The current Catholic Church is too modernist for me. I am not a sedevacantist or anything but I think the Church now is less glorious and more permissive.
For example I think we should go back to medieval fasting (which was much tougher than Muslim Ramadan, let alone not eating meat on Fridays lol)
Did any of you incorporate similar things into your faith? And how do you deal with modernity?
Fear not, for I have the solution for your problem, OP.
...
You can always join some ascetic order if you can. Not only you get all the rigour you want, you also would be living one of the most secure ways to persevere in grace right until your death.
All orders have rule sets. If you want to go extraordinarily extreme go with the carthusians.
Also OP what holds you back from medieval fasting ? It was lifted for reasons (and btw having 2 strict days of fasting under punishment of sin is better than 200, because that is something hardly achievable even for the most pious out in the modern world) but nothing stops you to practice it. Nothing stops you from adopting an Eastern fasting schedule even, that is: almost 200 days of fasting.
And quire frankly, what user said
>
I wish this meme would die
But it's a legitimate concern that it was watered down too hard in many countries - I'm talking especially about the permission Americans got to eat meat on Fridays. I live in a country which didn't get a similar permission, and it doesn't cause any widespread problems.
start paying for sin tickets
come here to post this
also the Great Lent fast is still more hardcore than the ramadan except that it's up to you weither you'll take it or not
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7
I read somewhere that people went to church 3 times a day.
not true, fasting is good for you even on a mere physical level
You seem to not have understood what you quoted. 200 days of fasting per year under punishment of sin as per church is worse than only 2, because chances are very likely you will fail, at least provided you're not some hermit or whatever. That has nothing to do with whether that's physically good for you or not.
...
Yeah the discipline is more lax, but try to implement those fasting in the modern world and even less people would go to church besides they're incompatible with our shitty modern lifestyle. That's why the US of Israel, the precursors of modern lifestyle, had dispensations from the Holy See. Try to do demanding jobs 8 hours per day 24/7 while fasting and you'll faint. Shitty gay world tbh.
But if your lifestyle is compatible with those fasts I would recommend them and they are profitable but BE CAREFUL.
If you don't feel well stop doing it. Don't go balls deep on it. Do it step by step and only if your health allows it.
The causality is the other way around: if we don't fast, our faith becomes weaker, and we allow modernity to creep in and to dictate our lifestyle.
The more liberal the church, the emptier the pews
Bro I dare you to try it for one week. In this crazy world you will end up in the hospital. Only if you live in some countryside village with some part time job.
You can't go full ultra "trad" and ultra liberal on discipline only. There's a middle ground. If you go full trad the churches would be empty, if you go full Liberal it would be the end of the church.
You have to find a compromise between orthodoxy on the habits and the lifestyle modern world requires.
Btw what I said is only applicable to the discipline.
About the doctrine it is and must remain 100% orthodox even if people don't like it. Truth is unchangeable.
I think it's just hitting me that this is the only option (I'm not OP btw). I'm attracted to Catholicism but
1) the mental gymnastics required to justify vatican II
2) the shaky foundations of the Church's argument for papal infallibility
3) how pozzed the modern church and pope are
Have started to turn me off to it.
Where I do I learn about becoming Eastern Orthodox? The only issue I've really had with it is not knowing where to begin and the fact that it feels totally foreign to me in some respects. I don't know where to jump in.
You would be better off adapting to modern times and converting lost souls to Christianity. Note, this does not mean to modernize the wine, but the wineskin.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but you come off as larper.
...
If I was a larper I'd become an autistic sede or something, there's nothing larpy about it, I just want to find a version of Christianity to subscribe to that's not corrupt.
I don't really see the flaw in my line of reasoning
Christians are seriously starting to disgust me.
Orthodox: "Waaah, why do we use the new calendar and have pews and why are men and women not separated and why does my priest not have a beard? Why is the liturgy shorter than 2 hours? I don't like this modernism"
Catholics: "Waaah, why does my priest face the people and why is the liturgy in the vernacular and why aren't the fasting rules like they were 1000 years ago? Why do people receive communion in the hand? I don't like this modernism"
Stop trying to LARP as a medieval peasant. You enter the living tradition of the Church, the experience of the risen Christ Himself, not a cool club for edgy ascetics. Submit to your bishop and obey the tradition he gives to you.
There is nothing wrong about Vatican II. It simply adds clarification to many of the previous councils.
The Catholic Church's idea of papal infallibility is the sole possible conclusion to the pre-schism idea that the Pope is a special successor to Peter and inherits from him to be both the head of the Church and the sole guardian of orthodox tradition. A belief that has been explicitly believed by Rome since the 3rd century at least, and that was later accepted by the Eastern churches.
3) proves you are a LARPer uninterested in Christ but very much interested in culture wars.
Die of cholera by 28? That seems to be the going thing for those medieval Catholics.
I'm not referring to the Vatican II documents themselves but what's happened as a result of them, which is sweeping change and modernization.
When I say shaky foundations for papal infallibility I don't mean that there's no argument, I mean that that the position of the Eastern Orthodox is entirely tenable. I don't see why their reading of it isn't valid or what you can really appeal to to refute it. If they don't accept the Roman Bishop as being truly superior but as simply having a place of honor amongst the other bishops, that doesn't sound crazy to me.
I am not choosing the Orthodox Church (assuming I do end up choosing it) simply because I like it more, its because I am unsure of which Church is correct even though I feel a draw to Christianity. I personally believe in the importance of Tradition, and seeing that certain parts of Roman Catholicism aren't working themselves out in my head Eastern Orthodoxy is the only thing that makes sense to me at the moment.
It's not about being against change in some narrow-minded way its about where the changes are coming from. Modernist secular influences have permeated the Churches, that's the problem here. Its not the changes in and of themselves its the root causes of those changes that are the real problem.
Do you even know what modernism is? Or are you using it as a byeord for "liberal"?
This is why I think youre a larper. You keep complaining about modernism, and yet you have a totally modernist mindset.
You're meant to submit to the Church Christ founded on earth, whose rock is the seat of St. Peter, instead of picking and choosing bits you do and dont like.
Okay but before I do that I need to intellectually assent to the church being founded upon Peter and Peter not simply being a stand in for the apostles as a whole.
Perhaps I think in a modern way, but that's because I'm a product of modernity, to whatever extent I do I still aim for Tradition. There are a lot of definitions of modernity, I would say it largely has to do with an embrace of liberal principles which are essentially satanic. Its the idea of liberation from duty, ethics and the spiritual in exchange for material pleasures and "liberation". In a more narrow Church definition it would be secular ethics or enlightenment thinking informing the Church ie the world informing the Church rather than the Church informing the world.
My point is I don't know which tradition is the true one, the Roman Catholic one or the Eastern Orthodox one. The aforementioned problems with Roman Catholicism are driving me towards Orthodoxy.
Catholic churches aren't the only ones affected by this. Orthodox churches are rushing toward ecumenism and modernism, and let's not even talk about how the Protestants are doing right now.
Vatican II could have happened a century from now and we'd still be having the same issues.
It is crazy because that wasn't Peter's position among the apostles, nor the Pope's position among the other bishops during the first millenium of the Church. Even some modern Orthodox scholars like Zizioulas argue that there exists no such thing as a primacy of honor alone. And today there is some division concerning the Ravenna document that acknowledges universal primacy, as the Russian Church rejects it completely.
Orthodoxy betrays a lot of Christian tradition. Besides certain things like the understanding of the holy mystery of marriage, or the consecratory formula, the main reason that Orthodoxy is different from Catholicism is pure anti-Latin xenophobia. This is the main if not the sole reason that the filioque, Purgatory, papal supremacy, etc. are rejected.
Peter is portrayed as a stand-in for the apostles as a whole. But this is for a reason: he has a special role among them, making him the head of the Church. A lot of the characterization of Peter in the gospels reflects the post-resurrection memory of him the authors and audiences had.
Why would it matter how old or how you die, if you can die at peace with God?
You really don't want to die of cholera. It is a truly horrible way to die.
Become Orthodox.
Stop worshiping your ego, start following Christ. If you have doubts, read my post above.
This guy got it.
The most safe way to start learning about Orthodoxy is reading about the teachings and lifes of Saints. I recomment you to look into some of the latest canonized Saints since they lived in our times and they talk a lot about modern day problems.
St Paisios, St Porphyrios, St Iakovos Tsalikis, St John the hesychast, Ft Serapheim Rose are all a good start. Then talk to a priest and he will guide you.
Find a SSPX, FSSP or ICKSP parish near you and go to a Latin Mass
...
Just be a good Christian above it, user.
begone schismatic
Yes but the Orthodox aren't centralized. They can't have one central authority say one thing, then say another, it avoids the logical contradiction there.
I obviously need to do more research on the historical facts of all of that but from what I've seen it doesn't seem like Peter's position was anything like universal temporal supremacy or what was built up to today. He was also corrected by other apostles wasn't he? And there are all sorts of examples I've heard in which he wasn't really in charge. I don't know about Churches acknowledging primacy early on, I need to look into that more.
And the anti-latin thing sounds like an overall simplification.
What's your personal stance on what's going on with Catholicism? Do you see it as a problem? Do you think the Vatican has contradicted itself? My whole doubt is stemming from this, the Eastern view seems more sane.
The Pope being the highest, central authority does not mean he is the sole authority or that every single thing he says and does has the same level of authority.
Mark portrays Peter as the "normal" disciple, both in his successes and in his failures. He is also a stand-in for all the apostles.
Matthew uses Mark's Peter, but also portrays him as the earthly successor of Jesus (but not His replacemeent), who inherits supreme authority in interpreting Jesus's teachings and halakic decisions. The apostles receive the power to include or exclude from the local church, but only through Peter.
Luke-Acts portrays Peter as a stand-in for the apostles but in a much more positive light, and portrays him as the head of the church in Jerusalem then as the head of the overall Church. He is the link between Jesus and Paul, so that the Pauline communities can be reassured that they are connected through Paul to Peter, and so to Jesus.
John acknowledges Peter's leadership over the Church and portrays him as the prototype of the Christian pastor.
Paul portrays Peter as the head of the Church, to the point that at the incident at Antioch, Peter's authority attracted everybody to his (incorrect) position, including Barnabas. Paul criticizes Peter for effectively teaching an anti-gospel but does not question his position of leadership.
The Petrine epistles weren't actually written by Peter, but use his name to give themselves ecumenical authority. 2 Peter is the first instance of an explicit Petrine ministry, through which the holder of this ministry is the sole guardian of the orthodox tradition and the final authority to interpret it.
Cyprian of Carthage and his allies strongly rejected the Pope's claim of having a special authority through Peter, so the two traditions (the African one that Peter's ministry extends to all bishops equally, the Roman one that Peter's ministry is the Pope's specifically) were in competition early on. Starting with Leo's claims of special doctrinal authority, the Eastern bishops would just kind of nod their head without necessarily giving full assent, but Rome's primacy for apostolic reasons (rather than Rome just being the capital of the empire) was affirmed widely. In the 9th century the East would even finally agree with Rome's centuries-old position - that it is the Pope's final agreement that makes a council ecumenical. And the Council at Constantinople of 879-880 (sometimes called the 8th by the Orthodox) affirms the Pope being a special successor to Peter. It is only during the pronocracy that the East finally learned to pretend the Pope doesn't exist and has no unique role within Christendom.
What's your personal stance on what's going on with Catholicism? Do you see it as a problem? Do you think the Vatican has contradicted itself? My whole doubt is stemming from this, the Eastern view seems more sane.
Roman Catholicism seems like the most traditional and true expression of Christianity to me. I'm scared to make the big jump from Orthodoxy though.
I know that what the pope says is only considered ordinary magisterium within a certain context but I'm referring to the Church basically backpedaling on its old position of Unum Sanctum being the one true Church of Christ by going for all of this ecumenism. Not to mention the engaging in the rituals of other religions or denominations and the Quran kissing and what not.
To the second part I basically see both sides of the argument. My point isn't so much that I can't follow the Catholic line of reasoning as it is that I can't see the preponderance of evidence required to condemn the Orthodox one.
I don't really see the argument for why Roman Catholicism is necessarily correct. Arguments about protestants or edgy esotericists being Heretics make sense because they've strayed from the standard Tradition and they also tend to oversimplify things, yet I see none of this with the Orthodox.
I'm basically in the opposite position, I'm thinking about jumping from Catholicism to Orthodoxy but am unsure.
I agree with everything you say but this:
LOL that's just the opinion of (((scholars))), a quick read of the second epistle shows so many literary similarly with the first that only racionalists would deny.
If it wasn't really written by him the Church Father's would have made such a question, like with Hebrews that people always doubted if Paul was it's author.
They're main argument is because 2 Peter tells people the end of the world won't happen right now because there's a modern school of thought that believes that the Apostles believed that the end of the word was near. That opinion is destroyed by the gospels and Pauline letters.
Lol even Pope Francis continues to admit there's only one church and is completely against syncretical ecumenism. I don't know why so many people are against it since every Pope post VII say that the objective of ecumenism is to convert orthos and prots to the Catholic Church. One good example of it are the Anglican parishes that are asking to enter the Church again and they were accepted providing they followed the law of the church etc etc.
Praying with other jiggers in the same place=/= participating in their rituals. Not even when they visit prots with the purpose of ecumenism. Also the Pope might kiss the Koran (maybe those pagans will convert after that) but at least doesn't go to Muslim friendship dinners like the Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople.
Begone lukewarm!
Ps: it's very important for (((then))) whoever they are to create this false image of liberalisation of the Church, but a close inspection on would prove those claims are baseless. Imagine there was media in the 15th century. If the current Pope had a mistress journalists would go crazy saying OMFG he is so progressive. Married priests and sex before marriage is about to happen.
And apperently there was one Pope that was a sodomite (sad) what to you think the media would do? If they worship Francis by telling people not to stone fags that want to repent they would worship that Pope as a god.
aaaaaa I don't know what to think. I'm probably going to try a variety of Churches and keep reading because I don't have a strong enough grasp on either the history or the theology.
"Simon Peter . . . wrote two epistles which are called catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him." - Jerome
The main scholarly argument isn't about the end of the world, but about 2 Peter obviously taking from Jude, itself written around 90AD, after Peter's death.
Hmmm didn't know that about St. Jerome.
What is it taking from Jude?
This is the power of vatican II Catholic mental gymnastics
...
lol
Why not the other way around? Couldn't Jude use parts from 2 Peter?
Wew that's some superstitious shit mate.
2 Peter is specifically written as a rewrite and elaboration of Jude, though. Read the article.
On another note, the language and tone is completely different from 1 Peter, which might actually be directly related to Peter, so it's very unlikely the two letters come from the same source anyway.
...
Sorry, I mean: a part of 2 Peter is clearly a rewrite, elaboration, and recap of Jude. It's extremely unlikely that the author of Jude would have taken 2 chapters from Peter's work and turned it into a full epistle, but it's very likely that the author of 2 Peter would have based himself off the epistle of Jude for a part of his work.
It's still better than eating and drinking with the same people that support terrorist groups. At least now we are allowed to build churchs in Saudi Arabia so in a way it help to save souls from the satanic cult of the Moors.
Well at least some doubts were raised by Jerome. At least it ain't modernist scholars fancies.
You're saying it's "very unlikely" that 2 Peter 1:1 is true. So I'm assuming you don't regard it as inspired scripture.
Man, you want more traditional Catholicism? Use prayer books written before 1955, follow the rules that were in effect before 1962, problem solved. Pray in Latin too. It's not forbidden, no one's forcing you to be modernistic.
Here's a site with a looot of traditional prayers in Latin and English side by side.
preces-latinae.org
Here's the traditional daily office (select Divino Afflatu, that's the verson from the beggining of the 20th century organized by st. pope Pius X)
divinumofficium.com
top mental gymastics lads
I live in a pretty conservative Eastern European country. Serious Catholics around here are militantly against Vatican II. Not some shitty larpers, but actual believes.
OP may be larping a bit or not, but Vatican II is universally abhorred among the conservative believes.
The next time someone tells you're a larper because you don't like VII - know he's full of shit.
Besides, by the fruits of their labors you'll understand them - Vatican II allowed post-modern architecture in the church. The rotten intent is obvious.
just keep digging that hole lad.