How does sedevacantism make any logical sense?

So at this point, if you've got no legit cardinals in the Vatican, and basically no legit bishops, then basically, there can never be another legit Pope, cardinal, bishop again. What does that mean for the Church?

How does this even make any sense?

Attached: chair.jpg (1280x720, 62.39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-council/#.XIaS1PZFzIU
youtube.com/watch?v=0dUP4j6eZ6s
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_modernism.aspx
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It doesn't. Sedevacantism is claiming that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church that Christ built, which is utterly impossible. Sedes literally aren't Catholic.

/thread

Double reinforcing this, unironically
[/thread]

Attached: 2019_03_10_044504.png (500x386, 154.76K)

I had a dream that I was hanging out with Jay Dyer and the Dimond brothers

To recognise heretics as legitimate holders of office in the Church is to let the gates of hell prevail.

Exactly

The whole question, is can an open apostate still be the Pope? Non sedes literally say yes, and sedes say no. This is the first main question. It is quite bizarre to me to say that a Pope can say they worship Odin and not Jesus anymore, but still you maintain that they are still Pope, until they formally resign. This is a very strange position.

Sedevacantism is one of several attempts to square the obvious apostasy of JP2 and Francis with papal infallibility.

It is illogical not because sedevacantism is illogical, but because papal infallibility itself is illogical.

The proper Christian reconciliation between love of the Western Rite yet seeing that the Roman Church is apostate is Western Rite Orthodoxy.

I found something off an Orthodox blog which you guys might find interesting.

"St. Theophylact of Ochrid points out that the words, "I will give unto thee,""…were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1994], p. 141.) The second verse to which St. Theophylact refers is St. John 20:23. As the translator rightly observes, the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and thus refers not to St. Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles. St. Theophylact, following St. John Chrysostomos and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not the Apostles person. Any other interpretation would, of course, violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the rather clear Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18)."

Yes, I provided all of Francis' heretical quotes in another thread earlier today but apparently papal infallibility only applies when the Roman pope invokes some specific ritual. This is totally nuts…

Lay people shouldn't even be addressing or thinking about this issue

they concocted a theory called sedeprivationism which means the pope is materially the pope but not formally.

Attached: Guérard des Lauriers.jpg (250x384, 67.88K)

Lol that's a stupid argument. During the Arian controversy, should I just have listened to my Arian Bishop? The fact is that the final great apostasy, promised in scripture, has to be a lot bigger than the Arian controversy. As it's clear you can't rely on your Priest (I've had multiple priests tell me straight up heresy, in homilies and regarding the mass) and many Bishops speak and promote heresy too. These are not normal times. But this is the thing, really the non-sede position is quite bizarre. They literally say the Pope can start worshipping Odin and Krishna, and yet will remain the Pope and has full papal powers and can even pronounce things ex cathedra, while saying that Jesus is garbage and Odin is almighty. Is this really a reasonable position? This is a very wacky position and it's not well supported, but that's what they believe. They believe that no one can judge the Pope for heresy or apostasy. So unless the Pope resigns the Odin worshipping Cow urine drinking Krishna loving Pope is still Pope and has full jurisdiction over the whole Catholic faith.

Something is just not right with that position.

To clarify, non-sedes say that the Pope literally does not have to be Catholic. Now tell me where the logic is in that. The Pope can be a Buddhist or Hindu or Moslem? Now that's a weird religion you follow, where the highest position in your religion that everyone must submit do doesn't even have to be part of your religion, but can be a part of another religion which is hostile to you. That's one weird religion.

There are like a dozen western rite parishes in all of North America. This isn't a viable option for 99% of people.

Sedeprivation. Basically the pope's heresy doesnt remove him from the papacy, but suspends his powers until he repents

Western Rite could replace Anglicanism

Sedevacantist organizations are also few. If following the Western Rite is not important to you, there's literally nothing wrong with the Eastern Rite.

I'm increasingly convinced that sedeprivationism/Cassiciacum thesis is correct to be quite honest, fam.

Based Theophylact

I agree with trads (and sedes, I guess) that modernism needs to be taken out of the Church, but you don't need to ditch the whole Church or Vatican II for that. They're not the same thing necessarily.

They might as well be, because it's the Western mindset the RCC adopted with it's scholasticism that led to things turning out this way:
oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

I only having a passing familiarity with Seraphim Rose. Sorry. I can appreciate that he found Christ and lived what seems to be a demanding ascetic life, but why was he so preoccupied with writing giant tomes about all of civilization's problems.. especially outside his church? I won't go so far as to act like some of the crazy Baptists here and say a queer is forever a queer and a "reprobate" indefinitely, but it kind of annoys me the amount of zeal he had for attacking civilization so much… when he engaged in the worst forms of it once. There's no humility there.

That probably sounds too uncharitable, but I really do appreciate that he changed. I just think he should have taken a vow of silence or something (do Orthodox have that?). And I think some of his critiques may have been part self-reflection, as he saw the worst of depraved modern culture and later hated it.. but it comes off like he projects it on everyone else, just for having some Western foundations in their thinking. As if everyone is destined to be some depraved boomer like he once was.

It sounds like you're basing your opinions of him based on his later (more controversial/opinionated) works. Nihilism was one of his earlier writings (if not his earliest published work) and it's mostly cut and dry philosophy. I haven't read all his work, so I can't say whether or not he actually became more jaded over time, but it seems probable I can imagine monastic life having that effect on some people. Regardless, you should actually read that particular work of his before just scoffong at it.

Then those user's argument still stands, and you are accusing Christ of lying. Why even be "Catholic"? You're not doing yourself any good by pretending to be Catholic if you have schismed yourself.

Yes, ex cathedra. If you don't know this, sounds like you're an enemy of the Church trying to undermine Her.

Pope Francis is not an open apostate, nor is he even likely a closeted apostate.


"non-sedes" are Catholic. Stop your venom, snake.

I'm not trying to scoff. Like I said, I'm glad he changed. I just think that someone who was as steeped in modern culture shouldn't be the loudest voice to criticize it. It's true, I haven't read anything… but I'm at least familiar with the anti-West attitude of Jay Dyer and his hangups about Western presuppositions. I agree with pointing out the obviously bad influences (Zionism, Freemasons, etc), but the whole system isn't that depraved. That's crazy talk tbh.

I dislike Prots myself but this kind of thinking is exactly what led to the Reformation, there's lots of thinking and questioning to be done in regards to God himself but the Pope should be above any questioning like that? Yeah okay buddy.

Those are exactly the kind of people who should be speaking about this, those who experienced it first hand and were knee deep in it.

Also Jay Dyer =/= Seraphim Rose, not by a longshot

Jay has a slight but for Seraphim Rose all I can is that you should read him yourself instead of forming an opinion on him purely from secondhand information.

That's not what he meant. The laity being able to publicly judge the seat is no metric for a Pope being deposed or judged heretical. I don't believe the Orthodox laity has any say when it comes to errors of their own bishopric, or am I wrong?

Yeah, Fr. Rose's work is certainly notorious for provoking that sort of response, especially among former Protestants that latch on to his creationism stuff. But Nihilism is probably his most important (and underrated) work imo, even though it was unfortunately left uncompleted. But the whole "anti-west" view does actually stem from Orthodoxy itself, as it's a generally shared sentiment among the followers of the faith that's basically taught along with the emphasis on mysticism when you go through your Orthodox catechism (though in much much milder terms than Fr. Rose's book of course). So that's not really anything new that Fr. Rose introduced, he just emphasised it and articulated it well.

As for Jay Dyer… it's probably best to read the books he talks about for yourself, because he's not exactly the greatest at articulating what they actually say. He basically just uses books as a starting off point to go on rants. I don't think he necessarily misrepresents the books he recommends, but he does sometimes emphasize points that the original books don't, and then connects them together with a dozen other books/ideas to weave a sort of "grand unified theory of orthodox autism". So yeah, it's best to take his stuff with a pinch of salt until you actually go through his reading list.

Same user here. IP changed.

I disagree. Like I said, he was gay apparently. Think about that. Not everyone engages in this. It's pretty…. unique. Personally, you couldn't pay me to do it. No amount of Western influence is going to make me a fag. Same goes for all real Christians. They don't deserve to be lectured by him. Nor was he saved from his sins because of retreating from the West (apparently he grew up Protestant, and that wasn't enough to stop him from being a fag. But I think that's his own fault. I won't even insult Protestantism to this extent. They hate fags too). He was saved solely because of Christ.

We're all in the same boat when it comes down to it. People either have Christ or don't. Those who don't are the ones who quickly fall prey to the world. It's not a matter of intellectual framework that protects us, but Christ.

I mention Dyer also because he brought up
this particular point all the way back to Gregory Palamas. I've never read him either, but according to Dyer, Palamas told Barlaam that Catholic "presuppositions" will lead the whole West to atheism. I have to call this nonsense. For the same reason I just stated above. I'm not a faggot! Or an atheist. Nor are most of us.

We could all get along better if people didn't assume that about one side.. that they're somehow heading to depravity. Judge people
for what they actually are. Not divining everything from their intellectual presuppositions.

Have you not seen the unnatural rise in transgenderism in the West recently? That's 100% a product of the West. Your own personal homo/hetero tendencies are besides the point.

Christians also didn't deserve to be lectured by Jesus himself, because we're all pathetic unworthy sinners that could never live up to his standards. Yet here we are. So who are you to put yourself above a monk of any kind? Why should anyone listen to what you have to say with all that sinful pride you display?

This makes me question whether you even know what either fags or monks are.

So you just flat out call nonsense on things you know nothing about, and that's supposed to mean something somehow? You might as well go become a fedora wearing atheist at that point.

Your insistence on this point really makes one wonder if you're not just trying to suppress something here…

Yet that's precisely what most Catholics and Protestants end up doing because of the west's doctrine of original sin. Also, the East's stance isn't an assumption, it's an observation.

I was about to answer to you but I generally agree with user above me so, no need.

People can build more churches you know.

Why are the Orthodox even in this thread besides to winnie the pooh on the CC? Why do we even talk to them?

Attached: BF1FFD50-A18D-4F81-A0C4-6357227D4457.jpeg (424x347, 26.26K)

ffs they don’t even like us, they down right hate us and wish nothing but ill on us

I am Catholic and I could say the same of many of us; in all honesty, if I was to make a merely human case for both Churches, both hierarchies and laypeople, I would walk away as disgusted as I am with myself. Thankfully it’s not just men but above all God, and I have chosen that the Catholic Church is where I was called by God. We need to fix a lot, way more than the Orthos, but I still hold the certainty that the RCC was and is the bride of God.

well let's look at things with a bit of context.

Infallibility means that not even one of the pope's ex cathedra statements / doctrines can be wrong, as that would mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.

however, notice this does not at all apply to non infallible statements - so is it possible for a pope to be say, a bad role model, or to say things that are or suggest wrong and maybe even heretical things, as he is saying it not infallibly as the Pope, but merely as the man he is.

I would reckon that this is clearly possible - think about it, there have even been paintings of Popes in hell, how could that even be possible unless they were "bad role models" or even heretics, by word or by deed?


What the whole debate boils down to - the single most important point of contention is: Can a heretic (a man who is severed from the church) rule the church? There have been theologians who have said "no, they cannot, how can something outside the church rule the church?", however this is not an authoritative statement, but the thinking of mere theologians - it isn't assuredly right or wrong like infallible statements are. If a heretic/schismatic cannot rule the church, then it creates a big problem of mere peasants and laity being able to declare on their own grounds that the pope is a heretic, akin to something like a Protestant's private judgement and sever themselves into a million cults (as sedevacantists already do), not to mention the problem of continuity if the papacy is never filled with a real pope, despite having the counter church anti-pope.

I believe the most sensible position is - you're right, the authority of the Pope can never be in schism with the church - but the man who is pope can. It is merely an issue of separating the man from his position, that it is the man who is in schism with his duties, and committed heresy in teachings, but the pope as pope has never done any of these things, as he has never done these things ex-cathedra, only the man sinned.


Personally the position I most like so far is the idea that: it is a fact that no one has the authority on earth (let alone peasants) to judge the pope - except for, when you think about it, the pope himself. So, we will implore the pope create a trial where he will judge his own self to see if he has committed errors in his teaching, and in this trial clarify what is and restore Catholic doctrine - and therefor if his position is heretical according to it - to put the people at rest in such matters authoritatively. Such a trial and judgement will be held as an ex-cathedra echo of existing doctrine on the authority of the pope, and is of course then by its very nature infallible, and cannot be wrong. I don't know about you, but to me this seems like the perfect solution - it literally can't fail. You can even make a bit of a show of it too, and reveal to the public the unique peculiarities of Roman Catholicism.

this is silly, because there will simply never be a straight up non-christian pope, like wtf? How could anyone so royally screw up as to put a Hindu in charge of the Catholic church? It's technical possibility is ridiculous even to consider, knowing how impossible it would be to ever practically come about.

Attached: 761257.jpg (696x460, 265.09K)

I don’t hate you. We are just called to proselytise.

You will be in my prayers.

Attached: 0B71ED7C-4D34-45C3-B537-D213C0E57804.jpeg (800x800, 129.83K)

Francis could, if he liked, make an ex cathedra statement saying some nonsense and it would become doctrine. This is why people criticise the RCC for being insanely legalistic to where a heretic or luciferian can be pope but as long as he doesn’t initiate X protocol then it’s okay, hell has not prevailed over the rock of Peter. The pope does not take a break from his job, it’s not a 9 to 5 thing where he can say whatever he likes except at specific moments. It just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to me. Francis is clearly a Jewish puppet clown. Also Peter was also Bishop of Antioch… why isn’t the Bishop of Antioch today the ‘rock of Peter’? Papal supremacy has allowed Vatican I and II, think about that. Unless you take the Orthodox position that the Roman Pope was the “first among equals” which is supported by the fact that there were ecumenical councils… then you are forced to accept all the modernist garbage fire that is Vatican II.

Sorry for ranting but Vatican II makes my blood boil.

That's not how "ex cathedra" or Papal Supremacy works. Also has nothing to do with the Second Vatican Council. Your rant, while forgivable, comes from a place of ignorance and you might want to educate yourself before you go bearing false witness and spreading falsehoods.

I've been hearing this a lot, but you never explain how it does work and how a heretic could be pope. You can go on the Vatican website where says the pope has IMMEDIATE authority over the entire church.

Here, lets simplify the discussion.

If you reject Vatican II you are in schism (in the eyes of the church of Rome).
Is that not true?

Yes, this is true; but if you're rejecting V2 out of ignorance, then you have to examine why exactly you hate V2 so much. What changed with V2 that is causing you such distress?

V2 changed everything. The enemies of the church pushed this conference forward. I reject it as it contradicts prior Roman Catholic teaching… but that means I'm in schism and can't be Roman Catholic anymore.
So I just became Orthodox because too many contradictions.

holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-council/#.XIaS1PZFzIU
youtube.com/watch?v=0dUP4j6eZ6s

Note I don't share the beliefs of all these sources but they provide a better overview of the council than I could give.

jej

Orthos to Catholics:
Catholics to Orthos:

It's not pride. I wouldn't dare to lecture others about any of my actual sins. I was involved in gangs when I was young, for example. I have particularly bad anger issues and was a bully. I was also a cheat and a thief. By the grace of Christ, I was saved, but I don't turn around and act like my crap doesn't stink in that respect. It definitely does. And while I have been pretty unsuccessful, I try to lovingly tell others in the same position to look at the void in their hearts and why they are trying to fill it with empty things like gangs. There's a greater sense of family and belonging in Christ and he would be most welcome of them.


This is leftist reasoning. "Because you're against it, you must secretly be suppressed!" Come on, now. It's nasty behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. Fags need to shut up, even after they repent and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I would say the same for Michael Voris with Catholics. Why is it that fags, even after they convert, have to be in people's faces so much? They need to shut up and go in their room and pray. Not write giant books railing against society or building media companies like Voris.

I'm celibate myself. I'm neither gay nor particularly hot blooded in the masculine sense now.

But this is barely about me: It's his diatribe against the whole West (and even Western Christendom) that I take issue with. Not me personally. Just because it failed him doesn't mean it fails all of humanity. There's much good here, and you guys aren't going to win many over by making them hate their own homes and LARPing as outsiders.

Proselytize if you want, I say. I enjoy some of Orthodoxy and discussing theological issues in general.. but I take particular issue with the anti-West rhetoric. It has nothing to do with Christ and more like listening to RT or something. Proselytize all you want, but stop the LARPing.

No, it's basic human psychology actually. Projection is a very real phenomenon.

So you're an apostate that doesn't care to follow what Jesus actually said then? Need we remind you of the parable of the Good Samaritan? Do you know why Jesus chose a Samaritan specifically for his example? I suggest you research that before continuing to propagate your false gospel.

Come on now, there are hardly any outspoken gays in the orthodox church. If Seraphim Rose is the only notable example in the orthodox you can think of, despite the numerous gays that actually join the church and repent, then your accusations are baseless, and you're doing nothing more than projecting the sins of the liberal LGBTWTFBBQ+ agenda onto actual Christians.

There's lots in the bible prideful individuals can take issue with, but that doesn't change anything. Furthermore, you're still not demonstrating any understanding as to where this "anti-western" stance originates from, or more importantly, why it's there.
You complaining about "muh anti west" issues, is very much like gays complaining about "God hates us!" as an excuse to not become Christians. If you took a minute to actually humble yourself without simply jumping to conclusions and complaining, you might actually learn something.

Narrow is the gate user. Our only mission is to offer everyone the opportunity, but Jesus himself made it clear that we aren't to be under any sort of delusion that most will actually take us up on this offer. If you don't like the implications of following God, then alright whatever, you can do what you want, but don't expect the final judgement to be kind to you if you willingly choose to ignore Jesus' teachings. Jesus didn't come down to make us comfortable about our modernist western lifestyles, he came here to show us The Way, but if you don't like it, so be it.

This is the second time you've mentioned Jesus to get me to submit to Seraphim Rose. It's not going to work. They're not the same person. Stop it.

And there's nothing "false" about the gospel I believe. There's literally no difference between Catholic or Orthodox on the gospel. If you think that, you've truly drank the kool-aid on anti-West rhetoric. The basic gospel of Christ has never been in dispute between the two.

To say there is a difference sounds more like a latent Protestant.. they're the only ones who accuse Catholics (and Orthodox as well) of having a false gospel.


Yes, and I'd rather listen to them. Not even a lot of Orthodox care for him. He pisses off a lot of people, and so do his followers.

Err.. I mean, I'd rather listen to the myriad of Orthodox teachers out there. Just not him. Why is it that he's so popular on the net?

One more thing.. I have to point out the extreme irony here. You keep accusing me of pride, but all I'm doing is DEFENDING billions of Christians. The only prideful thing I see is thinking everyone is somehow depraved in a whole hemisphere of the planet… and one faggot all by his lonesome has the truth… and that he's equivalent to Jesus somehow.

Only in your twisted imagination was Seraphim Rose compared to Jesus. The point was Rose was the Samaritan in that example. Your response suggests you don't actually understand the parable, in which case you are in fact preaching a false gospel. Facts are facts, end of story. No one is ordering you to submit to Seraphim Rose, because as was already mentioned, the entire Orthodox stance with regards to mysticism vs scholasticism was already there long before Rose was even born.

If you think there are no significant theological differences between the Catholics and Orthodox, then you've drank the Papist kool-aid. See how that works? I'm not even that anti-west, I just point out how over-emphasising Augustinian doctrine in the RCC has led the west astray. This was hardly a leap of logic that required Seraphim Rose to come down and "enlighten" us about.

Also, I said (You) were spreading a false gospel, not the Catholic church in general. I'm not going to hold the RCC responsible for your fringe views.

And how do you plan on listening to them when you're telling them all to shut up? You can't listen to people that aren't speaking user, that's not how it works. Not to mention that I bet the moment they did start to speak, you'd instantly complain about them speaking too, making your entire position silly.

You could say that about literally all of Christendom. People are sinners, news at 11.

It's exactly what you did earlier by saying this:

You try to namedrop Jesus as some way to say I'm resistant to ALL "lecturing", just because I'm resistant to Seraphim Rose's particular lecturing. And you keep doing it.

What fringe views? That I don't listen to faggots criticize entire swathes of other Christians… when they aren't even guilty of anything he imagines they are?

That I think people should be weighed by what they actually do and not where they live?

Meanwhile, your pope also defends the BILLIONS of non-christians around the planet, including hundreds of pedophiles within the church to boot. The issue here is where to draw the line. Be honest with yourself user, you aren't defending people, you're defending a lifestyle/worldview. There's nothing inherently sinful about the geographic location of people.

Keep repeating that all you want, doesn't make it true.


No, the point was that you're so unjustly resistant to anything gays have to say. Rose specifically is besides the point. Gays are your neighbors user, just as much as Samaritans were the neighbors of the Jews who hated them. So long as you continue to misunderstand this, you will continue believing a false gospel even by Roman Catholic standards.


Yes, you telling all gays to shut up is very much fringe, arguably even more so within the RCC than in the EOC.

This is you jumping to conclusions again. "Guilt" has nothing to do with it. It's an issue with a world-view that leads to nihilism, which a lot of people unknowingly and unintentionally hold. Nobody's saying that people are "guilty of doing this", but that it's unfortunate that they were infected with this world view that admonishes mysticism. Stop strawmanning the orthodox position to suit your agenda.

Man, you clearly don't even understand what "The West" means if you're interpreting it that literally. The West stands for 'the western mindset', i.e. the world view that came out of Hellenistic philosophy and the enlightenment. The fact that it happened to mostly affect the western part of the globe is besides the point. People can learn to snap out of the western mindset while still physically being present in the literal west you know.

You misunderstand me then. I'm resistant to gays as critical and with as large a target as he has. He goes against a whole wing of humanity as if there is some inherent fault in all of them. He blames them for his own stupid problems.. when they had nothing to do with any of it. A lot of people in the West are faithful and have simple faith and aren't doing anything near what he did.. and they gotta take crap from him? No. Not cool.

It's kind of like someone who becomes a zealot after becoming vegan, when they were a gluttonous lardass before. Suddenly, they get in everyone's faces if they simply eat meat.. even if they're not gluttonous like he was or fat or anything of the sort. As if they all have the same problem he did… when he was far worse, and they themselves have it under control.

Same goes for people who quit smoking. They become extremely zealous and self-righteous about it. And criticize people who might just smoke every few months or so… as if that was as bad as they were (of course, smoking is never good.. but he's hardly the person to talk in this case).

Ok, cool, glad that got cleared up. Just don't listen to Seraphim Rose then if he grates you so much. Still doesn't change the fact that the rest of the orthodox church has held the same basic views as his with regards to mysticism/scholasticism/Thomism/Augustinianism/etc that divided the "East" and "West" to begin with. The only reason Seraphim Rose was even brought up here in the first place, was because he articulated this long-standing issue well. But it's not some kind of newfangled "Seraphimian" doctrine.

This applies to Jay Dyer et. al too btw. The church can't help if westerners like citing other westerners when trying to communicate a message, instead of going "back to the source" with more established saints and church fathers, but it is what it is.

Well, I'm no scholastic myself. I do appreciate that Orthodox hold up a sense of mystery rather than try to intellectualize too much about God. It's never sat with me well. I appreciate Catholic mystics far more than other writers. But I'm not alone in the West on this, I think. This is something we should all do.

It might not even be his essential message that grates on me. Just the scope of his target. Like I said, there are a lot of good Christians in the West. Maybe even he recognized that too, but somehow the message comes off like.. "I was depraved.. and the West couldn't fix me. Here's what the East did that they couldn't." As if it was somehow Western culture that was his essential downfall. When it was just sin.. the downfall of all o us. And the East didn't save him. Christ did. Who saves all of us everywhere.

As long as that is the starting point, I'm happy to listen.

Great. Well, a lot of what I know I've learned directly from teachings at my local parish, so it's tricky for me to confidently cite much that elaborates on this particular issue off-hand, and the EOC's stance on "the west" is a fairly nuanced topic as you might imagine. But these sources seem ok to dig into, if you don't want to jump directly into Seraphim Rose's book right away:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_modernism.aspx

I also found the "Aristotle East and West" (which Jay Dyer often cites) to be pretty good, though a bit dense and heavily focused on the semantics of the Energy/Essence distinction.

Other ortho anons can jump in and correct me if any of these sources aren't ideal, or if they have any other suggestions for sources on this issue.

Again, IP changed. I've read some of that site, but not all of those. I'll check out more of it over time (honestly). On another note, I'm glad we got over the dispute above. Have a blessed Lent.

Jesus Christ is literally Logos, all reason is an image of God, being Christ Himself.


Nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to understand what exactly you have against the great writers like St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom or St. Aquinas. Without these great orators, a ton of heresy would flourish, completely unanswered.

an additional issue with the "mysticism over reason" thing the Orthodox have, some of the greatest Church Fathers or writers (teru., origen etc), is that a good majority of the greatest writers and "intellectualizers" of Christianity are all pre-schism Saints anyway!

not to mention the whole Palamist thing, which completely dispels the idea that the Orthodox don't do any "intellectualization", whatever that means

I didn't even consider the first three you listed. But I love them all. I take more issue with Aquinas' adherents than him. Like they imagine they've finally got a system to give all of the answers (just like the one Orthodox earlier who joked of Dyer and his "grand unified theory of Orthodoxy/autism), when I doubt the saint himself would have liked that. There's room for everyone in the Church.


Logos is the best equivalent word (no pun intended) in Greek, but it's distinctly a biblical and Jewish concept first. We shouldn't assume a Hellenized perspective on his use of it. He was just a poor fisherman from Judaea. What he heard first in his youth during synagogue readings would have likely been Hebrew readings and Targum interpretations. And in the Targums, the concept of the Word (the "Memra" in Aramaic) was used often. This is what he's drawing from. Not Heraclitus or Neo-Platonists.

And by all scholarly accounts, the Apostle wrote his Gospel in a very "broken" Greek, that gave away his foreign origin. Apparently he's very rough and unique in the Greek (I don't know personally, but I have to take scholars' words for it). Not a cosmopolitan and highly educated Jew like Paul. By that account, he doesn't seem like a Hellenist either.

In any case, the Aramaic "Word" is more than logic.. he's everything God is (just as John stated in his opening). Only Greeks were silly enough to think of God (or gods) in specific aspects. Even when they expanded their views, their concept of the Logos was almost as unsophisticated as Neptune (ocean) or Zeus (lightning). Just a slight improvement. It took Christianity to truly give their concepts the proper depth they deserved. Not the other way around. Greeks didn't grasp Logos until John. It wasn't John who was borrowing from them.

It's specifically the divine agent of God on Earth. Sometimes revelatory and full of love (for example, it was the Memra who rescued Hagar and Ishmael in the form of the Angel of the Lord.. the same goes for the Targum views of the Exodus and Burning Bush), but also destructive (for example, in the Targums, it was the "Word of the Lord" that rained fire down on Sodom). Basically any instance in scripture when God is interacting directly with people is signified as the "Memra" or the "Word of the Lord" coming down on people. And this is who John was saying Jesus was. Not just aspects of logic, but all of intervention of God through the Old Testament… down to the creation of the universe itself.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra

Absolutely.


Nonsense. If St. John hadn't meant to use that word in its fullest sense, he wouldn't have used it. Much less would have the Holy Spirit vouch-safed it as the infallible Word of God.

As St. Paul noted to the Areopagites, "God winked to some of them", and even some of those Greek pagan philosophers followed him out of the theatre, and into the bosom of the Holy Spirit.


Who obviously spoke quite passionately and intelligently, filled with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit.


yes, which is what I am arguing, and what most of the West argues as well. There's a precedent for Aquinas going back and taking out of Aristotle some snippets of light, and merging reason with faith.

The mysteries like a virgin Mary, the Trinity, the Resurrection are not explained through reason alone.

Aristotle's deity was Nous which can be summed up as absolute, impersonal reason.

God is a personal being we can have a relationship with. Can we have a relationship with reason? Meh…

It almost did

Reminder pewds is ordodox

This.

It's worth noting that there have been awful popes in ages past. Indeed, Pope Francis has said and done many strange and borderline heterodoxical things, but he is not an adulterer, hasn't had anyone assassinated, nor hordes wealth and power. The issue with sedevacantism is that once you start claiming the Church has been fundamentally—at its very core—subverted by Satan to the point that the Papal Office is illegitimate, your reasoning has to be consistent across history. It is accurate to say that modern Popes are modern, but once you suggest they are outright heretics you enter various contradictions and logical roadblocks.

I agree. Othodoxy makes much more sense.

Who said "reason alone"? It's faith and reason.
Being that Logos is reason, and that all the works of God are observable, there is no true conflict between the two.


And Aristotle was in the dark about Nous, no reason to throw out the babe with the bath-water.


Can we have a relationship with Logos, who is Christ? Yes.


Orthodoxy's reasons for the schism are suspect.

A pope who murders someone is a sinner, but he's not a heretic- and still the pope.
A pope who tell his flock that murder isn't a sin is a heretic and must be considered an anti-pope.
The Office remains legitimate - just vacant.

user decides the pope is a heretic = he is still the pope

it is not reliant on your authority to figure out whether or not the Pope is guilty of apostasy or heresy

Ummm… he is.

Google “Pope Francis heresies”

Here are some of the hits:

Saying that God is not exclusively Catholic and that he worships the same God as Islam, Jews…

Telling a boy that atheists go to heaven.

Praying at mosques, synagogues. (Praying with heathens in Orthodoxy leads to the Bishop being deposed, at least that’s what Canon Law says I think).

Promoting pluralism and “acceptance”, against traditional teaching.

Here’s my favorite lads:

“Last year I received a letter from a Spanish man who told me his story from the time when he was a child. He was born a female, a girl, and he suffered greatly because he felt that he was a boy but physically was a girl….He had the operation….He changed his civil identity, he got married and he wrote me a letter saying that it would bring comfort to him to come see me with his bride: he, who had been she, but is he. I received them. They were pleased.”
-Heretic Francis

I pray for Roman Catholics.

What's funny, is that all of this was clearly outlined decades ago in pic related, yet Catholics still seem to be taken by surprise that all this is happening. Whatever "scriptural basis" the RCC ever had for its existence is a bit moot when they're practically practising hinduism now.


Catholics always loves asserting that, but never actually makes any arguments for why that's the case that didn't also apply to the Romans.

Attached: orf.jpg (180x285, 68.38K)

Attached: log-in-eye.jpg (374x449, 54.15K)

Oh hey, what do you know, it's that baseless claim that's covered in that book I cited again, which you clearly haven't read. Catholics misreading Eastern prayer books to suit their narratives isn't "yoga". Meanwhile, embracing the "all religions are one" doctrine is literal hinduism.

shouldn't you be meditating for Lent?

I agree brother.

Apparently they can say "OrthoLARP" and this somehow disqualifies everything we've said.

Also Novus Ordo… Vatican II was RCC's version of the Protestant Reformation.


Francis: We Catholics have the same God as Islam and Jews.

Orthodoxy: We adapt some meditation techniques that didn't originate in Western Europe.


That is literally what your image describes.

Roman Catholic thinkers like Augustine have been doing similar things adapting arguments from Plato. (See his story of the stolen fruit in Confessions). It's not good or bad inherently to take non-Christian things and adopt them in your explaination of proper theology (in the case of Augustine) as long as it doesn't corrupt the theology. Orthodoxy embraces ethnic traditions as long as they don't corrupt any theology.

Just because Jews and Muslims don't recognize God as their God doesn't mean God has no no domain over them. God is still their God regardless if they hold Muhammad or themselves as idols and they will be judged accordingly.
God was still God over the Canaanites, over Egypt, over Babylon, and even over the disobedient Israel. God is still God over Mormons, God over LARPagans, over Communists, even over satanists and Satan himself.
Just because they fail to recognize God's authority doesn't mean God isn't their God. Just because schismatics fail to recognize the See of Saint Peter doesn't mean Saint Peter has no authority.

Attached: 83d6757b95f71de41f9262e8b7b55a85.jpg (1242x1242, 77.41K)

Jews and Muslims DO have the same God. What they lack is the Spirit currently working with them. This is why he's so impersonal and distant from them, despite having the same core of beliefs. And why Christianity is so fulfilling once they convert..You'll hear it from any Muslim or Jewish convert. That they never thought of God in such personal terms before.

But they do indeed have revelation of the same God. It was the Word of God himself who appeared to Abraham and Hagar. They just lost touch.

As for the rest of people, that's wrong. They don't even have revelation. At best, the wisest ones know that they don't know. Like Paul, when he reached the Greeks - he didn't say something retarded like modern Catholics do.. how all of these Greeks "essentially" believe in the same God. No, he spotted the shrine to the "Unknown God" then preceded to tell them how ignorant they all were and this was the only thing they had right.