Orthodox, explain yourself

fixed

And yet Augustine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, etc. are completely shunned and their theology is treated as heretical even if they themselves are saints. Which isn't a problem in itself (saints don't have to be perfect theologians) but shows the xenophobia against Latin theology that plagues the Orthodox Church. The only solid teaching is "we're definitely not like the Catholics," everything else is theologoumenon. What hypocrites.

They're the most aggressive with proselytizing and the least insular of the branches of the Church, at least here in the US. They're also very open about being Christians in their daily lives, which draws in a lot folks who feel increasingly repressed in the current cultural climate. I'd recommend anyone in the US who is interested in Orthodoxy look to them as they have the most experience with conversion here.

He has a Baphomet decoration on his trenchcoat, his parents are Orthodox but Dimitrios' personal allegiance is to Satan.

I'm Catholic btw just saiyan.

I went to two Antiochian parishes in the US. One was really, really good. The other was Western rite, it was garbage and somebody harassed my girlfriend.

It's not "xenophobia" to disagree with double procession or essence/energy or infallibility or any other western doctrine.
You're being uncharitable.

This is a rather Latin-centric way of looking at the issue. What of the Latin's xenophobia of eastern theology that plagues the Roman Church? And are you sure you really want to throw around accusations of hypocrisy? Your organization is rife with atheists wearing vestments.

"We have diverse doctrines like the Church Fathers… except the Latin fathers, what they taught was absolutely wrong and is under anathema." That is xenophobia.
In fact, the Byzantines came to embrace or at least tolerate aspects of Latin theology such as the Pope deciding what councils are ecumenical (during the 9th century iconclasm), the filioque (per Maximus the Confessor, during the monothelite controversy), original sin (again, per Maximus), but the Byzantine success with the council at Constantinople of 879-880 and the period of estrangement between East and West during the pornocracy were sufficient for the Byzantines to completely reject any bits of Latin theology. 11th-15th centuries are just the Orthodox anathematizing the Catholics without caring to know what the Latin fathers may have written, and 15th-21st centuries are just the Orthodox acknowledging what the Latin fathers taught but rejecting that it may be legite theological ideas because the Catholics already teach them.

What xenophobia of Eastern theology? Only actual differences I find with the Catholics, besides papal supremacy, are the essence-energy distinction (but it's post-schism, Catholics have no obligation to recognize it), the idea of praying people out of Hades (which isn't hard to reconcile with Purgatory), and… I believe that's it.
The three holy hierarchs are doctors of the Catholic Church, aren't they? And Fr Francis Dvornik has made Catholics like Photius.

I am Orthodox, so you are correct. I probably won't be Orthodox for much longer now.

The Catholic Church says "We are the Church of Christ, and this is what we teach and have always taught."
The Orthodox Church says "We are the Church of Christ, ask 3 bishops the same question about doctrine and you'll get 3 answers that are in contradiction, but what we can say is that we definitely don't teach what the Catholics teach."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like every group that separated from the Catholic Church.

Ok piggy, you're not getting any more pearls from me.

Attached: 1525774795305.png (239x229, 82.34K)

The school of thought that says that non-Orthodox have no sacraments or grace also says that if somebody who wasn't sacramentally baptized isn't baptized upon entering the Church, the sacrament of chrismation "covers" the baptism that wasn't done. So there's no actual fear of somebody not actually being part of the Body of Christ.
Although I've heard of Athonite monasteries rebaptizing you if you weren't originally baptized in the Orthodox Church.

Is that a charitable thing to say?

Harassed how? There are only about 20 or so of those in the US, most of them in the midwest, so I've never attended one.

The theological differences run far deeper than just that. You barely have to glance at their catechisms to see it. If Roman Catholicism still looks appealing after having read theirs, then you probably aren't equipped to even properly compare the two.

I also don't actually believe you're Orthodox, or ever were. You reek of deceit.

Telling the truth is always charitable.
If he's simply going to misrepresent the Orthodox position, especially when he should know better since he supposedly is one, and make a claim that all the Latin Fathers are anathema even when we honor them saints, then he's a pig. And we know as Christians that our Lord teaches us not to cast our pearls before these people.

...

Some weird dude kept hitting on her in the most sad way possible.
It's unfortunate, the parish is close to where she lives so she could've gone there.

Here's a couple pictures of the church if you're curious.

What are you going to say? Original sin? Most Orthodox profess it. Filioque? Like half of the Orthodox believe in it. Azymes? Be serious, now.
The real differences are of course the role of the Pope and his role's origins, the relationship between God's essence, his grace conveyed to creation, and creation itself, and whether the Latin Catholic Trinitarian schema is an acceptable expression of the faith.

I never said the Latin fathers are anathema.
However, a lot of Augustine's theology is anathema (his pneumatology and his proto-Calvinism). Similarly, Fulgentius of Ruspe's pneumatology is completely anathema.
The doctrine of papal supremacy of Leo and many other popes is also anathema, obviously.
It's perfectly fine for saints to teach things that end up being anathematized later. A saint isn't somebody who is a perfect theologian during their life, but somebody who has led a holy life and died in Christ.

Are you a sedevancatist? They're hard to take seriously.

Attached: 6.JPG (4608x3456 3.4 MB, 3.37M)

you're from an Orthodox-majority country aren't you? You're so angered by the imperfections of the Orthodox yet you probably don't know a thing about the Catholics and Protestants.
With the exception of fringe traditionalist churches, Western denominations are in decline. Go to the average post-Vatican II Catholic mass and you'll get nothing but a feel-good guitar mass that teach nothing but empty platitudes. The majority of Catholics in the West support anti-tradition progressive causes like gay "marriage" and abortion. The Catholic clergy are filled with progressives and pedophiles. Whatever you see in the Catholic Church, it's a shadow of what it once was.

It doesn't matter as someone like (you) will only slander it. One doesn't need to be Catholic to see the glaring flaws of the Church™

Besides this user covers what I would have said anyway.

Is that all Catholics?

I've only met two… strange priests, to say the least.
My issue is with every bishop and seminary teacher teaching his own flavor of Christianity, and this reflecting upon what laypeople say online.

I'm in France, and I go to Catholic Mass often since my priest lets me… Catholic Mass is perfectly fine, it's just really short compared to the Divine Liturgy. But it's really beautiful.
I only hear horror stories from America and Belgium, but there are liturgical abuses in the Orthodox Church too.

Don't surveys show that Orthodox are nearly identical to Catholics in the West in that aspect?

Their concept of "The Human Communion" and the gnostic quagmire they've made of the Trinity would be my first concern. That they slyly attempt to demote God and elevate humanity through a doctrine of "oneness of spirit" is nothing short of sacrilege. These ideas are root of their corruption and decay because taken to their extreme they are atheistic. Magisterial infallibility and the Pope are minor issues compared to this.

Please elaborate (with sources if you can). I'm not being aggressive, I just am really unsure of what you have in mind here.

The Pew studies did. But there are so many issues with how that study was conducted that there isn't much reason to trust their numbers at all for any group. I've covered the issues with it before in another thread but they're so numerous that they'd make up a thread on their own. In short there are catastrophically bad errors in their sampling that lead to some virtually impossible numbers with regards to Orthodoxy in particular within that study. And I wouldn't trust it for other denominations either.

This.

I honestly haven't a clue what you're expecting from this, OP. He's just another of the thousands of kids who are "forced" by their parents to participate in their ethnic community center church activities regardless of the kid's actual personal beliefs.

What the heck do you even want us to say? This is a stupid thread.

OP, we know you're trolling. Everybody with an iota of common sense knows he's not truly of the Eastern Orthodox faith.

Read their catechism. There's an entire chapter called "The Human Communion" and if you really think through the arguments within you'll see what I mean. Catholics have weakened the distinctions between the separate aspects of the Trinity and then tried to insert humanity into the equation. I was actually appalled when I read their catechism back when I was studying the different churches. I later found out that I wasn't the only one to object to this part of Roman Catholic theology. Dostoyevsky came to very similar conclusions.

Why is it like every time something is made to be purely spiritual then it's some kind of Gnostic heresy to those who merely have Aristotelean affections?

You know this is exactly what's going to happen. Their going to use this to paint us as violent psychos.

Concupiscence and lack of clarity of thought.

It's not an accusation I throw out lightly. Them elevating humanity in such a way is gnostic in nature. It is atheistic, and it contradicts the Final Judgment by implying a collectivized soul for humanity.

It literally says in Acts 4:32 "They were of one heart and one mind".

So you should understand the problem with attempting this without direct divine intervention. Look around. Notice how it always ends in tragedy? This is what I mean when I say that these ideas are the root of their corruption. Keep reading through Acts and see what happens when someone attempts to profane a gift from God with base human nature.

I've only read reports that some Orthodox priests in America have extremely watered down their faith and practically they are just Catholics or Protestands with Byzantine rite, they tend to be the most liberal. Greek Orthodox church in Greece is still very strict. I've also heard about some monasteries in America who are still in line with true Orthodoxy.

absolutely_orthoprot.jpg

...

You can say that about any historically catholic country in Europe where people call themselves 'catholic'.

>Or those Greek Orthodox bishops in America who are fine with abortion if the (((doctors))) say the woman's in danger?
When a woman is in severe danger (e.g. ovarian pregnancy) and nothing else can be done it is permissible to abort the child.
It is also morally sound to choose the life of the woman over that of the child if labour and delivery can seriously mean the death of the mother.

Don't forget the bi-sexual and communist pins too

In news sources he's identified as atheist.

/thread.

Lmao, OP and salty Catholics BTFO

I don't think this is actually good news for us.
The (((media))) is getting mad at Putin for butting heads with Israel in Syria and I think they'll star mass attacks at Orthodoxy by proxy.

I've read multiple articles/sources about him, and in every single one, the primary emphasis is on his "Born to Kill" T-Shirt, and Nazi Iron Cross (and other non-Christian symbols) on his duster. His involvement with an Orthodox dance group is treated as a brief insignificant footnote. Heck, there's been more emphasis on his involvement on the football team.

I'm not talking about this case. But the bigger picture.
As Russia keeps butting with Israel, (((they))) will keep twisting and turning the truth in the (((news))) to attack us.

No true orthodoxman, huh?

Attached: 1508523232954.png (211x239, 3.5K)

Well fugg, guess nobody's a christian.

Yes, that's what I said. You are pro-abortion devils.
In Catholicism it is absolutely never permissible to abort a child under any circumstances.

Is it time for #NotAllOrthodox?

This must explain why the Catholic church hasn't defrocked the sodomite and pedophile preists infesting thier clergy.

You're speaking to a catholic here.

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=417376
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/abortion-and-double-effect

Oh God please pardon me, somehow in my the long years of my life I never realized that Protestants literally never sin.

Certainly this is the work of the Orthodox Church…. somehow….

You are both beautiful. How about this new meme:
Catholics are still sodomite enabling, pedophile protecting, modernists

Orthodox are now edgy school shooters.

And Prots are still prots.

Can we all just get along now and realize the shooter in the OP is not a Christian?

how about this

Dude, you aren't helping anything or anyone, just stop.

wewlad. You fell for the meme. All Orthodox in full communion share the same theology. Ease off the memes and open a few more books.

teehee!

Listen, either Christ died for homosexuals or He did not die a death for all sins. Either we can all repent through the pure and just sacrifice of Our Lord, or we cannot (thus, rendering the sacrifice imperfect).

Which is it?

I assume you're a recent convert? Because that is not true. There are many theological traditions in Orthodoxy. There isn't necessarily a single answer for everything. Which is one of the reasons it's so hard to have some kind of universal catechism.

>catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/abortion-and-double-effect
I think you haven't read this carefully enough. Re-read it.
It is not acceptable to directly kill the child.

Jesus died for everyone dingus, it's still up to the sodomites to repent from their sinful behavior. Doesn't mean we should (((tolerate))) them and their destructive behavior like what the Catholic Church is notorious for

/thread

Attached: king.gif (200x150, 2.11M)

Then what are those theological traditions? Orthodoxy is set apart in that it has no large overhead bureaucracy like the Roman Catholics issuing down orders. The churches are separate yet in agreement on the major aspects of theology that determine what it means to profess the Christian faith. If not then they would all be in schism with one another. Ecumenical councils are not in the habit of passing down issues of dogma unless needing to speak out on heretical beliefs.
If you would actually read the various Orthodox catechisms you would find that they very much say the same thing.

As I said above
Just for a few examples of things that get different and contradicting answers in Orthodoxy.

The only thing that really unites the Orthodox Churches are the 7 ecumenical councils and the liturgies. Everything else is fair game.
There are no schisms simply because nobody is addressing those issues yet. There are schisms over politics every few years though, so that's not much better. Antioch and Jerusalem aren't even in communion right now, and the EP is doing nothing.

Something tells me you haven't read several catechisms yourself.
I have read the Living God catechism, part of the Philaret catechism, and the Russian church's "The Basis of the Social Concept." More importantly, I have talked with several priests.

No, I don't see the problem. We were made in God's image and the malady of sin obstructs us from realizing the significance of this. That doesn't demote God in any way. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that we reach thesis on our own terms. The believers in Acts were of one heart and one mind through the Holy Spirit.

I think that dude literally thinks Andersonism and Protestantism are the same thing

Going to church once a year does not make you a believer.

I don't see anything wrong with that. You have a cuck fetish.

I know, but it remains an abortion when the child is killed even if it's not meant to kill it.

Compliance with God's exaltation of you is entirely different to the self-exaltation of a gnostic. It is diametrically opposed to gnosticism.

Is abortion murder? And if so, is it okay to murder a guy because his dad was an asshole?

That difference is lost in translating the doctrine into praxis as I would argue is evident throughout that chapter. Roman Catholics seem to put the cart before the horse in this matter and end up susceptible to exalting the creation rather than the creator. I think this is part of the reason why Orthodox theology diverged since the essence-energy distinction almost seems to be an answer to this issue.

I actually wanted to make a thread talking about this since I hear a lot of folks here downplay the theological differences between the two sides of the schism and I would really like to hear both sides of the argument and, in particular, a deeper examination of their catechisms. The differences seem to be much larger than many here give credit.

But I haven't made a thread in 12 years of imageboard lurking and I don't intend to start now.

Deuteronomy is very clear that the punishment for rape is death. Since the child was conceived of this capital sin and isn't baptized yet, it too is to die. Same is the case with adultery in Leviticus 20:10:
Clearly it will often happen that as a result of adultery a child in conceived in the woman's womb, yet God doesn't care, he commands the abortion of child and woman. In the case of rape where the woman hasn't sinned, she is thus spared.
Stop watching cuck porn and obey God instead.

Attached: tabernacle.jpg (600x489, 78.08K)

Sure, I have no problem with that.
Uh.. no, that doesn't follow at all.
Okay, fair enough, a fetus could die when an adulterous woman was executed. An unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of executing the woman.
Right.. Therefore the fetus also lives. We don't punish children for their father's crimes.
I don't do that, stop bearing false witness. I've actually met someone who was a product of rape and also was a beautiful person and a Christian. I'm glad her mom didn't murder her.

Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what? God commands killing of the fetus conceived of adultery, because adultery is a capital sin. If God wanted to spare the fetus he'd say "Wait until the woman has given birth, then execute her". Since rape is a capital sin too, the fetus conceived of that sin is to be killed as well.
I don't care if you met a rape-child who became a Christian, if her mother had aborted her she would have given birth to another Christian child instead. Stop worshipping human life, it is Un-Christian and leads to humanism, secularism, and satanism.

Attached: humanism.jpg (300x218, 24.05K)

The fetus is not specifically punished in the case of adultery, it's a side effect. And as for why they didn't wait 9 months till the baby was born, then execute the mother? That would just not be practical in ancient Israel. They didn't maintain prisons and no one is going to voluntarily wait around 9 months to be executed. Justice was executed immediately.

God doesn't kill people out of side-effects, everything he does is righteous and of a grand design. You have much to learn, read the Bible and lurk more.

oh no somebody stop them

Attached: images (47).jpeg (185x273, 7.7K)

Wow so this is the power of orthoprotestantism

...

Augustine isn't a saint in the Ortho church, they call him "Blessed Augustine."
Many still read and believe much of his theology but they believe he was mislead on the trinity.

I am not defending abortion, I am defending abortion in case of rape. Plus, there nothing to interpret about the verse.

How so? (He asks, looking up from his copy of Augustine's De Trinitate)

Read that as "I am not defending murder, I am defending murder in case of rape." and you'll understand why you shouldn't. It's a heavy cross, but it's one that needs to be borne.

Are you daft? God explicitly commands killing for all sorts of reasons, how exactly do you think that labeling something as "murder" should deter anyone? Go read the Bible kiddo, from cover to cover, and come back no sooner.

Do you want to know which Biblical figures never command infanticide? God. Do you want to know which ones do? Herod and Pharaoh. I am shocked beyond words.

Abortion is not infanticide. Stop lying.

Are you dumb? An ecumenical council recognized the sainthood of Augustine. He's on every calendar. Even theologians who think all of Augustine should be rejected, like Rommanides, don't doubt his sainthood.
Augustine is called "blessed" in the Russian tradition but that doesn't mean he's not canonized already.

You're right, it's even worse. Not even Herod and Pharaoh would command it.

Don't be stupid, abortion is recognized as infanticide in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Yet God does when he commands the killing of the adulteress with child.

No it's not. It's recognized as abortion. Can you all stop lying please?

And yet YOU command abortion even when capital punishment for rape victims is a part of fulfilled Jewish law, for no other reason than he was "conceived of sin." Matthew 15 makes it clear that ritual purity was of no importance to Jesus while spiritual purity was of the utmost importance. If he want to protect an adulteress, someone who was actually responsible for their defilement, from capital punishment, then I imagine he would like to protect the unborn as well.

You know there's a difference between moral and ceremonial law?
He doesn't. He only protected the adulteress so that he himself does not break the Roman law. It clearly says "This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.".