Should I become a Latin or a Byzantine?

Should I become a Latin or a Byzantine?

Attached: 2136396_orig.jpg (960x638 390.19 KB, 92.18K)

What country are you in?

Assuming America, Catholic. The OCA is full of white nationalist larpers who are just in it to be edgy and only pay lipservice to faith. The ROCOR and every other Orthodox church is just an ethnic club that you'll be excluded from.

YOU KNOW THE DRILL!
BEGOME WESTERN RITE ORTHODOX

I think he was asking about eastern catholic. Tbh tho its still a ethic club

The Catholic Church is full of pedophiles, sodomites whats the difference, amirite? and sodomite apologists. Arguably worse than the white nationalists.

...

Well in that case, latin because why would you join a church that is from an unrelated ethnicity to you.

there is like one parish in the US and it basically doesnt exist anywhere else, ontop of that it's being surpressed by every Orthodox church

Sure.

...

...

This. I'm in America and the Catholic church down the street from me is like 90% Irish. I've seen an almost exclusively Portuguese parish too one time. Most American Catholics are Italians, Mexicans, Portuguese, Irish, and even Polish, and they all seem to group by ethnicity into their own little parishes. Notice how you rarely ever see black American Catholic?

Countries having a unique culture is different from ethnic based churches that exclude foreigners.

How does any of this partisanship the OP?

Attached: E50D79E6-C6DC-463F-9238-50D1DE439C13.jpeg (120x102, 19.26K)

*help

100 years ago in America we used to have ethnic exclusive parishes that would only take a priest from the same ethnicity.
We have them in the South

When I said the Bizantine Rite of Catholicism is pure will to power and has no basis on Roman Catholic Theology.
Of course I'm saying he shouldn't be in an Uniate, it's implicit.

lol wut? I go to a ROCOR Church and it's great. Our priest himself is a convert

I've heard this so often from progressives whenever someone won't show guilt over crimes that they never committed, that now I just assume what "white nationalists" are just regular people who don't hate their own race.

How has it no basis in Catholic Theology? The Orthodox Church has no claim to sole, wholesale use of the Eastern Fathers and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Neither does the Catholic Church have sole, wholesale use of the Western Fathers and the Tridentine Rite.

You accused the Papcay of being ‘pure will to power and nothing else’ and willing to ‘desacralise’ it’s liturgies, a baseless accusation (a hollow accusation, too, if we consider the Orthodox Church’s own efforts of Uniatism) and one which makes no sense, unless you mean to say that the CC uses its Byzantine Liturgy as tools for ‘tricking Ukrainians’. Don’t tell me that this isn’t anything but an attempt to pass aspersions on the CC, to sow doubt and proselytise the OP.

It is pure partisanship and stinks of polemic.

Attached: 9F7C0FBB-6A87-43C3-8B6A-06AF0ECA930E.jpeg (640x640, 70.45K)

One of the priests in my church is black what are you on about.

The catholics truly are the best debaters.

source: your hairy arse

Whatever aesthetics you prefer, personally i prefer the clean look of Latin aesthetics.

Attached: 1502147240832.jpg (885x996, 132.14K)

Thanks, you just convinced me that it's the place where I should be.
If someone like you hates someone, it's probably because it's a good thing.

I'm pretty sure it will turn out that they are just regular white people who are okay with who they are, and they don't want to bow to your false idol of egalitarianism and anti-racism.

See

You just confirmed his point.
It IS RARE.

Depends on what your nearest parish is. If SSPX, ICRSS or FSSP and you're western European then become Latin. If it is byzantine and you're Eastern European become Byzantine. Any choice is better than novus ordo abomination.

The mass that Benedict celebrates is a boring abomination

Orthodoxy confirmed to be the true faith, despite its unpopularity.

Are you only at the mass for pretty colours, or Divine Liturgy if you be Orthodox or EC?

I greatly prefer the Tridentine Rite (and believe that changes be made to make it the Ordinary form of celebration), but the NO celebrated piously and faithfully, according to how it ought to be celebrated, is indeed a beautiful and edifying sight.

Attached: 62E95C9E-E161-4D98-A144-8CA3F6A12AA5.jpeg (220x317, 23.37K)

No, I assist at mass to offer the most perfect form of adoration that God himself as the Christ taught us exactly how to offer. The Rite of St Peter is that unchanged sacred tradition which no man, not even a Pope can change. NO is a bastardisation and change from how Christ taught the apostles to worship him. In whole the NO is illicit and offensive to God instrinsicly by it being seeking to usurp the traditions of God with the traditions of man. St Paul teaches us to reject angels who cone with a false gospel. NO is a false gospel to be rejected. It is like a new changed bible. If you find any beauty in NO it is only because it contains some of that divine worship that God taught, but the whole thing is rancid and displeasing to God.

Liturgy is theology

My understanding is the Heimbach and his priest are uncannonical, they aren't Orthodox any more that Sedes are Roman Catholics

1) The Tridentine Rite is not unchangeable and has been subject to revisions and developments. So to call it ‘unchanged’ is erroneous; serious developments include the revisions of Pope St. Pius V, the insertion of the Agnus Dei by Pope St. Sergius I, etc. The Mass is, indeed, a part of Sacred Tradition and is why the Tridentine Rite deserves the prime of place in the worship of the Church. That does not, however, alter the status of the NO as a valid and licit celebration, as is the position of the Holy Catholic Church.

2) The only false gospel is the words that flow from your mouth, schismatic. You have confused the orthodox teachings of the Second Vatican Council with the ‘Spirit of VII’ that followed.

Attached: AA1807B8-297C-4DC8-9D06-123DF5EDFF1A.jpeg (400x400, 51.23K)

t. Diamond Brothers

Prove the rite of St Peter has changed. The onus is on the modernist to prove that the received sacred tradition has corrupted and that the holy spirit has not protected it. Agnus dei is literally in the bible, said by John the Baptist. Prove the apostles did not have it in the liturgy.

Lol how am I a schismatic? I submit myself to the Pope and am in communion with all catholics. Please explain how I am a schismatic. Ironicly, you realise that to usurp the authority of a priest and to condemn someone as a schismatic is the sin of usurpation and schism as you refuse to be in communion with me.

Young Catholics and children are abandoning the Novus ordo end masse and flooding to the old petrine rite and there is nothing you can do to stop them. Masturbators, pornographers and masturbators can't stop Catholics from rejecting their new abomination protestant liturgy.

Welcome to modernism, where divine revelation of God can be changed by man to fit his news whims and progressiveness. You're literally preaching a new and different gospel and you admit it.

You forgot masturbators

* fornicators, but masturbators go into the fiery lake twice as much

watch him say that the Jews can be saved by Judaism and not Christ …

That's like literally heresy. Didn't Jesus explicitly say that his church was the gate by which the good shepherd entered?

EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALUS. All Judaizers go into the fiery lake, the Christ killers.

I disagree with that particular version, but you can't contribute to your salvation except for through Christ.

Attached: christianity_pepe.jpg (1280x809, 202.79K)

Are you really a priest? Because I am certain that you’re a troll if you don’t realise that the Agnus Dei was first add to the Mass by Pope St. Sergius I, well after the Apostles (687-701). Or that the Mass was revised by Pope St. Pius V.

I won’t go any further in this discussion, as I, perhaps, was too greedy in my assertions and have exceeded my knowledge. So you may consider me done in regards to this question. Though I will retain the position of the Catholic Church, that Sacred Tradition is unaltered and unalterable.

I’d also like to say that I have no problem with people ‘flooding to’ the Tridentine Rite, as I prefer the traditional form of celebration.

Attached: Zoomer dance.gif (931x682, 360.76K)

bait

I'm not a priest, what I said was you usurp the authority of priests to declare someone to be schismatic as only spiritual superiors have the authority to do that. Lay people cannot excommunicate lay people and it is an act of schism to do so.

Pope Sergius did not add the agnus dei in, he corrected liturgical corruptions where people had been omitting the agnus dei. It is the same case with Pius V, he suppressed all the wild liturgical corruption going on and made everyone conform to the original received tradition from St Peter. The onus is on you to prove that the received tradition of our fathers is corrupt and not of God. If you doubt the holy spirit can preserve the original unchanged liturgy of St Peter then you do not have supernatural faith.

You are wise though to profess sacred tradition is unalterable.

Well realise that they do so because they hate the novus ordo and prefer things of God to those of man, and that does not make them schismatic.

If you are an Easterner go Eastern Catholic.
If you are a westerner go with Latins.
Because in that case byzantine stuff isn't your native culture, it belongs to other people and you shouldn't do culture appropriation.

the entire christian religion is cultural appropriation, m8. and that's a good thing.

Whichever one has less pedophiles I guess.

Attached: saved.jpg (724x662, 103.83K)

b-b-but it wasn't ex cathedra!!

I just can't do the mental gymnastics anymore about it was not ex cathedral and the magisterium and so on. I mean, when has a Pope publicly said heresy even once? And now it's every month. Papal infallibility just cannot be true anymore, or those Popes are not legit. Orthodoxy or sedevacantism are the only valid choices.

the pope has a jewier looking nose than the jew

Read Vatican 1. It clearly lays out the limit of the Pope's infallibility. Contrary to belief, Vatican 1 was a warning from God against ultramontanism and was prophetical of the 20th century if people did not repent of believing everything a Pope did was infallible. V1 limits severely the power most people thought the Pope had. The Pope cannot contradict divine revelation, infallibility does not extend to that.

Conservatives are losing their faith over this Pope, when they don't realise that he is no worse, and actually even better than all the post v2 Popes. You are losing the faith because you are proud and you think that you are the standard of divine justice. Remember that you cannot excommunicate and condemn your spiritual superiors as formal heretics even if they are material heretics. If you refuse to submit to and be in communion with the Pope then you will commit schism which is mortally sinful.

Mass apostasy funnily enough will come first from the conservative novus ordo and ecclesia dei catholics because they have proudly made irrational fauxbedience a part of their self image. Once people just accept the SSPX position they will be able to grow in the faith rather than being fixated on condemning others as heretics and schismatics.

A Catholic liar, as usual.

/thread

As a protestant I have to say the latin Rome was better, even though Byzantine lasted longer, but ask yourself "how did that empire fall?" By leaving the back door open in the most important state of the government. Huge fail.
This is what happens when you reject scholasticism-you end up dead or pay the jizya. At least in fallen west empire, they humanized the barbarians and converted them to Christ.