Be catholic

Hmm, it's almost as if organized institutions with lots of power tend to have people abusing the institution to further their own goals…weird.

But why? Parish priests can marry? Bishops are middle management guys who are too busy for such things. My guess is that it would be the same type of degenerate that runs with with jewish child peddlers and are being blackmailed.

I would argue that there are less attempts to cover up such actions in the Orthodox church. You certainly don't see that action on the same scale as you do in the Catholic church. Please note that I said 'less' not that I am at all saying that it doesn't happen.

This meme needs to be retired. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever that voluntary celibacy leads to pedophilia. It's nothing more than Freudian/jewish propaganda aimed to discredit and shame traditional Christians. The problem with the Catholic Church is that, ever since VII, they refused to defrock homosexual priests, instead opting to "treat" them while employed. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, will happily defrock a priest if they are found to be homosexual.

it's basically prison gay
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Comparing overcrowded prisons filled with violent, mentally ill criminals to voluntary celibates is a little farfetched user.

Where do you think the priest rapists wind up?

I mean before hell assuming they don't genuinely repent

“…We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope].”

–POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Does that answer your question?

“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

– GOD

I hope this answers yours.

Get behind me Satan !

- JESUS

And here's for (((you)))

You have constructed an idol for yourselves. Repent.

Oh, also, which pope did the Good Thief submit to?

Please repent of your pride.

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men!" Acts 5:29

I have no problem with authority, I submit to my priest and bishop, but not against what God has ordained! Consider the following - last month your "Vicar of Christ" taught the death penalty was sometimes OK, now never. You owe him obedience and assent of faith.

Before you go all not ex cathedra on me, READ BELOW:

As regards the question of the binding authority of the teaching contained within an encyclical, Pope Pius XII stated the following in his encyclical letter Humani Generis, dated Aug. 12, 1950: “Nor must it be thought that what is contained in an encyclical letter does not of itself demand assent, on the pretext that the popes do not exercise in them the supreme power of their teaching authority. Rather, such teachings belong to the ordinary magisterium, of which it is true to say: ‘He who hears you, hears me’ (Lk 10:16); for the most part, too, what is expounded and indicated in encyclical letters already appertains to Catholic doctrine for other reasons.”

osv.com/TheChurch/Article/TabId/563/ArtMID/13751/ArticleID/9400/The-Assent-of-Faith.aspx

You have to give assent of faith to X and then Not X. You square that with the fact God does not change.

Look at the issue carefully and you'll see it's a whole lot of nothing. The death penalty is not a dogma and you're allowed to disagree with what the Pope thinks about it. Further, the Church never taught that the death penalty was a good thing. On the contrary, it taught that it should only be used in certain specific situations and careful judgement must be exercised by the authorities. Now the Church judges that there is no need for it anymore, so it deems it "inadmissible" which, again, is not a statement on the morality of it. So much for your "Gotcha".

NIce try. It hints at that, but it also gives other reasons. Read the new language:

Doesn't a respect for the dignity of the person demand the most serious penalty for the most serious crimes? Also, what are we now aware of that we were not before?
Anyone who has ever read Les Miserables could have told you this.
Did the old systems exclude the possibility of redemption? You can't repent before execution?

What on earth is the "inviolability" of the person? Have conditions so improved in North Korea and the Congo over the last generation?

The point is, the Church never taught that it did. So there.
Alrighty…
Did you read the sentence? The relevant words are "definitively deprive". Are you saying it's possible to repent after death?
I don't care what it means, unless you can prove it's contradicting a previous teaching of the Church, which it obviously isn't.

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Here's the Catechism of Trent. Explain how this isn't a contradiction.

Note that punishment is considered a just end of the death penalty. It represses outrage and violence - that is, it has a cautionary effect.

what a shame.
catechism of the catholic church : "838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Guess they can't be saved, even if they have the Eucharist and all the sacraments, even if there liturgy and theology if far more preserved than ours. They can't be saved just because they don't submit to some claims of the bishop of Rome.

John 21:18-22 New International Version (NIV)

18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

Peter = Rome = latin church
Saint John = Constantinople = orthodox church

Attached: 1524094255237.jpg (778x675, 200.34K)

You say there's a contradiction, but I see none. The burden of proving the contradiction lies on you, friend. But if I must, read the whole text and, like I said, there's not definition of executions as being "good", only "legitimate" and "lawful" and requiring "just use". It specifically says that it's end is the protection of human life which would otherwise be endangered. If this factor is eliminated, as it is nowadays with secure prison facilities, what just use of the death penalty is there to be made? None, which is why it now deems it "inadmissible" which, again, is not saying it is intrinsically evil.

Blasphemy.

Your picture can say a lot and nothing.

The problem with the catholic church is the fact it's covered by the clergy, the fact lots of cardinal's are involved in the covering. Also bishops are some of the pedos. I'm not talking of all the covering with priest only changed of place after a case and of big criminal networks like the recent case.

Their living tradition (liturgy, theology, prayer, discipline), the fact they still have big holy places like the mont athos, their spiritual tradition with the philokalia, the fact they are far from effeminate when you talk to them, etc…
You should read about them and you will see.

But to be fair, the real problem with the catholic church is withing the secular clergy (i.e. not monk), but there is here a fundamental difference between the east and the west : The monks are considered in the center in orthodoxy. And so the bishops are chosed between the best of the monks, in those who know how to pray, holy men. Harder to be an careerist in this system, easier to be led by the holy spirit.

Attached: ef9bc7106ee5acdaaa448d049c3efcb37b6e9d387e26643971a08e3c0de705fa.jpg (610x395, 47.47K)

if you say so, kid.

Attached: f1911f7726d8003cfc0dc9ba4fc57a5a1b96966f45525c5d3265c9ffdf118a16.jpg (250x250, 18.17K)

I'm not the one posting childish cartoons in lieu of arguments, buddy.

Don't you think Trent would have pointed out if "Just Use" really meant "use until we have better prisons"

My bottom line is: look at how you're engaging the texts. Are you honestly exegeting what they meant when written, or viewing them through the filter of later doctrinal changes? Would you treat Scripture this haphazardly?

You're assuming they would have had the foresight of knowing that prisons would drastically change in the distant future, and would be comprised of technologies which would be beyond their scope of comprehension. Their common sense would have dictated otherwise.
I'm not, because there is no doctrinal change. I'm simply exercising common sense.

Don't you like them kid ?
Ho sorry I forget your toy is religion "you ! you are saved, you not" "my team is the best others are just good for hell"
Since you abandonned answering to my arguments in my previous post I took as a fact you let to the grand persons real debates. Good decision, just listen well.

Attached: 01186a7a734d1f2562e04028f2455c4c.jpg (280x313, 18.4K)

What argument? That orthodox are saved because their clergy is validly ordained and can transform wine and bread into the Blood and Body of Christ? I didn't think it was worth responding, because of how ridiculous a notion it is.

I never though I will use this term but you are a bit of a LARPer. Learn humility.

Look again: the death penalty, per Trent, represses outrage and violence. What does the death penalty do that prison does not? It deters. The threat of a horrible, public death is a way in which the death penalty acts that is unmoved by prison technology.

I'd suggest actually learning what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation instead of making up your own justifications regarding who is saved.

You say a lot of things you would hear from anyone in the world who has no regard for the salvation of souls. Need I remind you that God desires as much for a murderer to be saved that he does for you or anyone? Think like a christian for a second….

This is a Vatican executioner. The Vatican used particularly horrible means of execution: look up mazzatello. I'm not arguing for the death penalty, I'm arguing your argument has changed and you're dancing in the same way you have to dance around extra ecclesia, because your view of authority is defective in a way that makes you dance.

Attached: Mastrotitta.jpg (216x290, 42.44K)

Those people never cared about maeriage. If a priest fell and wanred sex he would hire a prostitute or break his bows in any other way,just like if Im hungry and give i during fast I do not commit cannibalism.

These are just perverted people from the hedonistic revolution. Priesthood is just what they planned to achieve their goals.

Spotted the lib.

pathetic

It seems hard to believe that Our Lord would present himself on the altars of Schismatics almost certainly doomed to hell. We must remember the miracle of the Eucharist is not some spell cast according to secret formula, guarantees to work in accord with the powers of the priest, although it may seem that way. Instead it is always and in every case a free act of God's will to make himself present to his faithful.

So rich people don't steal?
It's called 'greed'.
They like little boys, they still want to shag them even after marriage.

Give me mazzatello before any other method back then.
Hanging was suffocating if you deck didn't break (and even then), quartering isn't all that fun either.
Mazzatello got you unconscious, I'll take that.

Many of them are coming back to Orthodoxy* though. I invite all of you to check out Orthodoxy for yourselves.

*Orthodoxy is not just another denomination of Christianity. It's a word meaning "correct faith/type of worship". It's just what Christianity looked like in the time of the apostles.

Is this true? Any sources for it? If so, it would be a very strong point indeed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Eastern_Orthodox_Church)#Male_monastics_only

Again, your own teaching, not that of the Catholic Church.

Appreciate it, but it is uncited

Guess I'm a coward for wanting to flee in direction of God, were there is holy men able to help me :^)
I understand your point, I use it sometimes, but that's not like if I were abandonning my religion, Jesus and God, I'm just going east. I abandon nothing, and I won't abandon my country, you know monks, that flee the word, are not cowards.

because I don't take sinners debauchery, scandal and other transient events into accounts in regards to my salvation

Holiness of the catholic church is important for the salvation of souls.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_Eastern_Orthodox_monasticism

myocn.net/tonsuring-monks/

It's mandatory in the russian church for example
orthodoxwiki.org/Consecration_of_a_bishop

Indeed I will be looking for better sources and more precise ones. I'm sure some church fathers talk about that. I have no doubt the orthodox are following their model.

I'm shocked that an opaque, labyrinthine bureaucracy has been infiltrated by power hungry phsycopaths. Shocked! Maybe a little decentralization of power is in order?

doesn't take long anymore

Decentralization is synonim if bureocracy and lack of accountability. We dont need another epic modernist democratic revolution in the spirit of Vatican 3

Don't be. It is a common believe among the Orthodox Christians that as the time of the Antichrist approaches the official administration of the Orthodox Church is going to fall. When this happens, then the true Church will appear as schismatic to the world. The following is prophecy by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867):

"Judging by the spirit of the age and the intellectual ferment, one must suppose that the structure of the Church, which has long been wavering, will collapse terribly and quickly. There is no one to stop or oppose this. The means adopted to support it are borrowed from the elements of the world which are hostile to the Church and will hasten its fall rather than prevent it."

nice D&C thread you've got here

Of course, we are faulty human beings, things don't always go well and there are examples of bad Orthodox bishops.

But there is another important difference between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. In the Catholic Church the laity has to listen obediently the teachings of the Church administration in all matters of doctrine and discipline. No matter how corrupted this administration becomes. In the Orthodox Church, however, the laity has the duty to keep the Orthodox faith unchanged. For example if I see that my bishop is a heretic, then it is not only my right, but also my obligation to separate myself from him. This is a very important reason why the liberal bishops in the Orthodox Church are unable to do as much damage as, for instance, one liberal pope can do in the Catholic Church.

See the video.

Absolutely correct, your Family and your godfather are responsible to teach you the basics of the faith. Also in Orthodox countries is believed that your godfather must testify to God for your upbringing regarding faith.
I will also add that in Orthodoxy the words of people that have proven themselves in God, like Saints and monks, carry more weight than hight ranking members of the clergy. For example, we maybe respect our Ecumenical patriarch, but the words of Saint Paisios are more importand when it comes to faith issues.
In my opinion, this kind of worship also gives you the joy of participating in the faith and the sense that you are part of a living tradition of the church.

You are being nasty and childish and not acting like a Christian. You are very likely the reason why so many people here respond negatively to a post if they see a cartoon.

We can use the Old Testament in the Bible in order to understand better the relation between monks and clergy in the Orthodox Church. Because many things in the Old Testament are preimages of the things that have came later.

The clergy of the Church corresponds to the levites (including the priests and the High Priest).

The monks correspond to the prophets.

Both offices were important, we can not say that the prophets were more important than the levites, or that the levites were more important than the prophets.

It is true that the prophets are those who start their speach with the words thus says the Lord, not the levites. So, yes, the words of Saint Paisious certainly carry more weight to me than the words of the Ecumenical Patriarch. But on the other hand, the clergy also has great rights (according to Deuteronomy 17:8-13):

If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you

Homicide means dispute about doctrine, legal right means dispute about discipline, assault means any spiritual damage that one has caused to another.

then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.

So in case of a difficult dispute, a council has to be convened which will declare a decision. The place that the Lord your God will choose means the one True Church among the many false churches.

Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left.

So if there is a decision of an issue by a rightful Orthodox council, then we have to follow this decision; we shall not turn aside from the verdict either to the right hand or to the left.

The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.

The expression that man shall die means that in the Orthodox Church we do not make compromises with the faith in order to unite artificially different denominations, instead we excommunicate in order to purge the evil from the Church.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop right there. The high (Melkisedek) priesthood now belongs to Christ only (monogenous) for all time. Do you believe that?

Now we have a new priesthood incomparably higher than the old priesthood of Aharon. However, whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction (Romans 15:4), it was a preimage, a shadow of the good things to come (Hebrews 10:1).

In the Old Testament there was a priesthood of a High Priest, priests and levites. This priesthood was installed by Moses, who had a special, unique and higher authority than the High Priest Aharon. According to this priesthood, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:9-10)

In the New Testament we have a new priesthood, consisting of a bishop, priests and deacons. This new priesthood is installed by Christ, who has a special, unique and higher authority than any bishop and who entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:12)

Both the new and the old priesthood were installed by God, because no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. (Hebrews 5:4) Whoever dares to make himself a priest falls under the conviction of Dathan and Abiram. (Numbers 16) So even Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, You are a priest forever. (Hebrews 5:5,6)

Can you please show where the new priesthood is installed? Because the way I read Hebrews (8-10), there is no priesthood on earth other than the levitical.

Not only is there a new priesthood on Earth, but even the common Orthodox Christians become a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession [of God], that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9) We are called into this light of God (which is not a symbolic but real uncreated light according to the Orthodox Church) and the temple of our divine service is our body, which we offer to God to be used as a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:19) This, too, according to the Orthodox Church is not merely a symbolic expression but has a very real meaning. For God's temple is holy and we are that temple. (1 Corinthians 3:17)

hope you got the bonus questions right or else you are going to fail this test

(vade retro)
The name of the Church has always been the "Catholic Church". I'm sorry history doesn't fit with the narrative you're trying to push.

catholic.com/tract/what-catholic-means

inb4"b-but everything that doesn't support my meme denom must be fake and a forgery!!!

I'm sorry user but the Orthodox Church has being calling herself Catholic many centuries before some Frankish tribes mistake Christianity for witchcraft and try to tke control of the "magical power" by installing a pope and making him the "first".
It's a Greek word anyway, they probably didn't even know what it means at the time.

Well I'm staying with the "Catholic Church".

Wait. We have a high priest. He's in the heavens. Christ is the mediator of the better covenant. The High Priest is NOT on earth, Heb 8.
The earthly sacrifices are done, Heb 9.
And now (in the Eucharist), Christ offers himself to us, we cannot add to his perfected work.

The work of Christ is so perfect that He makes His people actually able to add to His perfect work. Paul even writes as if there is something "lacking in Christ's afflictions"": Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church. (Colossians 1:24)

We are the branches on the true Vine which is Christ. (John 15:1-8) We feed on this Vine (through the Eucharist) so that we can bear fruits for the Vinedresser, the Father. Every branch that does not bear fruit he takes away. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

This is Christ's commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. This is what we should do, we should lay down our own life just as He layed down His life for us. Christ carried His cross on Calvary (Golgotha) and we should carry our cross and follow after Him. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (Mark 8:34-35) We are always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. (2 Corinthians 4:10-11)

Christ says that if we keep His commandments, we will abide in His love. (John 15:10) and He has spoken this so that our joy may be full. (John 15:11) This "full joy" is the joy in the Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our future inheritance until we acquire possession of it. (Ephesians 1:14)

That's a good response. You are Eastern Orthodox? Have you any intro you recommended to EO ecclesiology?

...

A tough request…

History teaches us over and over that the Orthodox Church issues definitive rulings on doctrinal matters only in response to various heresies. With respect to the ecclesiology, however, the historical heresies haven't been very "useful". The schism with the Roman Catholicism wasn't as useful as one might think because at the time of the schism the doctrine about the papal infallibility didn't exist and the later developments within the Catholic Church didn't concern directly the Orthodox Church. The appearance of the Protestantism didn't concern the Orthodox Church either. Perhaps some heretical personal opinions by people participating in the ecumenical movement have the potential to provoke the Orthodox Church to issue official ecclesiological statements, but we have to wait for this because ecumenism is a multi-aspectual problem (if you say "I condemn the ecumenism", you are not specific enough) and still a controversial topic.

My negative attitude about the undeveloped state of the Orthodox ecclesiology may seem strange to an unorthodox theologian because the theological works about the Orthodox ecclesiology have influenced the other confessions more than any other part of the modern Orthodox theology. But still, we should remember that in no other area the Orthodox theologians have given so different opinions, at times even contrary to one another.

So for now, the best thing to do is to leave the theological arguments of the theologians to the theologians and to turn our attention to the opinion of people who are canonized saints by the Church. Here are two good ones by Saint Justin Popović:

archangelsbooks.com/articles/church/AttributesofChurch.asp
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papism.aspx

Thanks

Because you're a bunch of lieing LARPers. This thread is exhibit a.

top LARP

OP here, I just took it on Google.

How do yall like da barabbas theory?

Attached: The Barabbas Theory.jpg (3508x2480, 681.29K)

Married men can abuse children as well, lots of Dad's have even molested their own children

Not all Orthodox Christians are schismatic