Be catholic

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.