to force myself to give a shit about these patriarchs and believe in nonsensical theological concepts, would be going against this.
I’m ex-Orthodox (often went to church baptized in Russia as a baby) and I don’t adhere to any one denomination. I don’t believe in sola scriptura either and in theology I agree with the Orthodox Church on the vast majority of things, it’s just that I cannot possibly believe in its exclusivity, it’s history isn’t very good, and it has a few dumb beliefs. And I feel nothing bad at all against the orthodox churches, it’s rituals, etc. Just focus on Christ and you’ll get there Anon. God is omnipotent, he’s sovereign, and he loves you and feels joy when he sees sinners repent from their self-destruction and return to him.
Reddit cringe
Seethe
cope
Traditional Catholicism is the answer and will always be.
>traditional catholicism
no such thing
t. monkeydox
cope
You're literally brown
Do you think racism is compatible with tradcathism?
There's no racism here. Just an observation
Cope. The teachings of tradcathery are to be actively anti-racist.
Your pope literally hates traditionalists and wants you to eat the bugs
You must pick the universal, i.e. Catholic, religion
Orthodoxy is ethnic. Kinda lame
>universal
you misunderstand me. Catholicism has a hierarchical structure; Orthodoxy is autocephalous—a bunch of Greek/Russian ethnic tribes
>Open Bible
>ctrl+f: "Pope"
>0 results
>Open bible
>ctrl+f: "jesus is god"
>0 results
>Orthodoxy is autocephalous—a bunch of Greek/Russian ethnic tribes
They are still considered one church. Only amongst the diaspora is there this reputation, which is otherwise viewed as the phyletic heresy. That said, even the diaspora churches welcome outsiders, no one is going to turn you away.
Except there are two tribes literally at war with each other rn.
>I wish it were that simple, but I know God too well to deny Him.
people calling your christcuck aren't telling you to not believe in a god, but that christianity (and before it judaism) is a meme larp from antiquity
The Orthodox Church has Brother Nathanael so it's Orthodox for me. I don't see any Catholics with the exception of E Michael Jones going after israelites.
>basing your religion on political figures
cringe
JW > catholicism > orthoLARP
Neither of them are the true church, not that the true church of God was ever a worldly body or organization. They're both idol worshippers too who disobey God and those who have no connection with God think they're "so religious" because of their stupid abominable traditions and rituals and idols, they're both just cults, counterfeit "Christian" cults who twist scripture
Neither are the original church. If they were, they'd agree with the original church. They don't. They are both rooted in Rome's invention to gatekeep Christianity.
This.
Only JWs are the original church.
Original church is in the NT.
JWs aren't in the NT and they don't obey the commandments like the church of the NT did.
>JWs aren't in the NT
?????
Yes we are. Jesus, Mary, Paul, the apostles and all the others are JWs
No, you should actually read the Bible instead of parroting your cult propaganda.
JWs are the only group on earth who follow the Bible !
one is an eastern belief with eastern values other one is a western belief with western values. one reminds me of the muslims other one doesn't. eastern one is closer to being true believers™ in my opinion.