There's no Orthodox parishes in my area. I know that, theologically, both Catholics and the Orthodox are very...

Americans have a long history of both catholicism and protestantism.

I can guarantee no American on Zig Forums is choosing orthodoxy over catholicism because of theological reasons, instead it will be some recovering Zig Forumsack who hates le liberal pope and/or "man look how edgy and traditional and cool I am"

Very, very, very broad generalization. He can simply disagree with the Papacy and the Vatican for him to disregard Catholicism.

What's the preferred Bible for Orthodoxy, btw?

No. Be there.

Most Orthodox believe Catholics have valid apostolic succession.
However, one absolutely shouldn't commune with schismatics or heretics.

Depends. If you want to attend an Orthodox church because the Catholics and Protestants are cucked by modernism and we need a glorious Byzantine empire again and Putin is a saint… You probably should get your priorities put in order first.

I think parishes in the US either use the RSV, the (N)KJV, or their own translation.
There's no single "Orthodox" translation, although the RSV has the whole canon, while the OSB has nice notes for a beginner (and has the Greek canon).

False witness

Depends on how stringent those catholic dudes are I guess.

Apparently not, the schism is political and basically every respected scholar understands that

all the big theological differences came up post-hoc afterwords and Orthos literally dismissed people by saying they were too latin because they hated rome so much.

Catholic and Orthodox scholars having a conversation.

at the time of the schism there were effectively no theological differences, but 1000 years of unchecked papal dogma has changed that

This tbh. The only real distinction is the filioque and essence/energy distinction, both of which don't really lead to much practical differences

I've never spoken to one who has any real reason to join orthodoxy over any other church. It's not like I have anything major against orthodoxy, I just have something against people joining a church for vain reasons, like said.

Why don't you ask your priest? Don't you talk to a priest? How do you confess? Are you even baptized?

Anyway in the case this isn't another larp thread trying to start a flame war the only correct answer is , move close to a church.

Sorry but no. Praying with heretics is SIN.
Where are you from? Let's see if we can help you out.

Lmao. There are no two religions in the world as different as Orthodox Christianity and Roman pedophilism.
youtube.com/watch?v=W7Qm_CDMrTY

That's where you're wrong kiddo

Your area as in city? Neighbourhood? States? Country? Or just nearby vicinity? I know some that would travel 2-3 hours either by train or walking or across towns just to attend the liturgy. If it is just a matter of convenience then I think you just need more dedication. If it is that your states or country does not have Orthodox church or you do not have any means of travel besides walking across towns, then I suggest you try to procure one.

If you're not catholic you can't get communion, that's about it.
Even this isn't as hard-lined as one might think, and the occasional orthodox attending out of good will can join for communion if he likes. protestants are out of the question though

tigga, we can get our last rites with each if needed.

Ask me how I know you're a protestant convert.
What's your main server btw.

Jay Dyer was a Roman Catholic convert, though.

This. I currently drive 1 hour 40 minutes to my parish for liturgy.

source? we don't even have "last rights" like Roman Catholics. Thd dying person just recives confession and the Eucharist. And the oil is Holy unction for the sick not only for the dying. It may be so that the Catholic Church says Orthdox Christians can recive last rights, you cannot recive Eucharist from us unless on your death bed you became Orthdox.

I asked how I knew the poster was a protestant convert, not the video maker.
Besides everybody can shit about Vatican II, heck almost every catholic I know does it.

The fact is, there's no significant difference between catholicism and orthodoxy besides papal supremacy, divorce and contraception (of which the latter is almost always condemned by any patriarch of the East).
That's already been resolved and recognized as being done against Arianism in the West while the meaning is the same in the Greek.
While we catholics have scholastic autism, this is definitely the peak of mysticism autism.
It's such an insignificant thing to either salvation or Christology or anything else that we don't care about it.
It's even kind of accepted these days.

The poster I was quoting also used muh pedophile church which, considering that any denomination has these, is just a cheap way to shit on someone.

Dyer would agree with what that user posted. His critique of Roman Catholicism goes way beyond just Vatican II. My point was that your assumption that any Orthodox who is critical of RC is necessarily a protestant convert is false.

I look forward to the schism ending, but I have no idea how that will happen and I will not be a Uniate. Can we just let the Pope have all of Western Europe, Central America, and South America as his diocese and call it even?

Cool so no source

no we don't the concept of "valid but illicit" is a consequence of Roman Catholic theology not Orthdox. There are Orthdox priests who will say they are but this is an almost entirely western thing and minority view, not to mention wrong based on how we veiw sacraments.

Also yes i do, and again we have no concept of "last rights" we administer it as we would to a normal person who is living it is not the "last rights" it is communion,confession and unction which is not always done.

I never said that, I just know that the poster I was quoting was a protestant as was my whole point.

The rites of ordination haven't changed, and even in the NO the basics of the ordination is still there.
Therefore the sacraments are also valid, but just not licit.

You just ignore what i said and repeated what i understand is Roman Catholic Theology, it is however not our theology. Your sacraments aren't valid not because of Novus Ordo but because you are heretics.

As i said, you have a special ceremony which involves giving these three sacraments to dying people. We do not, we administer it to them the same as a normal living person. Only after they die do we have specific ceremony which involves prayers.

You are misinformed about Orthodox Theology considering your "source" of Orthodox theology is a Catholic Priest. It is actually hilarious that Catholics spend so much energy trying to be ecumenical and saying we are actually the same when the feeling is really not mutual. It goes as far as the Vatican basically saying the Orthodox view of first among equals was how Rome was viewed in the first century.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

This is simply not true.
Our theology is the same in regards to the sacraments, and our ordinations go back to the same rites and are seen as valid.
Therefore, both our sacraments are seen as valid.
oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders
This link explains that some would call them invalid while others don't, but since a former catholic priest will not be re-ordained but only vested this means a formal recognition of priesthood and thus the validity of the sacraments.

The only thing I ever heard about orthodoxy about my priests was that 'silent agreement' and only because we were discussing the last rites, nothing about the orthodox church gets taught whatsoever.

This also differs from church to church to be honest.
I know some people who sometimes attend divine liturgy in a nearby Russian orthodox monastery, they're on pretty good terms.

you make so many assumptions
1) when people are recived into the church by a method it implies a validity to the sacraments previously performed. Baptism for example, it permissible to recive through Chrismation heterodox baptisms, not because the baptisms were valid but because the Chrismation makes it valid.

2) because the OCA says something they cannot be just wrong, as stated by the OCA infact there are some who hold that the sacraments are valid i would say that all evidence points to the contrary and most non western priests and Saints would agree with me. This is different from Catholic dogmatic statements on the validity of Orthdox sacraments.

as for people attendeding an Orthdox divine liturgy and being on good terms, of course they are who said we had to hate Catholics. On the contrary we pray for them to return to the Church.

You realize that saying this makes you the heretic right? That’s Donatism, user.

Do you know what donatism is? it is retarded arguments like this which made me turn away from Catholicism dishonest apologetics.

It's worth to note, from a Catholic perspective, that although there are some theologians that consider the lack of essence/energy distinction to be a dogma, they seem to be a minority. Others instead hold it to be merely a very popular theological opinion, but not a dogma.

Live
Action
Role
Play

I think his Donatist accusation comes from that the Donatists held that the validity of the sacraments was dependent on the holiness of the person administering them.
Since you judged sacraments of a completely validly ordained priest to be null because of his theological differences which you deem heresy (and don't even apply to the sacraments themselves) you technically took a Donatist position which was condemned at the first Council of Arles in 314 (St. Augustine also fought against this heresy).

He still hasn't told me his main server…

As much as I like Jay Dyer he's pretty much the Orthodox version of Most Autistic Family Monastery (he admitted in his recent video he used to be in contact with them so this isn't surprising)

His argument is basically Filioque > Arianism > Vatican I > Vatican II which led to Satanic/Masonic/Protestant infiltration of the RCC, which is three extra steps more than most Sedes

Most Orthodox reject this conspiracy bullshit and maintain their objection to the Papacy on historical grounds, and not on the grounds that Francis is a cuck/Mason or whatever. If the RCC had a traditionalist Pope like Pius X, guys like Dyer would still be Catholic

Jay dyer disagrees wit the papacy on Historical grounds, you haven't read or watched enough of his stuff if you think his argument is pope francis has the big gay.

I know why he called me a donatist, but i know he is being retarded for 2 reasons. 1) the Donatism was about the priests who were sinning, not priests who were not in the Church. and 2) he assumes we share the same theology of the priesthood i.e it leaves an indelible mark on someone, which we don't or at least there it is not a common position to hold.

Orthodox are lacking for thinkers so hard they need a youtube e-celeb?

not an argument

The Donatists went so far as to call themselves the real Church, Donatism is not limited to priests inside your church.

Except for this we have the same theology about priests, else they had to be re-ordained when converting.
Heresy does not make the sacraments of a validly ordained priest invalid unless the heresy revolves around said sacraments.

You don't understand what donatism is, they went into schism because they believed they had the right theology, hence they of course thought they were the true church. You argument has no bearing about what i said. The Donatists were saying priests who Sinned could not administer the sacraments, not that they could not do it because they were not in the Church. Basically all the Fathers with the exception of Augustine taught there were no sacraments outside the church, but since Catholic theology basically just takes Augustine as the only father you use his theology of sacraments which he used to argue against the donatists. Because we do not take the Augustinian view of the sacraments you are incorrect about the point below, we don't rebaptise or reordain because the grace is conveyed by Chrismation and vesting, The previous sacrament is then grace filled. You don't understand Eastern Orthodox Theology, your priest is not an accurate source for Eastern Orthodox Theology, many say we should re ordain and baptise because to not do so causing confusion to the people who don't understand the theology and erroneously leads people to believe that there are sacraments outside the Church.

I'm Orthodox and literally every priest I've had a discussion with, and my own bishop, has said Catholics have valid but illicit sacraments and that schismatics being graceless is a fringe view held by fundamentalists.

Your priests are calling the Church Fathers Fringe fundamentalists, this isn't even a debate outside of western priests. I Would say it is perfectly acceptable to say you don't know if there is grace in the Catholic Church, but to affirm it is in contradiction to everything the Church Fathers say.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stcyprian_eccles.aspx

I would also like to say, Schismatics being graceless is a different issue, but Catholics are not Schismatics, old calenderists are Schismatics, Catholics are Heretics

We aren't a religion that looks back to the Fathers as if they were fossils.

Also, are you repeating what your priest teaches, or did you come to these conclusions by yourself?

The idea that schismatics have no grace comes from the apostolic constitutions and St Cyprian. However, the tradition that schismatics do have valid sacraments is equally as old, and in fact the African and Roman traditions fought over this and never really agreed.

Catholics are both schismatics and heretics…

Ok Show me a modern Saint then who is not in favour of the re baptism of Catholics, And says the sacraments contain grace?

Here is what St Paisios said to a priest in trouble with his bishop for re-batising converts.

The authorities of the Church are the bishops, not the saints. Many saints are bishops, many are not. But the primary authority is -your- bishop. Your priest is appointed by your bishop to pastor you.

So, I'll ask again - are you just repeating what your priest and/or bishop teaches? Or did you come to these conclusions on your own?

They went into schism because the rest of the Church held the position that people can always come back to the Church even if they were traditores or not.

tigga what?
You need to be ordained to become a priest, Chrismation and vesting only won't do it, heck every Anglican and Lutheran would be a valid priest then.

My priests are not my source of orthodox theology, like I already said, we don't even talk a lot about other denominations in general.

Wait, we anabaptists now?

Russian Church accepts Catholic priests by vestment and a confession of faith. That's not re-ordination, right?

Re-ordination is giving a priest another ordination to become a priest, which is only necessary if the priest did not get a valid ordination (as with Anglicans).
Vesting is, like the word implies, ceremoniously giving him the priestly cloth and the confession of faith is what every convert needs to do to begin with.
Maybe nowadays catholic convert priests need a new ordination because of the Novus Ordo but I think that even that one is seen as valid because the basis of the ordination is still in there even if the rest has been removed.
The Chrismation is also part of the conversion, but why it's done again I don't know since it's linked to baptism and even in the Novus Ordo the rite is the same.

Saints>random bishops, i won't concede to your crypto papism, i am not obliged to follow my bishop into error, especially not on something which the church allows opinion on. I have never said those who believe the roman Catholic sacraments have grace are heretics i have only said they are quite clearly wrong and using our own reason (Beceause we are not papists) we can discern this if we are not deluded by ecumenicism

You have literally ignored what i said, the ordination is "Completed" by the grace that according to the fathers (Except Augustine) only the Church can bestow. I won't argue any more since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and have presuposistions which will not allow you to think anything other than what the big man in the hat says.

Even the greatest of saints have listened to their bishops even when in error, and seeing as how baptism is in general accepted St. Piasios had no reason to disobey unless the one converted had no valid baptism in general.

If that's the case then the whole ordination should be done anew since ordination is also a sacrament.

Based

Orthodox in America have a long history as well. Today we celebrate the feast of All Saints of North America, with over a dozen canonized saints here now, and several more in line for canonization in the near future.

Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the founder of the Orthodox Church in America, was originally an Eastern Catholic priest who suffered extreme abuse and rejection by the Roman priests in Minnesota, and thus led a mass conversion of himself and the Eastern Catholics of America to holy Orthodoxy.

Orthodox tradition in America is centuries old, and continues to grow to this day.

"Obey your bishop" is crypto-papism now? Better tell Ignatius of Antioch.
If you think your bishop is in error, expect his brother bishops to correct or excommunicate him. If not, then listen to your damn bishop, and to your spiritual father most importantly.

I won't concede to your crypto-Protestantism, where the Bible is the writing of the saints instead.

Attached: Uhhhhh.png (650x428, 186.18K)