Converting from Baptist to Orthodox

If you get the chance, maybe also check out a Catholic parish near you: masstimes.org/

We're mostly similar to the Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics are very similar to them, but in communion with Rome.

How do you mean? Parishes tend to be apolitical compared to people like Pastor Anderson who focus on the political situation in the US.

Let me know if you have any questions about Catholicism and don't let the trolls here discourage you in your faith journey. :)

Attached: 15665397_10154900653909204_8906207988130432879_n.jpg (960x640, 102.97K)

A quick question. Is from Orthodox point of view this statement is truthful?
When it was it's another deal but since acient Church celebrates also her conception it should have been around that time, right?

Limbo exist BECAUSE we don't believe in inherited guilt. If we did there would not be Limbo but only Hell.
You have poor understanding of this doctrine. Read Aquinas.

*beaten

...

We celebrate the death of the Theotokos at the Dormition though. We celebrate both her conception and her death.
What do you mean by "confirmed in grace"?

don't listen to the memers here. pray and do not stop. visit different churches and find a nice priest. may god bless you richly lad

This, tbh.

Fuck the mods, let the Baptist speak to the Baptist about not leaving the church. If a cathodox were trying to warn a brother away from another denom, you wouldn't banstick.

It's beside the point since her death and resurrection is miraculous on their own
By it I mean that that there is nothing that could make saint fall from grace at it point.

To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed.
To deny Nicene Creed is to break rules of this board.
To break rules of this board is to merit yourself a band.

When you end reading the Galatians read them again. It's the best epistle to disprove notion of salvation by faith alone, better even if James.
You may also want to read this commentary conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/a-catholic-reading-of-galatians/

Did you call the DL yesterday?
youtu.be/DKg8AzfWJdY?t=1h34m48s

This is a concept foreign to me.
Do you believe John the Forerunner was born without original sin as well?

I made up this term. Being born unto glory might be better one.
Original sin is lack of grace. But about John the Baptist it is said "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb". So he was not born with orgianl sin. That is not to said that he was convied without it though. For he was graced during visitation.

nah.

Post it, I've been doing a lot of research lately on the modernization of protestant churches.

Is original sin lack of all grace, or only a deficiency of grace?

says the dude with the Vatican II church

generally, the Orthodoxy you read about online will be consistent with what you experience in person. Roman catholic mass can be all over the place depending on the whims of reform or liturgical paganism (particularly hispanic) influence on the parish. The fact that cathbros here have to say "just go to a latin mass church", which are a small minority of them, is an indictment in and of itself for the state of the Roman church in the USA.

Meaning what?

The Eastern Orhodox up to 3 divorces/remarriages, contraception and at one point there were churches which allowed abortions. There's no unity in the teachings in the EO Church, you have no central authority.

As someone from Eastern Europe, I witness this every day. It's really a major problem.

Attached: 8668986.jpg (404x603, 43.08K)

Oof.

What else can be said?

I hope God has you in his hands wherever you go.

I'm not Roman Catholic either. I'm extreme high church Lutheran. I've just read a lot on the EO. I took a serious look at both churches fairly recently.

What's the practical difference between a divorce and annulment and contraception and NFP (as far as intent goes)?

Deficiency would imply that humans are conceived in some kind of (original) grace. But that would mean that we are saved for grace is life eternal. But as we both know, we are saved by baptism (not to mention that we are ought to baptise children asap). So it is defeinetly lack of grace.
I am not saying that God does not give sufficent grace to all indiviudals though. I am not Calvinist to belive in predistination unto damnation.

It is indisputable fact that Catholic Church have continuity with Church of Nicea (EOC also btw). This means that it started before it. And to say that it was ALWAYS rooted in heresies means that it's councils, including nicean, was rooted in heresies.

the guy said governed, not rooted, and either way:
just because the person who says something is a lying scumbag doesn't mean they're wrong.
you can assent to the truth of the nicene creed without thinking it's authoritative in and of itself, but authoritative because it reflects the truths within scripture.

used to be me a couple months ago

God bless you OP, can't help you with any resources on the differences between the two denominations. But I'll be praying for you and your conversion.

Dumb Q: How can ROCOR and OCA both exist? Shouldn't a diocese be under only one bishop?

Sorry but this is wrong. This assumes that RCC is even the same church. So your logic is not sound and banning someone by using that logic doesn't prove it.

Similar to the whole Mary's title issue. Your logic is incorrect, and banning/harming people on the basis of your logic does not denote a proof. Might does not make right.

Like the other guy said, what's the difference between an annulment and a divorce. You really think God is like "Oh, oh, oh, it was an annulment, not a divorce!"

Remember that thread where the Baptist sperged out and said that Catholics on this board argue by thinking up the most bizarre interpretation of what you meant and then assume that you made every claim in bad faith? This post reminded me of that. How do you get from "The Catholic Church teaches heresy" to "I deny the nicene creed"? How the fuck do you get that?

They think might makes right. That's basically what a lot of this stuff ultimately boils down to. At the same time this also explains a lot of their thinking process generally, how they came to be where they are at on a lot of issues in the first place

I'm going to be perfectly honest, I'm going to become Catholic or Orthodox. However, if this board were my only interaction with Catholics, I wouldn't even consider them. It's only the fact that I know this board is very non-representational of Catholicism that keeps me considering it. If this board were painting an accurate picture of Catholics, I would be a complete anti-Catholic in every single way.
Maybe I'll became Catholic and single-handedly raise the post quality of that denomination on this board.

Anything is better than liberal progressives.

Meant to add just don't do that.

I don't hate Catholics. I'm probably going to be Catholic for the rest of my life. I'm not anti-Catholic and I don't think I'll ever become anti-Catholic. But like I say, that's because I know the portrait of Catholics I get on this board isn't accurate and doesn't represent reality

Nobody attacked the Nicene Creed, charlatan.

It's even worse than.
Heresy is by definition contrary to true. If heresy govern something, organise meeting to discuss it's beliefs, and produce creed with is by definition statement of faith (there heresy) for it's own private use then there is no logical way to it be 100% true. For Heresy (of it's creed is to be sum of core beliefes) is not truth.
Stop being intelectually dishonest.

One of it is not recognised by other patriarchates IIRC

Even the most (not all of course, human stupidity is near infinite) anti-catholic of protestants, be it mundane or historians, agree that Church of Nicea and Church of Rome is the same Church (they will insist of course that RCC fell into hersy latter on but at Nicea it was yet ok)
Chalcedonian Definition which this board use as principle, use title Theotokos. Conclusions are clear.

To repeat myself: To say that Catholic Church was always rooted in heresies is to deny Nicene Creed. It is indisputable fact that Catholic Church have continuity with Church of Nicea (EOC also btw). This means that it started before it. And to say that it was ALWAYS rooted in heresies means that it's councils, including nicean, was rooted in heresies.

It follows. To put it in analogy: If someone would say that USA was always governed by illegality and injustice then it follows that this person, willingly or not, deny that Constitution (that is, core principle and beliefes of States) is just and legal.
If CC was always governed by heresy, then it's state of belief is heretical.

Your whole understanding of the word church is wrong and your whole conception of the continuity of churches and how it works is anachronistic and simply untrue. To understand how this works, you need to go back to the Bible. Otherwise, you're just improperly using terms.

Hey mods, mind telling us why you deleted this post? I don't seem to notice it breaking any rules. Is this perhaps a pro-RCC bias in action?

Attached: Screenshot_20180208-074936.png (1080x1920, 276.68K)

I was just retyping my post this time, false positive!

Attached: brainlet.jpg (851x714, 80.25K)

Ah. Alright!

that's wrong though: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

no, the constitution could still be just and legal while the other branches of government simultaneously/always completely ignore and sidestep it while governing.

but the heresy of your church isn't that it's not following the truths expressed in the nicene creed,
it's that it's not following the truths expressed in sacred scripture.

I don't know if you're being thick on purpose or if this is really the way you think. He obviously wasn't talking about the nicene creed. His post obviously had nothing to do with the nicene creed. You are taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said, and assuming he's arguing from bad faith.
Listen. Protestantism isn't some sort of phantom religion that just does the opposite of everything Catholics do. If a Protestant says "Catholicism is wrong," they are not denying the nicene creed; because Protestants don't believe Catholicism is wrong because of the nicene creed.
Let me give you another example. The basic tenets of the Baptist faith are "the book, the blood, the blessed hope." Meaning, the Bible, the sacrifice on the cross, and the hope of salvation from Christ. If you say "Baptists are wrong," are you denying the Bible, the cross, and salvation; or are you denying another aspect of the Baptist faith? However, if someone says Catholicism is wrong or was wrong or was always wrong, you assume the worst and make the stretch to "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" which is a massive stretch and just fucking stupid. You banned someone for no reason.

Oh I have read the Bible. And Church of the Old and New Testament is governed by lawful pastors that have continuity provided by lawful ordination my dear Core.
And if you are so sure about me being anachronistic then go and read letters of St. Ignatius and those parts of Adversus Hereises that deals with church governance

It's not fallacy my dear friend. For we don't deal with "then and now". We deal with statements, beliefs that by their very nature are not bound by time. Gnosticism was as wrong when Ireaneus wrote "Adeversus…", was wrong before Simon magus and is wrong today becuase gnostic statements are just wrong.
If heresy, which is by defintion contrary to truth, produces statement of it's belief (i.e. statement of itslef) then by it's own very nature it will be heretical.
Then the State we're not ALWAYS unjust and illegal. For core beliefs of injustice and illegimity are unjust and illegal by the virtue of their nature themselves.
And that's your opininion. But when you say it you do not say that Church was always rooted/governed by heresy. For it's core belifes (Creed) are not heretical. Thus it was as some point orthodox in proper meaning of word.

I've seen enough of anti-catholics here to know that they mean when they speak about Church. And its literally what they speak. It is worst possible interpretation and it's worse because it's genuine.
You do know that I did mention it?

Oh, and this statement "well they must deny the nicene creed, cause they said catholicism is wrong and catholics believe the nicene creed" is partialy true.
Nicene creed is sum of all Catholic beliefs (not to mention Chalcedonian definition that also is de facto part of this whole business). To say that Catholic faith always was corrupted means that sum of that corrupted faith have to be corruped as well.

Despite the Pole's semi-intelligible pidgin ravings, the ban had nothing to do with the creed. It was because of ((((((((((rule 2))))))))))))

who are you quoting?
i made no reference to past or present.
the genetic fallacy in the strawman you're propping up is basically:

No it's not. The nicene creed isn't unique to Catholics. Many people accept the nicene creed while not being Catholic. Therefore, he shouldn't have been banned for "denying the creed" just because he said Catholicism was heresy.
Also, is English your first language? There are some things you said that I didn't respond to because honestly I could piece together what you meant.

Link that you gave me, through paraphrasing
> fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
Now and then.
Except it does not account for key factor. To make it right:

His argument has merit. He is saying that if the Church has always been heretical, it could not produce a non-heretical work in any form. The creed is a product of the Church, and therefore if the Church has always been heretical the creed must also be heretical in some manner. Since the Church is, among other things, a teacher to its children, it is covered by the Lord's statement
Therefore the Church, if it was always heretical in some degree, would be incapable of bearing good fruit. Since the creed is one fruit of the church, the creed would have to be heretical.

thanks for translating.
i bet he is, that wasn't initially what the argument was though. "always governed by heresy" not "always heretical"

mormon-tier eisegesis.
that verse isn't saying it's impossible for a good person/institution to do/teach wrong, or that it's impossible for a bad person/institution to do/teach right.

i could give numerous examples of why this interpretation would be absurd, but the ones that come to mind leave a bad taste in my mouth.
i am bored with this now, it's mostly just picking nits and way off-topic, you guys win.

Except the church has multiple beliefs. If the Catholic Church only believed in the nicene creed and nothing else, your argument would have merit. As is, the Catholic Church believes in more than just the nicene creed. Therefore, saying that you disagree with the Catholic Church or saying that the Catholic Church has always been heretical isn't denying the creed. You are a liar and a false accuser

An apple is a fruit
I don't like apples

Except that Nicene Creed, be being the official creed of Church, is ALL CORE beliefs. Each and every one of truths of faiths and dogma of catholic Church can be summed up inand springs from Nicene creed (including papacy and whole of mariology) what current Catheism beautifully illustrates

So there is not a single aspect of the Catholic Church that isn’t found in the creed? What’s the point of the catechism then?

Imagine for a second this was the Herschel Lubbavich zionist board, and you made a post that the Pharisees have been wrong from the beginning, and they ban you for the reason "to deny the Pharisees is to deny Old Testament" because there is "indisputable continuity" between them and Moses.

Does this mean you should be banned? If you are denying the Nicene creed yes. To say that the Catholic Church has always been governed by heresy but to maintain the creed is maybe illogical, but not banworthy. I cited the above scripture because the argument "What if [Pharisees/scribes]" holds no merit, as they had a legitimate authority as Jesus explains.

The analogy I just gave is a better one than you give credit for, but still not perfect. It is better in the sense that Rav Lubbovich who issued the ban in the 21st century has no continuity with the scribes or Pharisees of the 1st century, just as RCC fellows who have a works gospel have no continuity with any early church; in both cases only a presumed one in their mind and it is very much so disputable. While the continuity of the scribes or Pharisees to the Mosaic law is actually more than in the analogous situation, making this not a perfect analogy only for the fact there was never an analogous position of authority aside from Christ Himself, the Son, under the new covenant.

So, the first and the relevant point here is that ban-issuers claimed continuity to any early church is a sham in the same sense as the medieval talmud falsely claims to come (through word of mouth) through scribes and ultimately Moses. It actually doesn't have the continuity that it claims. So the denouncing of any latter day doctrine of catholics is not tantamount to an attack on early church, and even if you ban/harm someone under the pretense it is, this link has not been proven.

Now to bring up another point here, if I were to to make a new creed by paraphrase a bunch of statements from the Nicene creed and add in a few more true facts like the fact Jesus Christ is Lord and then I ask you to affirm or deny whether my creed is true, have you then accepted my authority? If my new creed I just made from Biblical truth is true and you don't deny it, have you then accepted my authority in every thing and also the authority claims of some unrelated stranger who I never mentioned claiming to be my successor, say 50 years from now, who comes and claims supposed debts owed and the right to your land and property? This is the kind of logic being implied and resorted to currently.

I accept the entire word of God, and that is what the rules honestly should be, not just some micro-summary of a few points in it. The fact the rules say nothing this, even though it is the final authority from which the truth is derived, but instead avoids this, should already tell you something peculiar is going on with whoever wrote those rules.

Explanation of Creed. For even though notion of omnipresence and omniscience are in this short phrase "I believe in God Father Almighty" one can not see it. Or notion of papacy in phrase "I believe in One Church". Or whole of mariology in notion "he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary" etc.
Plus, beside dogma, we have both temproal and eternal law. "Thou shall not kill", celibacy etc.
We have prayers with archprayer of "Our Father" worthy to ponder about.

There is a physical succession of persons and belief all the way to the beginning. It doesn't require much effort to see. You can affirm, as I've seen some people here do, that the entire early church was wolves in sheeps clothing. You'd be wrong, but you can affirm that.
You are not a bishop, you have no authority to author a creed that speaks for the truth. Your creed may or may not be true, for example I can "author" a creed that just recites the canons of ecumenical councils. That is entirely irrelevant to whether you and I have the authority to author it. Further, a creed is true only if its contents are true, and you and I do not have the authority to declare the contents true or not.

Can you tell me the part of the nicene creed that deals with the real presence of the Eucharist? It’s a core belief of Catholics, and Baptists think it’s heresy. Can you tell me what part of the creed teaches it?

...

"I believe in one baptism for the remission of sin" is usually interpreted to implicitly contain the other sacraments, and sacramental life overall. After all, we are baptized specifically so that we can partake of the Eucharist. We confess so that we may partake of the Eucharist. And so on.

A divorce it's the ending of a valid marriage, an annulment is a declaration that an invalid marriage was not valid when it started.
If a marriage is valid nobody, even the Pope, can dissolve it (look at Henry VIII and Catherine)

Yeah, like I said, nowhere in the creed is the real presence mentioned. And the real presence is believed to be heresy by Baptists, which means if a Baptist says the Catholic Church is heresy you can’t claim they are denying the creed because the creed doesn’t mention the real presence

Ethier what said on in this two notions:
For Eucharist is nothing but representation of Calvary a true, clean sacrifice that prophet Malachi speaks about.

For all the whining about church fathers form protestants, you folks don't seem to care too much about them.
Pontius Pilate was a saint, for reference, and had nothing to do with the crucifixion.

...

It is known to be true because the Church says so.

>Pontius Pilate was a saint, for reference, and had nothing to do with the crucifixion.
Pr*testant """Theology"""

Every sentence contains both what it says and what it means, and what a sentence means can carry more than just what it says. For example the apostles Creed says only "I believe in the Holy Spirit" however the meaning of these words to the apostles and those who learned from them is not different than what the Nicene creed states "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life". Apostles creed does not call the Holy Spirit Lord but it doubtlessly contains exactly that meaning in those words.

Oh you're right. He tried to stall it actually, until he threw his hands up and let the rioting jews have their fun.
I'll tell you what, if there was a riot in your house you'd bend your arms around for them, and then you'd have to apologize for being a hypocrite and insulting Pilate.

So he did have a role to play?
I'm not insulting Pilate, I'm stating the fact you just admitted that he had a role to play in Jesus' crucifixion.

Just to interject for a moment, the idea that Pilate is a saint is Eastern Orthodox. That's also why the user attacked you for not reading your church fathers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Veneration
Unless I'm missing something here

Its a valid statement since he tried his best not to have anything ever since his wife came over and warned him of what she heard in her dream. Any comment on that?

You mean Oriental Orthodox. There isn't much love for Pilate in the Byzantine tradition.

And what does it have to do with it?
His wife was in EOC and Ethiopia, St. Claudia. He himself was venerated in Ethipoia after schism. We have nothing to do with it.

nod an argumend :DDD

Exactly. He loved this world more than the next, so that when he had the ability to simply free Jesus, he didn't, instead freeing Barabbas in order to keep the people happy.

Pilate satisfied the crowds by sending an innocent man to death. That's not the action of a saint, although his sin was less than that of the jews because Pilate did not have the Law and the Prophets to let him know that Jesus was God.

This is a pretty "official" Orthodox position on things, as evidenced by the fact that this appears in the study notes for Matthew 15 in the Orthodox Study Bible which was assembled primarily under the auspices of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America.

I can totally understand Pilate's wife being honored.

Guess we can just burn the Gospels then, the personal revelation of God the Son in Jesus Christ is totally worthless

That's I'm outta here.

I was commenting on the italicized part, which is blatantly false.

If Pilate was in any way involved, he had a role to play. Whether he was for it or against does not change that he had a part in it, and that Christ suffered and was buried under Pilate is irrefutable. I'm NOT claiming Pilate was for it, I'm claiming Pilate was involved, which is undeniable.

Pr*testant reading comprehension.

C*tholic argumentation.

You are free to think so, but to ban other Christians that don't agree with your idea of succession is not proof of your idea of succession. Since it's nowhere in the word of God. Therefore it is highly disputable. As is your understanding of what "the church" really means.

Anyone can author a creed and anyone else has the choice to agree to it or deny it. Your misguided opinion on this is of banning people over not worthy. And it's not how the rules are to be interpreted. There is nothing special about the Nicene creed or those who wrote it. It's not God-inspired scripture. I could theoretically write an equivalent one just by paraphrasing it and it would serve the same purpose. Because the doctrine of Trinity and the other doctrines mentioned has the weight of Scripture behind it. And in fact there are many doctrines a Christian must believe that are not found in this creed but are found in Scripture, meaning it's possible to make a better creed from this if necessity demands.

Your interpretations are interesting but, is this the reason why you refuse to include any mention of the word of God or Scripture in the rules? Are there hidden meanings beneath the surface of this particular declaration that you want to assume everyone has to accept and that's why you didn't just use Scripture as the basis for the rules?

If we don't accept your hidden meanings, that means we reject the Trinity and everything else in the NC? Whoever is choosing to enforce these rules in this way is acting like a snake. The original BO certainly didn't intend to do this legalistic and deceptive stuff when he mentioned the MC in his rules. It only started being used as a legalistic stumblingblock to attack non-catholics with the current board owners. Maybe we should change it then, just go back to Scripture from which it was derived. That's what everyone must agree on and no possible funny business with the mods banning people for not being Catholic, which is what this has clearly come to at this point. And of course if questioned, their rule 2 is the "trump card" excuse for any deletion to cover their tracks so no real reason needs to be given. In reality, 90% of posts could be interpreted as breaking rule 2, so the real reason for their ban, which is clearly "not being catholic," doesn't need to be explained.

The only reason Catholics have stricter views on contraception is that they uncritically appropriated Aristotelian ideas on natural law.

As to marriage, our understanding is the Church provides the sacrament (and therefore, can exercise economy in its provision). The Catholic understanding is that the partners convey it to each other with the Church acting essentially as a witness.

Of course, one could point out to Catholics that they never had any issue with Eastern marriage economy before Trent.

...

...

underrated post.

...

hahaha

based Joe

OP, I would seriously look into pre-denominational Christianity, basically following the 1st century AD church as closely as possible. I tried looking into going full Orthodox once but I couldn't accept their traditions which flies in face of what I read in Isaiah 29:13, although I do respect every (legitimate) denomination and sect and draw something from each and every one of them, also fact that God's Word does not come back void.

So a Baptist.