Support for the Papacy

On the equality between bishops. Again, no sources, sorry. I was going to add sources to my text file next week so this comes at a bad time.

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

St. Ambrose of Milan:

St. Jerome:

St. Augustine:

St. Pope Leo the Great:

St. Pope Gregory the Great:

St. Isidore of Seville:

St. Bede:

This was Western saints so far. Next I'll post Eastern saints. And note that I don't mean to imply that this tells the whole story, however the idea of the equality among bishops is a pretty patristic and pretty important one.

St. Aphrahat:

St. Basil the Great:

St. Theodore of Mopsuestia:

St. Theodore the Studite:

Wouldn't Papal Infallibility be the first thing to be discussed? Why would the "basis" of the Church need a thousand years to be explicitely written down?
The amount of effort and anathemas that went to the Ecumenical Councils could have been avoided. Why even bother having the Roman Emperor call a council with all the Patriarchs if it were that simple?

It's ridiculous and obvious retroactive thinking if you're honest with yourself, but you are not.

the only debate that even matters on this board. personally, i'm catholic and i'm not gonna become orthodox. it just seems to me like e-orthos are just trying to find that next meme world view that will make them feel superior to everyone else, jay dyer is obviously the poster child for this. i really don't care about whatever autistic things they refer to, it just seems way more likely to me that catholicism is the truth, occams razor and such.

Attached: a38cbce590cff0606883a0125b508419e08da2d4a3ca565b73bdad1bb0c1d345.png (853x872, 52.15K)

This sums it up i believe. I will only add this, since Pope Leo forbade the use of the filioque and was ignored by the emperor of the HRE, doesn't that make all popes after him invalid? Because either the popes until Leo were right and everyone else after them were wrong,or the opposite. From my understanding the papal seat was stolen at that time onwards by the Franks. I believe the theological additions that started after that proves it. Let alone protestantism, which is still going strong, that was a result of that theological chaos (speaking of schisms).

Please, he is not representantive of us. Of course the shitposters are drawn to people like him, like pastor Anderson and meme monastery for Protestanst and Catholics respectively.

Good man. Stick to your denomination.
Don't bother with Church politics tho.

Not every statement/thing pope does is infallible. There are strict criteria to that (ex cathedra, in accordance with apostolic tradition, etc.) Saying "this pope did this/done that and he is mistaken" does not mean that all popes would be invalid.
Just to be clear: there are instances where pope may err.
Just to say: Filioque deserves thread of its own.
>protestantism
I do not think so.

I was talking only about the filioque which is ex cathedra i believe and dogma. But yeah it would need it's own thread.

I will second this in a way. In my "meme" years I was considering conversion. I am glad I did not because it would not be an honest conversion. Now after looking into things and learning more about history I am inclined towards catholicism. I am glad that imageboard culture made me look into faith. Perhaps I am wrong and will change my opinion once I know more.
But I will say this to Orthos:
I get that the shitposting "muh edginess" group may be smaller than it seems but it is loud. Especially the US. To be honest nothing is more pathetic than meme converts. How seriously you take the faith if you convert only based on memes? I am not saying this is 100% and I am not bashing serious converts. Not at all. But if your main source of theology is muh Jay Dyer, meme podcasts…I mean what are you even doing with yourself? This is the most important thing in your life, not a joke. Nothing gets you off more than people not even using theological arguments just shitposting and larping "muh putin". Most Orthodox I met IRL in my country are very nice people. Although the monk I befriended was clearly anti-catholic liturgy, it was possible to talk to him, hear his positions without him screaming MUH PUTIN. MUH BASED RUSSIA, LATINS, etc etc. He would say what he thinks without sperging or without childish pride or autism.
As far as the church I visited: I was a bit put off by the fact that priest asked me if I am russian even though Orthodox have a church here. There is no need for me to be russian.. This was not the reason I did not convert in the end though. But definitely if you want someone to go to church, you should treat him less as a "stranger" Especially if he's one of your own people!
As I have said, Orthos IRL were nice but most American converts I met online were unbearable larpers who decided orthodoxy must be true because muh politics of bazzzzed russia.

Tl dr: I like honest people not larpers. If you are not one you are not likely to get triggered by this because even if you're orthodox you dislike them too.

Well I am not aware that Leo forbade the use of the filioque ex cathedra.
I know of Pius XII Assumption of Mary, Boniface VIII and Pius IX.
I am unaware that Leo would make an ex cathedra statement involving the Filioque issue.
I would be glad if there would be a good filioque thread though. It is something I think I should be more informed upon than I am now.

I will add that larping is good if it is a transitional phase to get you to look at things objectively.
But if you stay in that phase/make decisions based on the larp then this post concerns you.
t. former larper

St.Jerome's Commentary on Titus 1.7

Orthodoxy has bishops yeah.

Rome was amazing resilient against heresies before the schism, even when Antioch, Constantinople, and especially Alexandria would fall or be put under sway of a rogue bishop. I want nothing more than to see a Rome like this.

I'm just not convinced it stayed that way. Lets just ignore the decadence of the Borgia popes and fast forward to now. How could I, in good conscience, swear any fealty to the Rome of now? Frankly, it's pretty damn gay. And it isn't just Francis. What's with Pope John Paul II kissing Qurans or inviting Native Americans to conduct their rituals in front of him (like the first Assisi event)? This isn't merely a matter of St. Peter falling in the water. This is head first into a mound of dog poo. It depresses me, and I'm not even Catholic.

That's no reason to oppose Christ's Church, Christ's sacred Will, for the reasons spelled out in the attachment.

Attached: the mystical body.png (782x1178, 158.38K)

Jay Dyer may be the only autist (seemingly) I've seen among Orthodox. And that's probably due to him being a Catholic scholasticist previously. Orthodox, per the name, know how to get to crux of the matter a lot more quickly, imho.

That lost me immediately by comparing our crucified Lord to these people. They're nothing like him. And guilty. Not innocent, as he was.

CATHOLARP: THE THREAD

It's an analogy, meaning the same one true Church doesn't lose its spiritual calling and marks even when undergoing suffering. To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ's power died with Him on the cross, because the same Church belongs to that same Christ.

Yep, seems pretty bad. But the pope is the head of a worldwide org with hundreds of different cultures/groups/ethnicities and attitudes he has to deal with.
Meanwhile, the ortho world is basically Russia-centric Slavs + a few Greeks.
It's a whole different ballgame we're talking about.

Pope Leo III believed the filioque is orthodox (and even dogmatic) but also that he didn't have the authority to modify a creed that was devised by council fathers centuries ago.
I think it's with Pope Nicholas that we see claims that would be outrageous for the rest of the Church (universal jurisdiction, in this case), but the "Photian" schism was ended peacefully and claims of universal jurisdiction did not flare up again until after the pornocracy.

It's not like the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility applies to every drop that comes out of the pope's mouth. However it is true that Pope Leo III's expectations of what he can do were different from both later and earlier popes'.

I don't know what you mean, but if what you mean is that the bishops of Rome ceased to be Orthodox in the 9th century… no, you don't get to make history up (although I've seen the claim before, by Fr John Rommanides I think?).

great argument.

You should go to facebook more then.

Proportionally, there are many many more Orthodox autists online than Catholic autists. Actually I'd say this is true in real life too, although from personal experience alone (nationalist parishes, racist parishes, parishes with people who worship Russia, can't talk about gay or black people without vulgarity, and suspect most of our hierarchs to be corrupt, etc).

Typical, you're being a parody of yourself, my cadolig friend

Pick one

T. Prot

cringe

The Church's calling is to do what Christ said, first and foremost. To be a light, to stand up for truth. And even die for it, if necessary. That doesn't mean being a syncretism faggot who gets along with the world, at the very least.

There are Orthodox in this vid who are just as culpable btw. And I'm not against ecumenism when it comes to bringing CHURCHES together specifically, but this is evil. If you can't feel it, I'm not sure what to say. I truly think it was Satan's doing. He stole a good thing (Christians looking for unity) and immediately expanded it to everyone else. And it took a Pope to bring it all together. The last person who managed this was Nimrod.

No thanks. I believe in Christ and his Church, but this isn't it.

Hah.. maybe that's it. I hate to be one of those people who brag about not having facebook… but I'm one of those people.

The Church's calling encompasses many things and it persists should most of Her children fall into error, not simply some (apparently) bad leaders. She has suffered worse in Her past, like the Arian heresy. This is a no challenge by comparison.

Doesn't even come close IMO. No Arian would have kissed Korans or praised false religions. Modernism is a million times worse than the Arian heresy.

We've had popes that organized murder, prostitution, simony, and worse in the past - Bergoglio is a snake, but he's not even in the bottom ten.

Yeah but the popes who did those things were just committing private sins. They never attempted to convince a large portion of the Church that what they were doing was actually OK and change doctrine to support their actions. The modernist popes have. What's more, they're succeeded in corrupting 99% of Catholics, and are constantly flirting with obscene doctrinal changes.

Well, I prefer function over form. It seems to me that Catholics are the former. They hold on to the Form somehow, declaring it the purest expression of Truth.. even when they admit how bad things have gotten on the Function end and don't resemble the Truth at all.

I'm not trying to speak down or anything, but it's sad to see. Maybe the saddest of all are Sedes. Since they clearly can point out more than the average Catholic the myriad ways things have gone south… and they still somehow declare their Church as holding all the truth. So they stick around like gadflies, never leaving entirely.

What do you mean by this.
Only blind devotees, which is found in every religous order. The Church is supposed to continuously reform.

Do i need to bring up Bishop Irish?
Or SSPX's Schoedinger Cat-type communion with Rome?

Given it's a massive copy-pasta(Matthew 16:18-19, same selection of the same parroted 4-6 patristic quotes, muh ethnic clubs), it's def the latter.

Atleast try harder, OP.

lol…
This is an actual heresy though.

What? Do you seriously deny that the Saints reform and the renew the docterines of the Church? Are you calling them heretics?

A true Church is not some ideal or brand (what I meant by "form"). It's mostly practical, at the end of the day.

Really, it's pretty simple. If someone says "I represent the truth" and then proceeds to lead people to apostasy, then they're not standing for truth, are they? So why indulge them and carry on with the facade? It's like some weird tick Catholics have though. That final hump is just too big… they know it leads to seek for a new church, and that's just unacceptable. So they all engage in a collective sort of delusion, and let their leaders preach messages from Hell. They tell themselves they have the Truth, but they've stripped truth from any of it's practical bearing and it's just become some vague ideal.

Doctrines can't be reformed or renewed, by definition. If they could then it wouldn't be the Catholic Church. I guarantee that no Saint has ever reformed or renewed a Church doctrine.

I support the pope by praying he does rightly. Agreeing with him when he gets something wrong is not supportive of his position.

You know better than me but wasn't the filioque added to the Creed by Charlemagne alone, without any council whatsoever? What's more, even against the will of the pope who never accept it until his death? I think that there was a change at the papacy around that time and the filioque was just an aspect of it. Also the east-west problems start around that time so i believe all that could be kinda related.
Yes, i've read it by Fr Romanides and the theologians of his circle. I don't know who is the last pope that the Orthodox also revere. But IIRC Fr Romanides says that the popes were Greek-Roman until that time and by then onwards they become Franks.

You know what I'm saying, stop being a literalist.

Sorry, but since I'm not a mind reader, I have no idea what you are saying if you don't use words correctly. If you say apples you can't expect someone to understand that you are talking about oranges.

Can you please more elaborate. What you said is a generality that can be applied to any Church, and any pastor. How is this exclusive to the Catholic Church?

I'm the same guy you replied btw, my IP changed.
I'm looking at the list of popes right now and towards the end of the 10th century the popes are starting to be exclusively from the HRE. Until then they are mostly Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Palestinians and Africans. Around the time the filioque was added, the nationality of the popes changes as well and the schism between east and west deepens.

That's a silly assessment because the Arian nonsense was a direct and *very early* attack on Christ's nature, plunging nearly the entire Church into what seemed at the time to be a settled heresy. The Church of today has hundreds of years behind her, with no mystery over her true nature and doctrine. That nature now becomes obscured by bad leaders, but anyone who wants to discover what she really teaches only has to ask.

Attached: Mystic_Nativity,_Sandro_Botticelli.jpg (800x1159, 315.23K)

It's also unfair to blame only the leaders. The West in its entirety is at fault.

The filioque simply crept into the creed over time and spread in Western Europe. Charlemagne was already raised knowing the filioque, and that is why he demanded that the Pope officially recognize it and add it to the Roman liturgy.
Pope Leo III's negative response was most likely to remind Charlemagne that ecclesiastical authority rests in Rome, not Aachen. But the Pope's official decision to -not- have the filioque in the creed simply wasn't effective and the Franks kept using it.
Photius actually used this as an argument in his polemics against the Franks - why do they use the filioque when Pope Leo III specifically forbade it and even had the creed without the addition carved in stone to affirm it?

The East-West problems begin in the 3rd-4th century, beginning with the Pope calling himself the successor of Peter and calling the Church of Rome infallible. There were simply valid theologoumena in both traditions that solidifed more and more as it became necessary to define them, until they couldn't be reconciliated.
Regarding canonical problems though, those began in the 11th century, in 1014, when the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch ceased to commemorate each other for unknown reasons. This worsened in 1054, even worse in 1204 when it became a Church-wide schism, even worse in 1272, 1439, and 1484 when dogma was proclaimed on both sides and anathemas were thrown.
Moving the loss of grace of the Roman church as early as the 9th century reeks of historical revisionism to me, to make the Church of Rome look as bad as possible just in time for the Photian schism.

I hold no resentment toward Fr John but this view of history, besides being revisionist, is also very dangerous. Schisms happen because of human pride and lack of love. They don't happen because a local church gets infiltrated by foreign heretics on the down low, with no one noticing until it's too late. The latter would just be a failure of the Holy Spirit to protect His Church.

Pope Leo's plates had the caption "I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith", so it doesn't look like an authority issue but more of a theological one. It's obvious that he considered the filioque "unorthodox" and he never accept it until his death. The plates are still kept in St. Peter's cathedral somewhere i believe. I'm bringing this up since the thread is about the papacy and why the Orthodox won't support the Pope of Rome. One of the reasons i can see is that a change in the Creed, the core dogma of our faith which was decided by an Ecumenical Council and was accepted by all Christian world until then, was forced to the papacy by a single king. The exclusively enthronement of popes by a specific entity from then marks a change in the papacy before and after, together with some new theological beliefs that came after that.

I know that the schism was an ongoing procedure that involved many factors and i'm not trying to pinpoint an exact moment for it. I believe that certain events, like the above, deepened it (and some others have bring the two parts closer in the last century).

I don't think Fr Romanides says something like that. What he says is that the church of Rome at some time stopped being Roman and became more Germanic when Franks overtook her. He also believes that Franks weren't theologically established very well and that led to dogmatical misunderstanding that helped the schism to happen.
Totally agree

On the doctrinal orthodoxy of the filioque, he said the following:
But on his own authority to recognize the modified creed as canonical, he said:
I think his worry may less be about the creed with the filioque being seen as theologically correct by the Franks (since he agreed with that) but rather about the creed without the filioque being seen as heretical by the Franks. So he made sure that the original form of the creed would not be forgotten (spoiler: it will be forgotten, in fact Cardinal Humbert's attack on the EP was because he believed the Constantinopolitan clergy had removed the filioque from the creed), while also making a statement that 1) authority rests in the Pope, not in the emperor, and 2) there is no absolute authority within one person independently from what the Fathers have taught and done, so even as the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church, the Pope can't pretend he is illuminated by the Spirit like the council fathers were, in the end ecumenical councils are the highest authority.

I will quit soon too. It is indeed a cancer.

Well, even if he agreed with it, he didn't believe that he himself, as the pope, has the power to change the Creed. But his will was ignored and after his death the notion that a pope has authority above the Ecumenical Councils comes into play. Around the same time, the (Germanic) HRE emerges and the differences between the east and west are starting to become more and more clear every day. So it was impossible for the other patriarchates to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome anymore (let alone that the meaning of primacy after that changed).

Prots coping are insane

Not an argument