Am I being too picky?

Really? that's the argument you're making?
Also, how is a smug prideful rant like that supposed to be help things at all? Judgemental people like you are the reason so many are looking for alternatives in the first place. For every legitimately cringy "OrthoLARPer" I've ever encountered, I've seen literally hundreds of sour whinny hyperbolic comments like yours, making your entire premise rather difficult to believe in the first place.

I give a solid 90% chance OP disappoints everyone and himself by begoming brodesdand.

Allowing priests to marry isn't degenerate, user. That very interpretation is a modern invention from the West. If you're asking for stricter standards from your priests than Jesus asked from his apostles themselves, you should probably reconsider your positions and learn what modernism is actually about:
oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

I'm in the same boat as op but I'm too different from brodesdands for them to accept me. I believe in praying to saints and angels, pagan rituals are fine, and the KJV Bible isn't infallible. However, I also believe some CI stuff and antimiscegenation but most of those types of preachers are turboprots. So Idk where I fit.

This is correct and is the harsh truth people, especially internet converts to any denom need to hear.

However

I agree in this context but it stuck out to me. What about christians in non-christian lands who have no possible way of ever interacting with christians outside of the internet.

I think the internet can be and is a great community if you try

I only pray we end the Great Schisms of 1054 and Chalcedon soon so that there will be no need for us to swap around anymore, and scream "my Church is better than your Church!" We of the Apostolic Churches are all Schismatics, and may God help us.
I myself have witnessed the dual communion between Copts and Eastern Orthodox in several Churches I have attended, and Maronite/Melkite Catholics and Syriac Orthodox communing with each other as well in Lebanon.
Recommuning must start with us, the laypeople. Schisming yourself from your own Church will only cause more problems Beloved.

Attached: Unite 2.jpg (1709x1152, 293.04K)

I see many people falling into the pattern of what I call "chasing the trad dragon." it's good to desire tradition and community, but you can't just be looking for some golden utopia that has somehow remained untouched by time where everyone wears robes and capes and fancy hats and all think that there are witches in the forest and planes are really demons flying around and shit. You don't need to speak Latin, you need god, and god says to be in communion with his church and to get rid of people who go against church teachings, even if they are well meaning anti modernists. Stop trying to LARP as a medieval present when you can't even go without your smartphone for a day.

So those are the secrets to expelling the jews.

American Orthodox convert here, I have chosen Eastern Orthodoxy because it has spoke with my soul more than any other christian branches, I fell in love and took action on it. I do love Catholicism, but I just feel more at peace with Orthodoxy. If I was to choose a branch based on my blood, I would be either Anglican or Mormon, not a chance i'm doing that.

My spiritual father has specifically warned me and told me not to browse Eastern Orthodox communities without caution, or christian in general, not at least without discretion. I was confused by this, but after being in multiple groups, I can now see. Your image pretty much sums it up, there's this gathering of obnoxious "if you question Jay Dyer or Monarchy, you're an american shill and will be sodomized for eternity in the Toll-houses" groups that make a lot of people cringe. Of course, there's also the fact that you're prone to misinformation on the web and other crap, but there's groups that lead others away from the church. I'm only here because I wanted to ask something on this board.

And unless the only Orthodox church in your area is some ethnocentric group or boomer-tier parish, then don't feel ashamed in visiting if it feels like God is calling you. Ignore the crap about MUH YOU'RE NOT EASTERN EUROPEAAN. If white-ass city dwelling fruity granola bags in our society can practice new-age meditation, buddhism, charka, yoga, and other forms of far-eastern garbage, then it should be ok for someone to go into a more eccentric form of Christianity. Hell, there's been saints who were samurai converts, Chilean, and Native Americans.

But overall, I recommend you just visit parishes, speak with priests, and pray. Also, try a western rite parish if by some miracle you're by one. I pray everything goes good with you OP, whatever you do.

Unironically this. Only Satan and his minions want Christ's family to remain separated.
t. Gadolig

I am catholic who was on verge of begoming year ago. I looked into it and I find catholicism to be the truth. I do not wish to dive into things as papacy, divorces in EO, celibacy etc. My position was somewhat similar except for the fact that I really resented the corruption in the church. When I looked into it the other church is not that better. At least not that better than meme converts claim. Also I felt bad because I was prone to accepting some facts not from literature but from someone claiming "filioque is the greatest heresy" etc. If you go this way no wonder you conclude papacy is heresy…if you decide emotionally before you even research it.
For me it was hard because I was among communities of larpers who mocked RCC because they chose the more "based" church. Looking back at it they were pathetic really. Well…other than that….historiography is written by enemies of RCC so you people will give you hell for everything, even if it is lies against the church. Right now the church is in severe decline with few faithful still fighting even in seemingly lost positions. However…if you conclude that RCC is the one true church, which I believe her to be, then what else remains than to join those who still guard the foxholes even though the line has been broken. There is not anywhere to run to. I am overly critical to decadence of the church too even though being a sinner myself. I am glad I did not convert my conversion would not be an honest one, I did not feel good at the new church and I think it would last shortly.
good.
I listen to orthodox liturgy when I read, sometimes I pray Jesus prayer besides the rosary.
Isn't it obvious? Figure out which church is the true one, then go struggle no matter what the situation there is. Christ will triumph. If RCC is the true church - I believe so - then the victory is inevitable, you join the winning team even though if their positions seem to be lost. The same would go for EO but I believe they will join us when they take care of their schism thing.
Good luck.
Next time I do not reply to muh EO muh RCC thread. This is really tiresome

This user gets it.

No that's the "argument" you're trying to push on him dishonestly. And you know that so stop bending words. He says that reading one or two random books by church fathers after meme converting by listening to Jay Dye and then going out saying "let me say to you what eternal truth is" is prideful and stupid.

That may have been your trajectory, but it's unfair to project that path on someone you don't even know. I was a cradle Catholic and converted to the EO because of historical issues surrounding the Papacy and the whole concept of the "Primacy" (both of which are totally unrelated to the Filioque btw). My entire family is Catholic, and I was Catholic up until my 30's before I really dug into those issues, so I had more than enough "emotional" barriers to keep me Catholic, yet here I am. It's disingenuous to paint the decision between the RCC and EOC as a purely emotional one.

I am not saying it is purely emotional. But emotions do play role. People are emotional beings like it or not. We like to entertain the thought that we do mainly rational decisions but the harsh truth is that often emotions go first then we rationalize our decision. Emotions play a role in every decision we make.

I have yet to meet someone IRL talk about Jay Dyer or anything related

Just become Eastern Catholic.

That's fine and true, but every. single. time. someone posts about having an interest in Orthodoxy on this board, the Catholics on here get all riled up and start suggesting the person is being manipulated by e-celebs they didn't even mention. This kind of scolding for merely inquiring about something is very cult-like behavior tbqh (Zig Forums being the 'cult', not Catholicism in general).

Orthodoxy is the true Church. Join or burn in hell.

Russia should just nuke all Catholic nations, thus ending Catholicism and the Great Schism.
I'm not a schismatic, speak for yourself.

Attached: nuclearwar.jpg (1024x640, 164.98K)

Leave it to Russophiles to keep Christ's Church divided. (((Satan))) smiles upon you today like the good goy you are.
Repent friend.

Youre terribly misguided. Im Orthodox, but even I can say your ideas are retarded.

Or maybe you haven't thought hard enough. If a nuclear holocaust can prevent the Jewish AI apocalypse it's worth it, ans since all Catholic nations in Europe belong the Jewish World Order nuking them is strategically unavoidable. Third World Catholicism would fall apart without America/EU.
The only people who need to be afraid of nuclear war are those who won't get into heaven. Are you one of those?

Attached: VYe5wjQ.jpg (652x394, 38.31K)

The funny thing is that when Russians tried to create a schism in Orthodoxy very recently, it was Pope Francis they turned to for help first. Now that Francis said that he doesn't want anything to do with it they are searching for allies in the protestants and LARP as anti-catholics.

To be fair in most cases it IS a product of meme culture and e-celebs. It was so in my case. The faith was secondary…when it became the primary concern I re-evaluated things.

Now this is next-level larping.
Look how humble he is. You know…if you larp enough you will get to heaven. I heard it on podcast.

What if I join Ukrainian church? will I be condemned? I mean…you always larp about them being heretics because Ukraine is not nation amirite?
user please…tell I want to know. If there was one Ortho church I would join it would be ukrainian. Are they in schism also?

I get that all of you orthos are not like 9b1bea retard. But I have met enough of those now and seriously when I hear "western convert" this is the image I have.
I know it is not fair. But hey here we are. After being among those people frequently I grew to know the patterns.

There are a lot of people in this thread critiquing people who "watch Jay Dyer and convert" but I'm not seeing any actual arguments, nor have I anywhere else (any that hold up that is).

You should look into the teachings of the religions and the church fathers and try to decide which is true based on that, and that's what Jay does. For me the biggest thing was realizing how much of Catholic doctrine was rooted in Augustine, and certain hellenistic philosophical biases. Remove those and you get something a lot closer to Orthodoxy.

I'm planning on reading through the church fathers as well for clarity's sake but I have yet to see a coherent rebuttal to the Orthodox position by the Catholics. I'd recommend OP watch videos on the matter, read the Church Fathers, pray/fast and really try to understand where both sides are coming from.

Attached: jaydyermeme.jpg (1180x842, 115.16K)

Prothodoxy is the real Christianity.
Debate me.

I'm praying for these Roman Catholics as they are currently in communion with a luciferian called Francis.

It will happen before 2050. 3 years ago an AI beat the best human at go, something which wasn't supposed to happen for the next 10 years. It did this solely by self-learning, a method applicable to every other kind of strategy game, from chess to Starcraft 2. You should be able to see how this will translate into warfare, arms race and social control in the decades to come. If the Jews win the AI race, everybody who isn't a Jew/globalist is doomed.
Many people would actually survive the nuclear holocaust, mostly in third world countries and neutral countries. What wouldn't survive however would be the Globalist technocracy, Western countries and all others are in cahoots with Jewmerica.

Attached: _88738427_pic1go.jpg (660x371, 49.24K)

That's just programming, that isn't sentience. Sentient AI probably will never be created just cheap illusions immitating sentience.

I'm a lot more worried about humanity being herded into some kind of global government agenda 21 stuff.

How about you provide a simple and definitive rebuttal to Cathokekism instead of hiding behind the writings of other people as if people need to be a certain combat level to understand what is The One True Church™

...

Firstly, this

If you want a systematic argument agains the religion you should consult people who have studied it far longer than me, which is what I said to do. If you're looking to understand Truth in a world where its been muddled and confused you obviously need to engage in argumentation and reasoning, assuming God doesn't guide you to him himself without it.

Now if you want my personal meme take, its that Roman Catholicism is absurd in the modern world. I don't need to refute the catechism, let's take a look at the religion itself.

Question: does formal heresy depose a pope?
If yes (which I believe it does looking at the historical beliefs of the church) every pope since VII has manifested formal heresy, specifically looking at beliefs on religious liberty and salvation.

From an intuitive standpoint I don't see how anyone could fail to recognize these men to be modernists who have corrupted the religion.

Now what do you do? Recognize and Resist? Why would you resist a valid pontiff? Its patently absurd.

It leaves you with sede clown world which has never made a shred of sense to me despite it being the only consistent response to the situation.

Secondly let's take another step back and analyze how we got here. Perhaps the catholics were on the wrong side of the East/West schism. They're overdefined in the tradition of Roman Law, their emphasis on our experience of the created affects of law and absolute divine simplicity lends itself to the philosophies that generated modern modes of thought (detaching us from immanent/direct experience of God), and where they differ from the Orthodox on hell, the body, the nature of sin they have very clear Stoic and Gnostic influences.

Dualist Gnostic sects were the first to elaborate on hell as eternal conscious torment and something akin to original sin. Its undeniable that Augustine, the foundation for these views in the west was influenced by them. St. John Chrysostom made these critiques at the time and I'll dare anyone here to look up Augustine's views on marriage and St. Chrysostom's, and then tell me Augustine isn't clearly influenced by Stoic/Pagan thought. You can argue for this hellenistic influence in just about every major deviation that the West has from the East (and its funny how you can say the same for the deviations of many of the other heresies isn't it?).

Now this isn't some sort of systematic refutation but those are a couple arguments that have led me to the position I'm at currently. Like I said I'm going to do more research myself, so I can articulate this stuff better.

I'll be praying for them as well, everyone should seek clarity amidst this chaos. I can only hope God restores power to the Church through this time of crisis; that we draw good out of this evil and come out better off on the other side (this life or the next).

Well, there's your problem, son.

I'm not going to cite a bunch of councils and popes at you here, there are other people who have done that comprehensively, I'm simply putting forward the arguments, not cataloguing evidence of each and every claim that would be autistic

Your first problem, is that if your claim is correct, then it's not Catholicism that is incorrect, it's the entire religion of Jesus Christ.

Christ built His Church on Cephas, and gave St. Peter alone the keys to the kingdom. In addition, Christ said that "Hell would not prevail against it".

You are saying that Christ is wrong, and that Hell has prevailed. You see the issue with the Sedes, but then you're only option is to join the SSPX, whom are schismatic.

Substantiate, what does it mean to be "over-defined"?

Which is supported in the Scriptures, by the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Paul in which the works of God are empirical throughout the world.

Philosophy is not a religion, it is not an ideology, it can perfectly be pared back, and re-constituted with the light of Divine Revelation.

What difference does this make? Did you not read that "God winked at them"? What is natural law?

Which is good, but your assumption fly in the face of logic. What exactly is wrong with taking philosophical rational systems, and re-arranging it around Divine Revelation? Do pagans or heretics or anyone else have an exclusive claim on rational thinking? Isn't Christ Logos?

You are absolutely misinterpreting Matthew 16:18.

Luke 16:23, Mark 9:43, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 20:10 all clearly conceptualize the exact same place of eternal conscious torment. The rest of what you're talking about is irrelevant. There, just saved you a whole lot of time.

Prove it.

Simon was re-named Peter, was given the authority, and given the keys. On this alone, did Christ say "Hell would not prevail".

Only later in Matthew 18 are we even told the rest of the Apostles also share the authority, but not the Keys, nor any singular address about the eternity of the Church or the establishment of the holder of the keys.

Well is

By over-defined I'm referring to the conception of sin in a legalistic manner. The catholic conception of sin is formulaic and defined rigidly which is resultant from a legalistic conception of sin. You can see this in everything from the historical rules regarding the mass to the systematization of all of it via catechism definitions. Obviously we need to have an idea of what sin is but where the Orthodox view seems to differ is that you can't just follow a set of rules, reorienting oneself away from sin is more of an ineffable, mystical process via Faith and loving God not just following a set of clearly defined out precepts. The guidelines are defined to such a degree that I would call it "overdefined" in that it tries to provide a step by step formula for salvation rather than placing emphasis on the inward side of all of it. On an intuitive level this seems to resultant from Roman legalism rather than anything intrinsic to the religion, which was my only point.

When it comes to created affects we can look at the exegeses of the Church Fathers and the Eastern Fathers agree on essence/energies distinction, this is something Jay harps on a lot, I don't have the sources on it with me but I'm sure there are a million videos or articles that could provide it. I think questions like these go back to our hermeneutic in interpreting Scripture and we need to defer to Sacred Tradition where we can here.

And the issue with Augustine is that he's doing exactly what people like Origen and others did and that's ceding too much ground to the hellenistic conception of things. On natural law, I know the Orthodox don't believe in it the same way catholics do, its another justification that doesn't seem to have much basis in Tradition.

Lastly there's absolutely nothing wrong with reason but our faith is ultimately grounded in the supra-rational which Catholics agree to to an extent as well with the supernatural conception of Faith. And also I know the Orthodox don't equate Logos with logic in the same way the Catholics do as this only makes sense in the context of absolute divine simplicity, this is seen as yet another pagan conception being shoehorned back into the religion. The issue isn't that the pagans are just necessarily wrong but rather that they don't line up with tradition and the orthodox conception of God, and that these pagan religious ideas and philosophical tendencies are being layered over the religion in a way that corrupts it to the core.

And by the way what's your solution, are you Novus Ordo?

The eternity of hell is a matter of theological opinion in orthodoxy but the question is exactly what those quotes mean, some of them in passages rich with symbolism and incredibly intricate language. I see nothing that clearly indicates people aren't at some point annihilated.

Granted the current state of the Catholic Church is an absolute clownshow, I don't know what to say about it because I truly don't know, my current conclusion is that it is simply the only thing that is left when you rule out Protestantism and Orthodoxy.
Protestantism is easy to rule out because it denies the Eucharist, something which is documented heavily by the Church Fathers, the lives of early saints, and of course the Bible. (In addition to this it is self-refuting)
Orthodoxy from my understanding is ruled out by the fact that it accepted the Council of Florence initially and conceded on Catholic viewpoints for the most part but then after going home through whatever reasoning it was not accepted at large and today is still not accepted, this point seems absurd as if the councils have no real binding power then what are we supposed to do about literally every single point of debate in Christianity?
Everything is a mess, may God have mercy on us

That's just code language for saying "I'm nullifying this and not telling you the real reason."

You've been given many examples. It's up to you to take them seriously or just talk your own way out mentally of something dissonant. But I guarantee you have more available to you than many that believed. Annihilationists belittle any warnings they could possible get and teach that hell is rest when the Lord said there is no peace for the wicked.

I'd have to look more into Florence, it was an argument I'd made when I was catholic, but from what I can see it was basically ruled out as invalid for some reason (requires further investigation on my part before I can comment really)

Agree with you 100% on prots, I've never even really considered it an option.

Again it depends on the hermeneutic we use for interpretation. For example baptists say its clear as day that the bible says "call no man father" and catholics/orthdox say thats an absurd interpretation. We need an established hermeneutic to interpret this stuff we can't just cherry pick quotes.

A method or theory of interpretation.

John 16:13-14
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Ephesians 1:13-14
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 5:9-10
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

St. John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words:

Actually he says call no man YOUR father upon the earth. Quote it right. "Your" is a plural (not "thy") that refers to the entire audience, meaning someone who all men are to address as father, as a title. Matthew 23:9 says not to do that and he even varies the language to carefully specify what he means compared to the language of Matthew 23:8 and 23:10.

And what is the hermeneutic or what possible analogy is there to "everlasting." Because Matthew 25:46 calls it everlasting punishment. Revelation 14 brings this up again, in saying no rest day nor night. What possible analogy is there to these things in the first place. It's so clearly satanic to attempt so boldly to redefine these things it just baffles the mind how little intellectual respect you would have and how hopelessly blind you would be to attempt this, this of all things, and think we wouldn't see it.

And where is the error in this? This allows the Church to definitively answer questions about sin, especially in this era of relativism. Masturbation, contraception, etc, all have explicit declarations on whether or not they are mortal, to leave these as vague would be of no benefit, neither to the Church or the faithful.

Why is this a weakness rather than a strength? Look at our times.

There is no "step-by-step" formula, if there is, no Catholic knows it. All we know is that there is a distinct definition of mortal sin, and we are given explicit directions towards what requires immediate remedy through Confession.

Dyer is an anti-Catholic polemicist, have you tried reading works from the other aisle? And when Dyer was Catholic, he was a sedevacanist.

There is nothing St. Augustine did that came close to the doctrine of Transmigration.

Absolutely.

This is probably the taproot when it comes to his hatred of Catholicism…

Attached: Jay_MHFM.png (934x871, 95.54K)

Well, it means his relationship with Catholicism was never right to begin with. One wonders how one goes from being a Calvinist, to being a self-refuting Catholic.

Perhaps, this could be for the best. He could turn to real Catholicism, any time.

I said above we're guided by supra-rational Faith ultimately, I'm not saying we don't rely on God for the truth or elevating reason to some unnecessary level, what I'm saying is we can make coherent philosophical arguments about the Bible to point us in the write direction and have a proper hermeneutic for reading grounded by tradition.

For example in the greek the word doesn't necessarily translate to "everlasting". Also I'm not even definitively saying it doesn't mean what you're saying, I'm saying according to the Orthodox Church it's not dogmatically defined and its a matter of theological opinion.

Your view was first espoused by dualist gnostic sects so I guess I'm a "satanist" for espousing the belief of the Orthodox Church rather than them.

The over-definition thing is ultimately a matter of opinion but I think its indicative of an underlying mindset that seeks to make the religion into a set of rules and formulae and which takes emphasis off of the internal dimension. You say "look at our times" but I think its this exact type of thought that's led to the materialistic views of our times. The catholic view led to nominalism which led to empiricism / enlightenment thought, which led us to modernity.

On Jay, what would you recommend for works from the other aisle? I myself spiraled down the sede rabbithole because I couldn't make sense of the NO. Do you believe popes are capable of manifesting formal heresy?

With Augustine I'm referring to his being heavily influenced by the pagans in such a way that it radically changed the religion.

This is a false flag.

This is a generalization, I'd like something more specific.

That's just really blaming Catholicism for everything; there's nothing within Catholicism itself that leads to materialism. It's the rejection of Catholicism that leads to materialism. Until Dyer can actually prove what he's saying, it's mere rhetoric.

St. Alphonsus Maria De Ligouri is a fantastic Saint, and a relatively recent writer. St. Francis De Sales' writing against the Calvinists is also really good.

If they do, they get deposed by the Church. A charge of heresy is very serious, and one only needs to remember that heresy wasn't a mere standing accusation, it precluded an entire judicial process. This is important in regards to Dyer, because he was never a straight or honest Thomist to begin with; you cannot be if you think the Church "taught manifest heresy" or "the Pope is a heretic, the Seat is vacant". It's self-refuting Catholicism.

Have you read City of God? What did he change? What St. Augustine did was simple; he wrote, and the West found his writings extraordinarily good. He's still one of the most formidable Saints in the sacred tradition, and the only time the Orthodox lament him is when the Dyerists lament the West.

basedness vs objectivity

It's almost like meme converts don't really exist in a significant number outside of the internet for more than a week and people just try to discredit the EO by parroting "muh ethnic cult, muh Jay Dyer meme converts, muh American right wingers" and so on.

For denying the Bible certainly.

I am Orthodox and I do not watch Dyer, and have never heard anyone in my parish ever mention his name. I may wager that the majority of his viewers may not even be Orthodox, but just protestant teens fantasizing.

Being a loud voice on the internet isn't insignificant, fact is, there are many pseudo-Sedes, SSPX, Andersonite, and Dyer Orthodox running around and yelling very loudly. They're not just on Zig Forums, they're on twitter, and they're on many niche sites, being a very shrill voice when it comes to representing Christianity.

Most Orthodox I encounter just parrot Dyer, real life Orthodox are like most real life Christians, unaware of any memes and trying to attend Church to be with Christ.

But that only works when the system has a huge set of matches and opponents to experiment with strategies against, it's not applicable to warfare because there aren't a huge number of actual wars being fought by peer-level forces, and likely not applicable to social control because focus group testing isn't a very accurate representation of real-world social engineering feedback. In order to make real exponential gains on these fronts it seems like genuine sentient AI would be needed, which I suspect (and hope) is impossible. It's still worth trying to prevent though, just in case.

Another IRL Orthodox here. I too never hear Dyer mentioned outside youtube and Zig Forums. In fact, I hardly ever see Dyer being praised outside of the comments sections on his videos, but I do see a ton of people get butthurt about him on other Christian yt channels, not to mention this very board. I really don't get what the big deal about this guy is regardless. I like his book recommendations, but it's exhausting listening to long multi-hour rants that go all over the place and are filled with theological jargon he doesn't explain very well. Sensus Fidelium and vaticancatholic.com both have about 3x as many subscribers as this guy, and those are way bigger memes around here than Dyer imho. Though to be fair, I also haven't run into any IRL Catholics that talk about those autist yt channels either, making me suspect this whole "problematic e-celeb" thing is itself a giant meme.

That's debatable. If you're talking about "Catholicism" in the "universal Christian church" sense, then obviously not, but the way it was historically implemented in the Roman "Catholic" Church, it did lend itself to giving birth to nihilism (which led to materialism/liberalism/etc) because it embraced the authoritarian, legalistic culture of the Latins:
>The success of Nihilism in our time has been dependent upon, and may be measured by, the spread of this spirit; its arguments seem persuasive not to the degree that they are true, but to the degree that this spirit has prepared men to accept them.
oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

Substantiate.

"authortarian" and "legalistic" are generalizations and don't really mean anything, what exactly was it that led to materialism?

mortal sin? original sin? the need for confession? it's like saying capitalism gave birth to communism, or saying that the police gave birth to criminals.

Nihilism isn't reducible to an actual functional philosophy, as there are multiple interpretations of nihilism in modern culture. Will-to-power, Stirnerism, libertarianism, etc.

This argument still lacks substance, to say "nihlists have the spirit of catholics" or whatever is mere rhetoric.

I'd like to add that Catholic moral theology presupposes, you know, a spirit and eternity and God, and etc.

If you blame Catholicism for the reaction into materialism, then that's very different than saying materialism came out of Catholicism. And even the latter is debatable, seeing as philosophies like Nietzch (sp) came out of Lutheran Germany, or any other nihilistic/materialistic philosophies are all post-reformation.

It's a poor, poor argument.

To be fair communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Also some bolsheviks for the rev were trained in New York. USA never had an issue with Soviet union prior to WWII, their elite to some extent adored communism even during the cold war. During WWii they were the greatest buddies.
You wonder where "uncle joe" comes from?
Not saying "capitalism directly caused communism" but they are close, have the same foundations and lead to the same abyss.
Actually Americanism is even more dangerous than bolshevism…given the subversiveness.

Well, you get my point. A -reaction- is not the same as a philosophical -lineage-. There's literally nothing materialistic in Catholic theology, it all pre-supposes Divine Revelation. All the "pagan stuff" that was already removed in itself isn't even materialistic either.

Thomism, for example, would make zero sense without the supernatural.

You're wrong. What gave rise to nihilism was liberalism of French revolution. Which was staunchly anti-catholic. If you want to keep the thought in line you need "authoritarianism" because if you adopt anything goes attitude, this is what you get. Allow pornography, people will watch it. The same goes for heresy.
Claiming doctrine/rules are responsible for heresy/people not abiding rules is ridiculous.

Yeah. I understand and I agree there is nothing materialistic in catholicism.
I find it funny we catch from orthos fire for
In each case there will be someone who will claim catholicism either allowed it or it paved its way by not allowing it. Lol…it;s like there's no way to prevent it according to them. Using the same logic I could claim Bolshevik rev succeeded because orthodoxy is materialistic in essence. But that would be very sly and I do not have any proof for that…also I do not believe it is true. The double standard some larpers have is very, very palpable.

I think Dyer and others just have this urge to pass the buck when it comes to Communism.

I hope you realize you're unironically proving Seraphim Rose's point with that kind of response. Also, it's funny you bring up communism as some kind of counterpoint, because that's something he talks about at length in that book. And sure, the west's Augustinian conception of "original sin" (as opposed to the East's "ancestral sin") likely played a role in the Latin's application of legalism, but that culture was largely already there from the various hellenistic philosophies that were in vogue prior to Christianity spreading.

Alternatively, you could actually read the book to understand how he's actually using that term instead of just assuming you know everything there is to know already from an out-of-context quote. Nearly every time someone says something "isn't reducable" to something else, they're usually missing the point, because what they're often complaining about are abstractions, not "reductions". You can abstract over the different flavors of Nihilism the same way you can abstract over the different schools of liberal economics, or even the different sects of Christianity, because these divided groups share enough in common to be able to do that (depending on the argument being made of course). If you're going to call something a "poor, poor argument", maybe your should consider actually reading the whole argument first.

What absurd black-and-white thinking. Merely having rules is not equivalent to authoritarianism, and discouraging legalism in favor of self-discipline (like you know, what Jesus actually taught), is patently not the same as "anything goes". That kind of blunt rationalization is why the West is in the state it's in today. You're not any better than a typical Evangelical Fundamentalist Bible-idolator with that kind of thinking. It is a tree that gives, and will continue to give, rebellious atheistic fruits.

Pardon me using "authoritarianism" in libtard sense. I responded to someone who used it in that sense. Of course there is a big difference between a mere "authoritarianism" and organic society when people abide by rules by path of self-discipline.
If you however allow "anything goes" attitude as happened post-french rev. and give way to heresy…this is what happens. Rather stop strawmanning and read what I wrote I precisely argued that you can hardly blame rules for people not abiding them. Style of enforcement of those rules? of course that's another thing.
However if you think that you may transif between complete dissolution of morals on mass scale right to organic society that follows Christianity or vice versa,. you are a fool. There is a transitional stage, in one case it is "muh freedom to preach anything I want, muh freedom of religion" in the other case it is what liberals label as "authoritarianism.
We're yet to see a society that missed such a transitional stage in it development.
I did not reduce the line of thinking to "authoritarianism" vs "liberalism"

Most funny guys are those who will larp about Iron Guard and then in the next breath saying fascism was a plot against orthodoxy, or something of the sort.
Like you need a certain cognitive dissonance to omit whole bolshevism thing in russia and serbia, then claim Codreanu as the greatest hero, then condemn orther fascist leaders for whatever. While in the meantime Vii was the last symptom that came after wwii which had nothing to do with it of course and nothing to do with christianity. But in some ways it did, because we may use it against papacy and in some ways it did because it "protected russia". But in some ways it did not because they persecuted church in soviet union.
And then I get accused of mental gymnastics when it comes to papal infallibility. lol.

Which is? There's nothing difficult to understand about mortal sin, it implies full knowledge and full intent.

that's not "funny", that's a big question if the Orthodox consider themselves the true Church or not. The eastern fell to the Ottomans', and then Russia had to deal with the Bolsheviks, that's a logical question they have to consider even preaching to the locals.

Once again, just because pagans had some form or conception similar to the truth, does not mean they had the truth. They did not have Jesus Christ. The pagans also prayed, and did sacrifices, and many other things, but they did not worship the True God, and they did not -know- God without the Son.

To take this whole "hellenism!" argument to its logical conclusion, why not just act like the Puritans' and toss it all out?

Actually, I'm being charitable with that interpretation, because anything else he would argue makes zero sense.

If he balks at the door with ANY specifics, then he is not providing a sound argument.

Then, why don't you provide this argument instead of railing on me, fruitlessly, for a paragraph?

First of all, the Eastern church didn't fall to anybody, obviously, as it's still alive. Byzantium is different from the church. But even so, are you suggesting Eastern Christianity produced the Muslims that took Byzantium over? Because if so, you're going to have to elaborate on how that proposed argument would work, besides the fact that Muhammed bastardized Christian teachings for his own purposes. As it stands, the most noteworthy thing about Byzantium in this context, is that it managed to outlast Western Rome by a full millennium.

And once again, communism is dealt with in the book. But besides that, Bolsheviks were largely Jewish, and followed a western philosophy (because don't forget, Marx was German). So if you're trying to make an argument that a product of Western Judaism was somehow caused by Eastern Christianity, you're gonna have to elaborate a bit more on what you're talking about again.

What are you even on about here? This has nothing to do with Roman conceptions of "truth". Hard to respond to something that seemingly has no relation to the context at hand.

The point was that legalism was already a part of Western Roman culture before Christianity, and that it by necessity, was a product of the philosophies at the time. Platonism/Sophism/etc lend themselves quite nicely to people developing legalistic tendencies. Articulating the full intricate details as to precisely why this is, could easily fill a whole PhD thesis however.

He plainly defines what he's talking about in the first chapter of his book. Your continued complains about this are simply baseless.

Because it was already provided for you? Did you miss the obvious link at the bottom of pointing you to the full source? Should try spending less energy on forming off-the-cuff rebuttals, and spend it on reading things more closely instead.

I'm not claiming any historical incidences as proof of whether or not a Church is legitimate (seeing as the Catholic as its own fair share of crisis) so calm down and take a breather.

and that's what I'm talking about, EVERYTHING is the West's fault. What a wretched victim complex!

You're a complete partisan, you don't care or don't seem to know that we really were One Church for a 1,000 years. That's fine, keep making baseless accusations and stretching generalization, you'll preach to fools and drive away those who would strengthen your Church.

What is legalism? Why is it a bad thing? How does "legalism" apply to the Catholic Church? How was the East free of "legalism" when we were One Church for a 1,000 years? How exactly is anything that comes out of philosophy bad when the system is re-applied to Divine Revelation? How did legalism become responsible for everything you don't like, and…uh, non-legalism become responsible everything you DO like?

Again, you've gone off the deep end in your rhetoric and you'll only win dust for it.

Oh, so you do know, but you simply refuse to tell me. OK, that's not completely ridiculous at all, right?

Because I'm debating -you-. But you don't seem able to defend yourself.

By the way, I am reading the article now. Gee, I don't really see Seraphim Rose even talking about the Catholic West, it seems pretty obvious he's talking about philosophical trends post-Reformation.

You're just taking Seraphim's argument against modernism (specifically, WW2 era modernism) and re-applying it to the Catholic Church.

"There are two primary forms of such disbelief which passes for Liberal belief: the Protestant and the humanist. The Liberal Protestant view of the future life–shared, regrettably, by increasing numbers who profess to be Catholic or even Orthodox–is, like its views on everything else pertaining to the spiritual world, a minimal profession of faith that masks an actual faith in nothing. The future life has become a shadowy underworld in the popular conception of it, a place to take one's "deserved rest" after a life of toil. Nobody has a very clear idea of this realm, for it corresponds to no reality; it is rather an emotional projection, a consolation for those who would rather not face the implications of their actual disbelief"

Where is Rose even attacking the Catholics here?

Sigh. Here, let me quote back some wise words back to you, cause it seems like you need them more than me with that kind of response:

Now with that out of the way. Suggesting that the Roman East and West were totally cool and similar to each other for 1,000yrs just because the schism wasn't official until ~1,000AD, is totally misleading. The Churches started deviating at least as early as the time of St. Cyprian around 200AD, when he began promoting that Rome exercise its political power via his idea of a "unified church", which he justified by developing the idea of the Primacy of Peter. Things obviously just got hairier and rolled downhill from there once the Franks took over. By the time the "Great Schism" officially happened, the East and West had already been noticeably divided for quite a few centuries. So this whole anti-western bias the Orthodox have, literally goes back to the earliest centuries of the church; it's not some newfangled phenomenon we're complaining about.

At it's most basic level, "legalism" is essentially what the Pharisees were about. In other words, the reliance on clear-cut formulaic answers, with a transactional view of justice, even when such black/white formulations aren't substantially unwarranted, or miss the bigger picture. However, to understand how this is important/different, we have to first put it into perspective, so let's take a look at this famous passage:
As you may be aware, the Augustinian understanding of "Original Sin" derived from this, and implies the "sin" here is contained in the act of reproduction itself. Unfortunately, this passage like it's Latin translation during Augustine's time, contains the word "sin" (singular), as opposed to the Greek Septuagint's use of the word "sins" (plural), which the East used. This is important, because the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin, relies on this plural form, as it views Sinfulness much more like an environmental condition that permeates every human action, rather than a label for specific, individual human actions. Thus making the 'fallen state' belong more to the world rather than to man, and that makes it much harder to justify legislating matters of Sin between people. Therefore, the Latin way of understanding sin/justice/salvation/etc, was quite foreign to the East's teachings.

In the time since then, the East has merely been observing how the adoption of such views of crime and punishment in the west have affected its development, and the outcomes haven't looked very favorable towards it. That is literally all there is to it.

Who said philosophy was inherently bad? Fr. Rose himself is engaging in philosophy in that book, so how would he be arguing against the very thing he's doing? Once again, the Orthodox stance on matters seems to be wildly misunderstood. The problem stems not in the general method of philosophy itself, but rather with particular presuppositions that often creep into philosophical argumentations, carried over from old Hellenistic schools of thought. Divine Revelation? Good. Divine Revelation + Philosophy? Also Good. Divine Revelation + Un-Christian Philosophical Presuppositions? Questionable.

Just to reiterate, the point is that the Eastern understanding of Christ's teachings is that they have nothing to do with legalism. It is a completely separate phenomenon, and Christianity is independent of it. So it shouldn't be some big mysterious surprise that "non-legalism" is somehow "responsible" for what we do like (i.e. Christianity). The Orthodox stance is simply that the tree of legalism (or the whole tree of the western mindset rather) has repeatedly borne questionable fruits. Even things such as Communism, which you claim are somehow a hole in this argument, literally re-enforce the point, because they originated from the same western perspectives on justice!

Now, Seraphim Rose actually took this argument even further, and insisted that it isn't even the western mindset at the root of all this degeneracy per se, but rather a larger phenomenon that ends up producing a lot of roads that lead to Nihilism (of which the Western mindset is just one instance).

For someone accusing others of having a victim complex, you sure seem to interpret mundane Orthodox positions as attacking Catholics a lot. As stated above, it isn't that we have some vendetta against the RCC specifically, or that we think the RCC is the root of all evil (it's not), but that the Western tendencies you guys hold so dear, have in fact led you astray, and have simultaneously led to a lot of the modern world's problems, independent of the RCC's direct involvement in them. Thus our beef with the RCC stems almost entirely from it's adoption and emphasis of this worldview. Orthos criticize the West independent of the RCC or Protestantism, but the fact that Catholics get so defensive about it just further solidifies the point of how integral the mindset is to the Western Christian worldview.

Seraphim Rose never argues that "Catholics are bad" in that book, because that was never his intention. The point of his book was to articulate the shape of the Western mindset, and the inevitable paths it leads to. Only much later does he make passing mention that the RCC was inevitably built around this culture, and that it has thus remained inextricably linked to it. That is all. If you're looking for something more here that's supposed to cement your mental image of us Orthodox believing "Catholics are bad", you're going to be sorely disappointed. That has never been what the divide between the East and West was about.

I understand that, but you undermine what being in communion means if you believe you can really separate the two Church from that 1,000 years of being One Church. We were One Church, under one authority for one thousand years.

This only speaks to your loose sense of what "communion" actually means, more than anything. As for St. Cyprian, your idea that "he developed the idea of the primacy" is a serious charge, if he's guilty of such abject heresy in your eyes, why is he even a Saint? Much like St. Augustine, really.

Yes, the Pharisees cared more about the satisfaction of the Law of Moses, to the point of abject hypocrisy and murdering Christ.

Sure. But how does this apply to Catholicism, again? Scripture itself makes this distinction, that some sins are akin to death itself, why wouldn't it be up to the Church to define what it is? In this thread, we have accusations that we are hard-hearted like the Pharisees, but in other threads, we must also contend with SSPX and Sedes who contend that Novus Ordo is bunk because…well, Pharasical observance.

It's really funny how this all works. I wish you'd pay attention to what's actually going on in Catholicism before you make accusations.

Augustine is a subtle author, the entirety of Original Sin did not come from this one reading of this one passage. He makes the point, that in the Garden one of the first effects of the Fall was the sudden Lust that befell both Adam and Eve (which, is the real reason why they wanted to cover themselves).

It's not the act that is sinful (as you seem to claim, not Augustine), because it becomes licit in marriage; it is the Lust. And we know this Lust is an effect of sin, due to the Fall in Genesis. This in turn, is further supported by St. Paul's very adamant urgings for us to strive against our "animal flesh" and to fast, and to scourge it. Christ is the called the "New Adam", not also because He was the Messiah, but because He was the New Adam that was again free from all Sin, being completely celibate.

I don't believe you've heard the Augustine position from St. Augustine himself, so you should definitely read City of God sometime.

>This is important, because the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin, relies on this plural form, as it views Sinfulness much more like an environmental condition that permeates every human action, rather than a label for specific, individual human actions.

We're not judged by our environment, we're judged by our works. However, I won't attack this position until I read it from the source.

I'm speaking of methods of Philosophy before Christ. "The Orthodox stance on matters is wildly misunderstood" because you all rail on "hellenism", and then walk it all back and pretend to be appalled when you get called out on the argument.

Once again, a tragic generalization. You argue that we must throw out everything we know before Christ, regardless of whether or not we can rehabilitate the argument. We aren't rehabilitating or delineating Christ, we are modifying the argument to the Truth.

Your definition of legalism is malleable, why even bother paying attention to any councils? The entire Reformation has been about escaping "roman legalism", and even Rose acknowledges it's given us Liberalism and Nihilism; but it is you (not Rose) who in turn accuses the Latins of giving birth to these ideologies.. that are in complete rejection of it.

You entire world-view is prejudiced on "East vs West" this is ridiculous. And nowhere does Rose blames the Catholic Church, you're extrapolating this position for your own funky world-view. You're a fallacious thinker.

Ok, so we're still responsible despite not being responsible.

Genius. Truly, genius thinking here.

Not at all. There's still plenty of healthy debate within the EOC and we're all still in communion (Russia fiasco aside). That doesn't change the fact that history played out in drastically different ways for different branches of the church, leading to significantly different outcomes, which the Orthodox made sure to take note of. We can't just conflate ecclisiastical history with the theology of communion like that. To view the schism as something that "just suddenly happened" one day in 1054, would be to fail to learn any lessons from it. If something similar happens with Russia (God forbid), you can bet there will be a closer inspection of the historical causes leading to that as well. The excommunications which happened during the schism were the breaking point where both sides realized they had drifted too far apart from each other. So if you want to complain about anybody "undermining what being in communion means", go find a time machine and tell that to the bishops of the time. Until then, what's done is done.

I hope the authority you're referring to here is Christ, because anything other than that would be historically inaccurate. Unified Rome might've had a single emperor prior to the fall of the west, but I wouldn't exactly call that office the authority of the church.

It's not my idea:
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

Because Saints are still human. We don't view Saints as being infallible prophet-like figures in the East. The point of Saints for us, is that they were exemplary role models in how they carried out their lives compared to most other Christians, but that doesn't mean they don't have their faults. This idea that if someone is a Saint, they must therefore be perfect, or always be trusted for everything, or approached uncritically, is a peculiar notion that I've only ever heard coming from Catholics. Cyprian and Augustine still lived noble Christian lives and even their misguided understandings had good intentions. The drastic ramifications their teachings would have on the world would not have been easily predicted within their lifetimes, and it wouldn't make sense to retroactively blame them for something that ultimately only a subset of their adherents were guilty of manifesting into the world.

Also, the EOC doesn't have a completely formal way of canonizing saints the way the RCC does, so it likely doesn't carry the full equivalent meaning as sainthood under the RCC does either:
oca.org/fs/canonization

Redemptive theology, Original Sin, etc, all carry implicit notions of justice based around transactions, which is an interpretation that was influenced by the legal culutre of the Latins. The phenomenon of indulgences quite explicitly epitomized this mindset of a system based on "do X in exchange for Y", which is the backbone of this "legalism", and why it was important to highlight the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin in comparison earlier. Because the Orthodox stance is that we can't extrapolate a generalized notion of "do X to be saved" from Jesus' teachings beyond what he explicitly mentioned.

Not really, because they're not the same thing. The Pharisees implemented legalism obviously, but that doesn't mean that "legalism" = "Pharisees". Pharisee-ism carries a lot of other implications with it that are not relevant here. Some Catholics may be hard-hearted, but it wouldn't be because Catholicism in general carries on the full traditions of the Pharisees. What should be noteworthy however, is that embracing even a tiny subset of that mindset appears to have played a role in manifesting questionable fruits, and that's why we're always pointing it out.

We do. Our whole argument basically boils down to "see, this is what happens when you embrace dubious presuppositions". So our understanding is that of course you're going to struggle with problems like the Protestant Reformation, the SSPX, Sedes, and Jesuits, because you've still left the door open to these problems. I mean, to be fair, the same could be said about what's happening between the EP and Moscow right now, because a lot of Orthodox are just as critical of Pat. Bartholomew as Catholics are of Pope Francis. We're not saying we're immune to these shenanigans, we're just pointing out where/how they originate, and what steps the East has taken to try and mitigate their effects.

(cont)
Right, so it still goes back to my point about viewing it as something an individual is guilty of. That's the distinction.

I probably should've made it clearer that I wanted to separate the final product of "Original Sin" from Augustine's own personal interpretation. The main idea was that the understanding (which carried over into Protestantism) was Augustinian in flavor and origin, but not that Augustine himself articulated it that way. Regardless, you are correct about my not having read City of God yet as it's a hefty book, but it's been on my reading list for a while. I'm merely relaying what Eastern theologians teach, but they themselves are always very careful to distinguish between what Augustine himself said, and what Western Christiandom has gone on to teach. Augustine is still a saint to us after all.

The understanding is that our environment fights against us, and that "works" are only those things we do which are good and in-line with Christ's teachings, despite the environmental pressures to disobey. The idea that "works" can be sinful is a contradiction under Orthodox interpretation. We are liable to be judged according to the degree that we don't fight against our passions, not according to the degree our actions are "sinful".

walked back? called out? I don't know how you've been interpreting what's been said here, but it should be obvious that assigning error to particular Hellenistic schools of thought is different from assigning error to Philosophy in general. That has been consistent in all the Orthodox posts here as far as I can tell (apart from glossing over the specifics by calling it "Western Philosophy"). I'm not the same user that seemed to have started this debate either btw, so I can't know what exactly you're ascribing to this position. I'm just elaborating on a subject (the East/West divide) that's taught in most Orthodox catechisms.

I'd say that's more of a "tragic generalization" than anything I might've implied. The methods of philosophy came before Christ for example, and those are fine. Once again, the problem is entirely about certain axiomatic assumptions influenced by schools like Platonism, that subtly impacted the development of theological understandings. You can read the book "Aristotle East and West" if you really want more details about that sort of stuff.

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. jk, but there's not much else I can really say to that.

To be fair, I'm not the user that first threw out that term in this thread.

Because they didn't rely on transactional understandings of justice to come to their conclusions.

To be clear, he acknowledges that the Reformation efforts ended up there, but he doesn't say that's what kicked off that particular downward spiral, nor that "escaping legalism" was the cause of it either. Let's not forget that the Protestants still had plenty of their own pitfalls, and carried over a lot of Catholic understandings of things. Also, modern day Evangelicals are often much more Pharisee-like than Catholics, so the idea that their main goal was to escape legalism, is questionable. Escaping Papal authority sure, but they weren't exactly against the concept of legalistic justice itself, as many of the founding Reformers were very harsh towards their own critics themselves.

Oh interesting, I didn't know I was talking to a psychic mind reader! Actually wait, nevermind, that prediction is wrong, so I guess you're not psychic. Darn.

Gee, if only someone would've said something like
Oh wait

Also, this "funky world-view" you're mad about, is literally Orthodoxy 101 stuff that we're taught in order to help prevent us from falling into heresy:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

mhm, yeah, that's rich after getting all those egregious accusations thrown at me. I guess I must've forgot ad-hominems were totally legit logical devices, silly me.

The independence of a variable is completely separate from the concept of causation. Surely you know this. The point is that the minset causes damage even outside of the RCC. You're willfully reading "independent of" as meaning "not guilty", but really, who else is there to blame for something like Sedevacantism or the SSPX? Muslims? Or was it some sneaky Mormon conspiracy? No wait, let me guess, Communists? Whatever it was, it surely couldn't have had anything to do with the central organization those groups split off from, no sir, because that would just be fallacious thinking.

To be fair, I'm not the user that first threw out the term in this thread.

Because they didn't rely on transactional understandings of justice to come to their conclusions.

To be clear, he acknowledges that the Reformation efforts ended up there, but he doesn't say that's what kicked off that particular downward spiral, nor that "escaping legalism" was the cause of it either. Let's not forget that the Protestants still had plenty of their own pitfalls, and carried over a lot of Catholic understandings of things. Also, modern day Evangelicals are often much more Pharisee-like than Catholics, so the idea that their main goal was to escape legalism, is questionable. Escaping Papal authority sure, but they weren't exactly against the concept of legalistic justice itself, as many of the founding Reformers were very harsh towards their own critics themselves.

That's a rather odd way of saying I have an Orthodox Christian world-view. What's ridiculous is your offendedness at this.

Gee, if only someone would've said something like
Oh wait

And once again, this "funky world-view" you're mad about, is literally Orthodoxy 101 stuff that we're taught in order to help prevent us from falling into heresy:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

mhm, yeah, that's rich after getting all those egregious accusations thrown at me. I guess I must've forgot ad-hominems were totally legit logical devices, silly me.

The independence of a variable is completely separate from the concept of causation. Surely you know this. The point is that the mindset causes havoc even outside of the RCC. You're willfully interpreting "independent" as meaning "not guilty", but really, what else is there to blame for something like Sedevacantism or the SSPX? Muslims? Or was it some sneaky Mormon conspiracy? No wait, let me guess, (((Communists)))? Whatever it was, it surely couldn't have had anything to do with the views of the central organization those groups split off from, no sir, because that would just be fallacious thinking.

But in all seriousness, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. The cause of these things preceeds the RCC organization itself. The RCC is only prone to the effects of this phenomenon to the degree which it adopts things that lead to nihilism, as Fr. Rose stated. It's simply the transitive property in action here. But if you want to be offended at this and play victim about it, constantly distorting the argument to suggest "the RCC is the root of all evil", then there's not much anybody can do about that, and maybe you should consider praying the rosary for a while instead.

One argument that our Catholic brothers make a lot on here is that the papacy is a central authority and therefore necessary to shepherd the church. The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that it relies on the central authority being incorruptible, as Catholics rely on the pope for spiritual guidance. The pope is as they say God's primary representative on Earth (if I am understanding them correctly).

But any such authority, once corrupted, does far more harm than it does good. Unless there is some unforeseen coup in the college of cardinals, I cannot imagine a traditionalist becoming pope. Perhaps a deceiver who throws a bone to traditionalists while fully in line with the modernist agenda, but not a true traditionalist.

During the Arian crisis, most bishops were embracing Arianism. The "just follow what your priest/bishop says" types would be in Arianism had they lives in those times under an Arian bishop. Truth has the final say in these matters.

Really, we only throw it forward as an example of the wisdom and Will of God in being able to shepherd the Church. But the true pillar lies not in this, but in that Christ gave Peter the Keys exclusively.

Which would be nice, but we've had many "bad" Popes before. We say the Church Herself is incorruptible, not the man. The Pope has veto-power, in other words, the Keys. Things he signs off on in this capacity, is infallible.

We've had plenty of bad Popes for over two millenia, the confidence comes from Christ Himself, whom not only gave Peter alone the Keys, but promised upon Peter alone, that Hell would not prevail.

Well, no. Arianism was objectively heresy.

You would need to prove, because while St. Cyprian insisted on the need for independent, national churches, he quite clearly acquiesed to Rome on the subject of the Novation (or was Donatist?) heresy. That one heresy where they said the baptism of heretics was non-applicable. Fun fact, the Seat of Rome was actually empty. Yet, St. Cyprian still appealed to the clergy of Rome either way.

This is important, because Cyprian was actually sympathetic to the heresy that the baptism of heretics was invalid, but he followed along with Pope Victor I either way.

Then you should be careful whom you quote, if you really believe St. Cyprian is seriously responsible for a such a gross heresy, why is he still a Saint? When you take up another's argument, you become liable for their mistakes.

Oh! So they can be heretics then?

Original Sin is an explanation of why Baptism is even needed; and how exactly we can be considered "born again".

Yes, the Catholic Church alone is responsible for every single bad thing that has happened to the Orthodox. The Orthodox need not come up with an explanation of a defense of any bad thing, all bad things come from the Catholics and the West. The errors of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine hound the true Orthodox believers to this day.

Sorry, but you're doing the "Stepping back from the argument" thing again.

Yes, guilty of Lust. I'm not sure what the original argument is even about now, you were lambasting Augustine over a "misreading", but step back when I point out that he never said sex was bad.

It's the same thing. Funny, you read these anti-Catholic polemicists, and just assume what we teach isn't what St. Augustine teaches. I didn't notice any contradiction between the two when I read City of God.

Then it contradicts Scripture, because Christ condemns "workers of iniquity".

Which in your haste to quote your polemicists, becomes the argument. I've yet to see anyone actually critique Scholasticism or Thomism on its own terms, just broad generalizations of "hellenism and legalism".

Then, there is no issue with Western theology, because it is the methods that have survived. No Aristotelian Thomist believes in Eternal Being like Aristotle did.

Sounds good, thanks.

So do you think repeatedly asking the same question is going to magically yield different answers now? Cool your emotions and re-read what you're responding to.

Cool, is that supposed to be an argument against the essay somehow? Because it seems you're just doing that thing of not reading the actual argument again.

Funny you should joke about that considering that this can unironically be said about your pope.

That's the Catholic interpretation, not the Orthodox one. Orthodox view it as a sacrament to accept the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ok, I give up. You just keep spouting this same victim complex while intentionally misrepresenting everything you read, so you clearly have no interest in debating in good faith, thus I'm ending this here. It seems I've already cast more pearls before swine than I originally bargained for as it is. Lord have mercy!