Catholic Vs Orthodox

SSPX is alllright

I'm sorry for having posted that yesterday, I deleted it now. I was so annoyed by Orthodox radtrads like that I just felt like shitposting and falseflagging as one. (at least I got called out for it in this thread, I'm really surprised, I had lower expectations)

Please forgive me, my brothers. Now, with that said…

Why are so many Greek, Serbian, and ROCOR bishops angry about them though?

Of course they're similar. We were in communion for 1000 years.
The Council of Florence highlighted what were thought to be the causes of the schism at the time:
The rest is stuff theological nerds obssess about while no one else cares (i.e. absolute divine simplicity vs. essence-energy distinction) or just polemics.

Maybe I'm more liberal than my Catholic brothers but I view the Catholic and Orthodox churches as two halves of the true church of Christ. There is a lot in Orthodoxy I admire, especially their commitment to keeping the mysticism of Gods nature and the sacraments intact. While I admire Aquinas I agree with his final assessment of his work as "nothing but straw". It's interesting, but it's impossible to understand Gods nature, especially through pagan philosophy. I would love to see the two churches reunited in my lifetime, but I understand it's extremely unlikely because of how they've drifted apart in doctrine and theology over the past 1000 years.

Not entirely true. Relations between the two churches are improving but there are still a lot of Orthodox who despise the Catholic church as much as Protestants do. I would say Catholics generally view the Orthodox far more favorably than the Orthodox view Catholics, and this is shown in the fact that Catholics consider Orthodox sacraments valid but Orthodox do not consider Catholic sacraments valid. Generally Orthodox have a lot more problems with Catholic theology (Filioque, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Too much emphasis on Mary) than Catholics do with Orthodox theology (Tollhouses?)

This is something the Catholics are correct about. It was a passover celebration, Jesus would have broke unleavened bread. The Orthodox justification at using leavened bread is a little bit iffy, they say it represents the risen Christ. Personally I think the usage of unleavened bread is more supported by scripture, using leavened bread seems to be a novel tradition with a post hoc justification.

Mass is the new passover. Given the emphasis of unleavened bread in Exodus as passover tradition unleavened bread is more appropriate in the celebration of the Eucharist.

...

The schism didn't happened over night, it was an ongoing procedure and it took many centuries for the Christian population to realise the theological differences that had developed to other parts of the continent. Lets just say that the differences started with the Frankish reforms to the, under occupation by them, patriarchate of Rome and are still developing even today.

Coming from a born and raised Orthodox, who is also an ultra conservative dogmatically and anti ecumenist*, me personally and the people i've speak with them about the matter DO NOT hate Catholics. Resently i've also met an Italian guys who was a very concervative Catholic and was very respectful and he was visiting Orthodox monasteries. The real Christians around the world are all my brothers despite the dogmatic differences, be them Catholic or Protestants, we are all brothers in Christ.
The ones i hate with a passion though is the Pope, the papacy in general and the clergy. I will never forgive their crimes against the Orthodox and the Catholics alike (especially the Catholic children). What i can't forgive the most is that they're doing those crimes in the name of Christ. I really wish for a purge in the Catholic church which will involve priest and popes lynchings, sorry if that sounds too extreme but this is how i feel.

*I am for real ecumenism between Christians but not for the liberal, blasphemus "all religions are the same" ecumenical movement that is going on today.

There is infinite hatred between Orthodox and Catholics IRL, as the Catholics church always sought to destroy Orthodoxy throughout history, most recently in the ethnic cleansing of Orthodox Serbs from Krajina in 1995 and from Kosovo in 1999. You just live in some secluded American town that is on the other side of the world from the Vatican.

Attached: second-conquest-e1323658337476.jpg (757x709, 238.64K)

Ok great, more dishonest one-sided polemic that'll surely be of service to God.

You are just brainwashed. Learn some history.

You just need a warhammer reference to go along with your post

For an Orthodox you would have to be implausibly ignorant to not know about the many atrocities commited by the Catholics against us.
I suspected at first you were a Catholic false-flagger, but now I'm certain.

Is there source for this?
The only reason I am Catholic is because of how I was raised when I was younger. But if that is true then I will go with Matthew 7:16.
The whole sex scandal in the Church has already put me off Catholicism

Whataboutism will take you nowhere. Because we could say the same about the persecution of Byzantine Catholics especially by Russia.

I'll be honest… Theology-wise, definitely Orthodox. It's not riddled with scholasticism.
Practice-wise, the Orthodox Liturgy kills me, can't sit down, can't do this or that, I'm having a major panic attack just thinking about going to confession, etc.
Latin mass is super easy to digest and it's not completely sung like the Orthodox Liturgy. I need to keep going to Liturgy to get used to it…

Yes, the first time… But then you attach to the priest emotionally and it becomes easier. Though I will have a major major panic attack if I'll have to confess before another priest. When my priest is ill (unfortunately sometimes he is) and unable to receive my confession I don't confess and I don't take the Eucharist (but I know I am sinning by doing so).

This is what Satan wants.

Don't worry about this war.
Most of it is caused by very zealous but ignorant people who make excessive arguments and abuse of the fathers and doctors of the Church they quote.
The schism is 99% politics, the filioque itself was born just as a linguistic confusion (though over the centuries it caused the development of a different theological view of the trinity that must be corrected).

Pay no attention to all the "you are degenerate, we are not", "kgb patriarch", "muh fourth crusade", "muh massacre of the latins" arguments.
They only serve to cause more hatred and are made by bitter people who are not in a state of grace when speaking in this way.
Visit an Orthodox church if you want, pray the jesus prayer but don't pollute your soul with theology that is far above the understanding of most people who pretend to teach it on this board.

Thank you, Godbless

The essence-energies distinction is nonsense that makes Paul a liar and completely destroys Traditional soteriology. The filioque is necessary to avoid tritheism which the more pedestrian sort of Orthodox theology collapses to all the time. They can’t have a council to save their lives or their communion. They literally have two patriarchs excommunicating each other and nobody has the power to intervene. They habitually reinforce Donatism by rebaptizing the already validly baptized. Their theology of marriage is, to put it mildly, chaotic. The most popular theological school in Orthodoxy right now basically relies on reading inconvenient Fathers, and especially Augustine, right out of the Patristic canon and anachronizing the schism to before the 7th ecumenical council.

I'll start with the minor differences first of all.
Catholicism uses unleavened bread during the eucharist, Orthodoxy uses Leavened bread; the Catholic reason is that leavened bread has some sort of biblical connotation with sin and Jewish Passover tradition, and the Orthodox reason is that Leavened bread symbolises the risen Christ.
Orthodoxy wants its clergy to be bearded, Catholicism wants them to be clean shaven.
Catholic Priests cannot be married, Orthodox priests are allowed to be married.
In Catholicism all methods besides natural ones are forbidden, in Orthodoxy Contraception may be used but only under the specific guidance of a spiritual father.
In Catholic churches expect to see statues of Mary, the Saints, and Jesus around. In Orthodoxy statues are hardly ever used (if at all), instead icons are used instead.

Now for some of the more serious differences.
Catholics believe the pope is the successor to Peter, that he has universal jurisdiction and supremacy over every Christian in the World. Orthodoxy prefers having Patriarchs having jurisdiction over their area, but nowhere else. The Pope therefore has no universal supremacy or jurisdiction.
Orthodoxy uses the original creed of Constantinople that states that the "Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father". Catholics add on "and the son". This is a big theological difference and has been argued over for nearly a 1000 years now.
Services in Orthodoxy follows the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom for most services, this is done in the language most appropriate (Eg: Greek in Greece, Russian in Russia.). This Liturgy has remained unchanged for 1000 years. In Catholicism the novus Ordo Mass is what most churches use, its much more simpler and less complex than the Orthodox Mass; you still can find more traditional catholic masses in Latin, but they are now in the sidelines.
In Orthodoxy it's expected for you to fast for two days a week, in Catholicism its gone down to only one day. There are also more fasting periods in Orthodoxy (weeks of fasting), whilst in Catholicism there is only Lent.
In Catholicism Divorce and remarriage is prohibited, but you can get your marriage "annulled" and basically this means you were never really married, and so you can marry for real this time (hopefully). In Orthodoxy you can get divorced and remarried, up to three times is the normal limit. This is due to the church having the ability to "loose and bind" and a sense of economia for sinners.
This is more philosophical, but in orthodoxy there is a distinction between who God is (Essence) and what God does (Energies). Catholicism tends to view God as an absolutely simple being and hence rejects this distinction,

Do you have examples?

St. Thomas Aquinas BTFOs them already

"The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already Footnote cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ. It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ."
"Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b32

Attached: 262290_dJaS_el_14762C_s._tommaso_daquino_83.jpg (485x743, 121.57K)

For what, persecution of Orthodox Christians by Catholics? You could've looked it up yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians

No you couldn't, because it's virtually non-existent.

Attached: vukasin-in.jpg (552x534, 82.15K)

If I cared as little for others as you supposed Christians do I would've never become Christian in the first place.

That page doen't even mention the 10% of the crimes in the name of the Pope. Mt Athos is full of mass graves of monks that didn't bow down to him.

Ask any Orthodox priest this is not true, this is actually ecumenicism and is heresy.

...

He's right though
impantokratoros.gr/visit_pope-cyprus.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/false_unity_unia.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/Greeting-abbot_meteora.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/6467BAA7.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/E8BA1B14.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/C0EE471D.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/C44249A4.en.aspx
impantokratoros.gr/2B2CE92A.en.aspx

The true issue here is papal supremacy. The Orthodox denial of filioque is a contentious position; every EO theologian I know of admits that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son in some sense of "proceeds" while denying it in others. The Catholic teaching on purgatory is not unlike the Orthodox concept of the aerial toll-house.

Eastern rite Catholics also use leavened bread in the divine liturgy.

Cool, and what does your priest say to you?

You're talking nonsense. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, end of story. And aerial toll houses are about the particular judgment while purgatory is about purification after the particular judgment…

This is a difference in methodology not doctrine. Western theologians developed the tradition of scholasticism in the Middle Ages whereas Greek theology did not. However prior to this development, all Latin theology was positive and patristic theology. The Greek and Latin Fathers were all very well versed in classical philosophy; arguably neoplatonism was originally a corruption of patristic theology. Also, traditionally there is not even a difference of emphasis: both East and West revolve around theosis or divinization, they just use different language to describe it.

Much of the confusion regarding the differences between Eastern and Western theology stems from two problems: modern Orthodox theologians don't seem to understand Latin theology, and Western Thomistic philosophy has entirely neglected its own tradition of mystical and ascetic teaching since Vatican II where it became the province of nouvelle theologie.

Polite sage.

You're mistaken. EO theology explicitly denies filioque in the sense of hypostatic origin but affirms it in terms of the economy of salvation or mission. The distinction goes back to Photius.

Implicit rejection of Papal Supremacy. That is really the only 'dogmatic' difference between them since Orthodox haven't had another ecumenical. That is what it all boils down to.

That the only true faith is Orthodoxy although we must be kind with heterodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike.
I just wanted to point out that ecumenism is a meme, you'll never find an Orthodox that believes in the Pope or consider the Catholic sacraments as valid.

I literally do not know a single Orthodox IRL who does not think Catholic sacraments are valid…

Which country?
Also what do these people believe about Saints like Paisios and Porphyrios, to name a few, and their beliefs about the matter? Do they not recognise them as Saints?

Emperor Michael VIII, who according to legend persecuted the monks of Mt. Athos, was Orthodox, as was Patriarch John XI who he invested.

EO ecclesiology inevitably leads to tragic scenes like these, because it places the leadership of the Church under the power of temporal rulers. Emperor Michael's bid for reunification with Rome was politically motivated, and Bekkos was imprisoned until he agreed to move forward with it. No Catholic monarch would ever dare try to strong arm the pope in this way.

I've lived in both France and America, been a regular at Russian, Romanian, and Antiochian parishes.

Saints are not infallible. In fact, saints are not even our source of doctrinal authority. Our own bishop is our source of authority, and doctrinal and pastoral problems are solved in a synod.

Attached: B31D9875-D65F-4936-943E-09E76B97F375.jpeg (580x435 89.77 KB, 102.75K)

Don't be confused. Orthodoxy is not a club you are into. The word literally translates to "correct faith" and we call ourselves that because we believe in it. If i from now on i start believing in, lets say, reincarnation, i'm automativally not Orthodox anymore even though i've being baptized as one. So anyone that follows the Pope is not Orthodox by default, let alone someone who kills Orthodox monks because of that. It's the same like calling Martin Luther Catholic.
And i can argue that giving a man so much power and the title of represantative of Christ authority on earth can lead to all the scandals we see today. Besides the leader of the Church is Christ only.

You are telling me that all the Russians, Romanians, Syrians, American and French Orthodox who've met IRL all considered Catholic sacraments as valid?
On faith issues they literally are
If that was the case we would all be Arians by now
The bishop's most important job in Orthodox Christianity is to preserve the faith, not to make any new dogmas neither to dictate the laity. If they don't do a good jod on preserving the faith then the laity can, and is obliged to, step in.
I don't know if you are Orthodox my friend but if you are a convert from Catholicism it seems to me that you still have a very "Catholic" way of thinking. Watch the vid to understand better of how things work in the Orthodox church.

Not liturgical

Attached: Picture1.jpg (458x610, 60.97K)

… St Justinian was strongly against universalism of any sort (even if he specifically opposed Origen) while St Isaac the Syrian and St Gregory of Nyssa were advocates of the idea (in fact St Gregory of Nyssa's purgatorial universalism was misinterpreted by Catholics to mean Purgatory is a thing). St Augustine and St Fulgentius of Ruspe advocated for and defended the filioque, St Maximus the Confessor defended the Latins' use of it, and yet St Photius was strongly against it and so were subsequent saints. St Leo the Great was a strong advocate for papal supremacy, while St Cyprian of Carthage and St Firmilian fought against the same thing, and St Gregory the Great had the belief of some sort of "petrine supremacy" that extends to the archbishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

If saints are infallible on faith issues, we're in some deep trouble.

Those I've discussed the subject with, anyway. That of course includes priests. At least every Ukrainian, Lebanese, and French priest I've talked to agreed with this - that Catholic sacraments are valid but illicit.

Excellent reading comprehension.
Arianism is anathematizd by the First Council of Nicea.
Our immediate source of information is our bishop, of whom our priest is the proxy. And when there are disputes, they are solved by a council. Our bishop is not infallible on his own, that's literally Papism.

… The second picture is clearly inside of a church or a chapel.

Ok then, for this conversation to stop making circles

Here, metropolitans, bishops, priests and theologians from various Orthodox countries clearly don't recognize Catholic sacraments as valid. Can you bring me someone who does?

If the user who googled the pic had read the article he took it from he would see that statues are not used liturgicaly in Orthodoxy. The very few statues that exist because of historical reason are allowed in Oikonomia.
Here's the article btw
orthodoxartsjournal.org/can-statuary-act-as-icon/

Sorry, but that is not how it works. Even according to the Orthodox who consider papal supremacy a heresy, an Orthodox Christian who wanted to reunite with Rome might thereby lose grace, but the excommunication is an additional ecclesiastical penalty. In this case the Patriarch of Constantinople apparently embraced papal supremacy. The other patriarchs might excommunicate him for this, but it is essentially a replay of the East-West schism at that point, with both sides claiming the authority of tradition and thus the right to pass judgment on the other. The example you give as a reductio just proves my point: Martin Luther was a Catholic priest until the moment he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1520.

You could argue that the title of Vicar of Christ on Earth caused all the scandals we see to day, but you haven't done so. At this point it's just a free assertion, and quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. But actually it's not even an argument in good faith. The "Popes" of the last 60 years have been the complete antithesis of the Popes of the previous 1900. They have completely forsaken their own office, undermining the papacy for a democratic notion of the Church. As an Orthodox Christian you ought to broadly agree with what these pontiffs have done, except that the results have obviously been disastrous and led to the vicious corruption that we see today. Nevertheless this was done not by the Catholic Church but by her enemies – the same enemies of Christ who put someone like Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Orthodox See of Constantinople.

I know this view exists among some bishops. I argue that this view is not the only or prevalent view today. Again, what did your bishop and/or your priest tell you?

The excommunication just formalize what has being already done. You are a sinner the from the exact time you are doing the sin not from when someone else finds out (if ever). So emperor Michael was not Orthodox.
Why? They still consider themselves some kind of inheritors of Gods authority on earth so i don't have anything to do with them.
The only thing i can accuse Bartholomew for till now is his Papal friendly stance. He worries me and triggers me sometimes but he haven't done anything outspokenly heretical yet

The conversation started because you said that only ROCOR believe that. And i've yet to see someone who openly accepts Cathilic sacraments as valid (except an ultra liberal priest i've once read an article from who was unironically a semi-atheist) so i assume it is still the prevalent view.

That is not at all what an excommunication is. I understand the point that you are trying to make. But although they are obviously related, there is still a significant difference between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy. Excommunication is a temporal punishment for a crime against the Church. It is not at all the same thing as the loss of faith that occurs when one embraces heresy and thus merits damnation. You can say, from an Orthodox point of view, that Emperor Michael had sinned by embracing papal supremacy, but you don't have the authority to excommunicate him. To my knowledge, nobody with the authority to do so chose to exercise it.

No, they don't.

...

Typically Catholic, try to get away with cheap shots but if they attract enough negative publicity they officially condemn the actions of their subordinates.
Also, I never before realized even Russia had a Catholic problem, the RCC is truly the enemy of the Christian world.