The Great Schism of 2018

Another protestant reformation

kek

Has this happened before?

Between Constantinople and Moscow? Literally 20 years ago. The schism lasted for 3 months. The situation was similar, but it was in Estonia, and it ended with there being two parallel canonical churches - Constantinople's and Moscow's.

I think Serbia did it

This. This sort of thing happens all the time and I'm amazed you guys think this is somehow the founding of a new church.

Are you all not aware that Antioch and Jerusalem are also not in communion right now?

Just end me please…

Thanks, papist friend. I too feel bad about what's going on in Catholic church. It's sad times for Christianity.

Sounds comfy tbh

Are you salty, slav?

It seems like regardless of denomination, the clergy are always the biggest enemy of the Christian faithful

Nah. The wicked are always drawn to power, or to be more precise, the positions of power, like moths to the flame. And they will try to be part of the power structure or tries to control it like shadow puppet from behind or directly, betraying their own ethos if need be.

Also, this shitshow is a product of cold war, communism, marxism, temporal power, United Sodom vs. Russia power play, yadda yadda, etc. While the son does not inherit the sins of the father, the earthly consequences are still felt.

Based

Attached: Monk-with-Bear.jpg (500x375, 34.03K)

tfw no 3d bear

You realize "papist" is a slur, right? No Catholic would call themselves that

That's because the true Catholics are Protestant

Attached: Reformation.png (1600x1184, 219.92K)

Appropriating slurs always works for other people, so I see no reason to care

Technically in order for you to be a heretic you have to be part of the church originally then stray from us followed by teaching lies… but since you are not, I'll actually promote you to being an innocent heathen that is on his path to the one true faith eventually.

I always wondered why they built the Holy Hand Grenade…

Attached: 1539248522074.jpg (259x195, 3.83K)

Thanks, and I pray the Francis and pedophile related drama will end for your church soon.

polite sage

Baptism makes you part of the Church though and prots have valid baptisms. Also if he professes to be a Catholic then we have to take him at his word and only his superiors can judge him a heretic. Although you cannot be protestant and Catholic and must deny one or the other.

But now it's much worse because it's Ukraine and Putin. As well as relations between EU Orthodox nations and non EU Orthodox nations being abysmal.
And it happens in the same month as the failure of the anti faggotry referendum in Romania.

If this ain't the sings of big doo doo about to hit the fan I don't know what is.

The tallest grass hides the biggest snakes.

There is a nice legend about this: when Napoleon ruled Europe and spread the secular values of the French Revolution, he kidnapped the Pope and forced him to be present at his crowning as Emperor.
The story tell that he threatened the Pope and bishops saying "I can completely eradicate Christianity if you oppose me".
They laughed and said to him "But this is impossible, we've been trying for 1700 years and we weren't able to do that"

...

Molesting kids is what party means to papists.

Which are the churches under the ecumenical patriarch, some chapel in Istanbul? It's really not a big deal, Bartholomew is a figurehead who sold out to the Americans. I'm Serbian Orthodox and I hope we break communion with him as well.

*often have valid baptisms I should say

Many prots don't

Precisely, because us true Catholics are united in Jesus Christ, not some Argentine pedophile

Attached: reformation leaders.jpg (473x355, 18.29K)

yeah sure

schismatics are going to schism

it's like with protestantism

they have no centre of unity, the vicar of Christ

Attached: 1534388765056.jpg (656x672, 143.61K)

Having a different belief about the end of days isn't going to invalidate your faith in Christ, silly

Attached: reformers.png (650x340, 200.88K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (567x134, 12.38K)

There is no salvation outside the Church of Christ.

The unity of Orthodoxy is in it's faith, liturgy, and Eucharist. Roman Catholic unity is based upon a supreme bishop who may or may not go full apostate as we've seen

That explains a lot actually.

He's showboating. The moment the Patriarchs recommune he'll recant every word of that.

Almost as if it's belief in Jesus that makes you a Christian…

Attached: thinkin.png (512x512, 7.29K)

Yeah, like you need to follow Jesus Christ's commands. In other words,
Not going to heaven sorry.

Good thing Jesus never commanded us to be part of some particular worldly organization

Attached: >popery.jpg (450x325, 51.73K)

That's cool but can you reply to ?

Reply to what, user?

Look, I'm trying to wave the crux of every argument against centrists.

"If I just have to follow God's word, then explain to me, what is God's word?"

"TO FOLLOW GOD"
I can't tell if they're missing the point intentionally or not every time they do this, but It leads people to hell either way. I don't even follow tribalism or anything, "No Salvation outside of the church" has (small, but still existent) exceptions, and there are Catholics that will go to hell too. When someone asks you "What is god's word" there are a lot of things to reflect about

Does God like the ideas of different denominations more?(Hint: Revelation 2:6) If I determine that something is sinful and someone else disagrees, who's wrong?

If my only requirement is faith, then how do you deal with denominations with different ideas about faith? Some people saw the Book of Job and determined that faith in Jesus Christ means trusting in Jesus Christ, since Job is having troubles trusting that God is good, not that God is exists.

What?
Not really, "the bible" seems pretty satisfactory
The one who disagrees with scripture
You read the bible and see what it says?

Question, which person do you think agrees with scripture the most?

The Pope unofficially supports the Russians
magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/10/18/in-the-east-there-is-rupture-between-kirill-and-bartholomew-and-the-pope-sides-more-with-the-former/

Reading over related articles on that site, the whole situation is a massive fiasco of people supporting prelates that are the most against their interests

Fast forward to today:

So, yeah.

The Pope is supporting the guy who is the most anti-ecumenical, and rejects any sort of universal primacy, and the greek catholics are supportive of the guy who cock-blocked them out of patriarchy status.

There is also a sideplot about melkites and antiochians, but that's just minor at this point.

Attached: War of the league of cambrai i dont know whats_df6af9_5807081.jpg (314x593, 43.23K)

wtf I love Frank now

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (283x360, 198.05K)

1) It wasn't Kirill that gave the EP his primacy but the ecumenical council
2) His primacy is not nominal but literal
3) Bartholomew is trying to heal the inner Ukrainian schism here, if Kirill doesn't like that he can go create his new, Russian only religion, but don't be so sure that Russian Orthodox will follow him.

Actually, Bartholomew is the one who violates the canons of the Ecumenical councils, not Kirill. Moreover, it seems the other Orthodox Churches are either with Kirill, or neutral, so EP is in isolation, not Kirill.

As for Ukraine, there is only one canonical Orthodox method to heal the schism: a pan-Orthodox council. Of course, Bartholomew doesn't want such a council.

Canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople(381 A.D.):
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary; in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese took after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province so carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

The canons give the ecumenical patriarch the right to act as a jury to solve disputes between churches and grand autocephaly. Moscow's only argument is that since they are the "3rd Rome", their patriarch is now the actual EP but that argument is weak and they know it
The point was to force the other churches to break communion with Constantinople and make Kirill the EP. Since nobody has followed him yet, Kirill is alone. And I don't believe Russian are very happy with the new apartheid forced on them by their Patriarch. Right now, they are the only Orthodox who can't visit Mt Athos. It's only a matter of time before they start to retaliate
Jerusalem took official stance in favor of Constantinople btw
Actually, Bartholomew called for a council in which one of the topics was this, the autocephaly issue. But Kirill didn't show up and sabotaged it exactly for that reason. Thus, Bartholomew had to take the matter on his hands.

Which canons?
When did the Church in Moscow make this argument?
This is pure speculation.
No they didn't. Where do you get your information from?
orthochristian.com/115397.html

russian-faith.com/news/orthodox-priest-abandons-patriarch-constantinople-joins-russian-church-n1802?fbclid=IwAR1rW9fszerpGklePErPMmaaj7ryaIERJnaYBhjGZGEcKLMIxps2nWta7sU

can we expect a lot of this in the near future?

Canons 9, 17, and 28 of the 4rth Ecumenical Council
That's the only argument we've seen so far
Anyway, if other churches don't follow him, Kirill is the one that's segregating himself from the Orthodox world dragging the people of Russia with him.
orthodoxia.info/news/russian-abbot-threatens-jerusalem-patriarchate/
Moscow threatened Jerusalem that they will stop communion with them as well if they won't follow them. Jerusalem is still in communion with Constantinople so now we just have to wait and see if Kirill will stick to his threats (he won't probably but you never know)

If Kirill decides to take it too far, we can see many things. Moscow has already started discussions with Francis
spzh.news/en/news/56831-mitropolit-ilarion-obsudit-cerkovnuju-situaciju-v-ukraine-s-papoj-rimskim

I don't now what sort of odd echo-chamber you've been living in but I mostly read at least moderately pro-Russian sources and I've not seen anyone who's part of the Church hierarchy make that argument. (I think I did see *one* anonymous internet poster make it; so I can't say that I've never seen anyone make that argument)

The actual stated arguments are essentially as follows:

"[Patriarch Bartholomew is guilty of] Participating in communion with schismatics and a person anathematized in another Local Church along with all the “bishops” and “clergy” ordained by him, encroachment on canonical territories not belonging to it, an attempt to deny its own historical decisions and obligations"

orthochristian.com/116517.html

>orthodoxia.info/news/russian-abbot-threatens-jerusalem-patriarchate/

Did you even read the article you linked to? It doesn't say anything about Jerusalem picking a side and seems to imply that Jerusalem has still not made any definite decision for either side.

And the supposed "threat" from Kirill is just one Abbot saying that if Jerusalem decides to side with Constantinople against Russia they will unfortunately have to cease communion with them too.

No, you are misinformed. One must not misinterpret the canons of the Ecumenical councils arbitrarily. We have to consult the interpretation by the canonists (such as Zonaras, Balsamon, st. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, st. Nikodim Milash). Here is what these canons say.

Canon 9 is about non-ecclesiastical lawsuits. The clerics are forbidden to use non-clerical courts. "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?". (1 Cor. 6:1) So if a cleric has something against a bishop, he has to use the metropolitan as a judge. If he has something against the metropolitan, then the patriarch is the judge. And if he has something against a patriarch, then the patriarch of Constantinople is the judge. This is the only case when the patriarch of Constantinople can apply one-man jurisdiction outside his own patriarchate. If a Russian priest wants to sue the Russian patriarch about some non-ecclesiastical, worldly issue, then he can use the patriarch of Constantinople as a judge.

Canon 17 is about the diocesan teritories. The canonists are unanimous that this canon does not give the Patriarch of Constantinople jurisdiction to solve teritorial disputes which are not within the teritory of his Patriarchate.

Canon 28 says the Chair of Constantinople is first after the the Chair of Rome. This canon says nothing about jurisdiction.

I have the impression that the Russians are using the catholic Pope (not only in this case) as an instrument for influence over Bartholomew. The Jesuits want to see the Orthodox Church under the Pope. From their point of view, however, unification with Constantinople without Moscow is pointless. Because of this it is easy for Moscow to use some circles in the catholic church in order to put pressure on Bartholomew.

Indeed. However ridiculous this is, the only ones who speak about the 3rd Rome are people who support the new claims of the "New Rome".

I don't keep an archive for every time i see likewise arguments, but here's an example from this cancerous site you posted
Constantinople fell to the ottomans, it is small, we have a bigger Orthodox population right now (never mind what was happening few decades ago), pics of the shack of Constantinople, screw the ecumenical canons etc. This is the most popular arguments we've hear so far.
Since they are not in schism anymore, they're not schismatics. Kirill must understand that you cannot keep someone outside of the church for political reasons forever since he's Orthodox dogmatically. And of course you cannot create a schism for political reasons.
Here's a more straightforward move.
orthodoxia.info/news/constantinople-jerusalem-strengthen-ties-in-response-to-moscow-decision/
Of course, most churches don't want to stir things up by picking a side, EP doesn't want that either that's why he still memorate Kirills name even though he cutted ties with him, but if Kirill push things too far, they'll be forced to do so.

Sorry I forgot the link of the article. This site is full of fake news and propaganda btw. I advise you to not pay too much attention to what it says.
orthochristian.com/116747.html

I see it more like a desperate attempt to threaten everybody that they'll go to the Pope if they won't fulfill their demands. But, as I said, I don't believe that the Russians will follow him if anything like this happens, except maybe for a few nationalists. Kirill literally shoot himself in the foot with his actions. I believe he will come to his senses again though because there aren't many things that he can do.

This is my reading of your example: "If Constantinople was a big imperial center and its patriarch wanted to break the Orthodox canons, this would be bad but understandable. But it is absurd to see Constantinople as a relatively small Church and yet pretending to have new rights that it has never had."

Don't they know that associating with the Argentinian colonel makes you wrong by default?

if constantinople comes back to rome i'd be sooo happy. but i'd prefer russia but i know that's never gonna happen with putin as the head of the russian church.

and Baptism
and Transubstantiation
and Confession
and Clergy
and the Trinity
and the role of Mary
and considering Quakers the existence of God
but yeah you guys are one big united band

To this list I would add the quarrels between trads and charismatics.

The charismatics open their souls for the devils but don't expect an official response by the catholic church any time soon.

...

He's talking about protestants, dum dum

TEST
tiggers
kikes
faggots
winnie the pooh
screw