Orthodox "vs." catholic

Im very new to this.
But in most threads here, i read most people convert from catholic to orthodox. Did i read the wrong threads or is orthodox the real religion?

Attached: DoArx7jWsAAUQK6.jpg (500x500, 41.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

bonald.wordpress.com/the-catholic-perspective/

Alright, I’ll bite.

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are two of the original ancient Christian Churches dating back to the time of the Apostles. Both churches used to be united as one, until some cultural and theological differences and resentment over various arguments and injustices against each other drove them apart roughly around 1054 AD. They each aggressively claim to be the "True Church".

Please don't make two of the same threads

Catholics claim supremacy because they have the "keys to heaven" handed down to them by Saint Peter. They will get a lot of converts who are tired of church hopping and just one one clear source of authority on everything.

The Orthodox claim supremacy because they have a liturgy and theology which more closely matches that of early Christianity. Thus they will get a lot of converts who are frustrated with the Catholic Church for being "too liberal".

If this is actually the main reason why one would become a Catholic, it would explain why the Catholic church is losing grounds recently. It is anything but "one clear source of authority on everything".

I suppose the traditional Orthodox liturgy can be a inviting for a traditional Catholic who dislikes some irregularities of the post VII Catholicism. For the Orthodox, however, the right theology is what matters most. One can have right liturgy even without right theology, while it is impossible to have right theology without right liturgy.


The Orthodox tend to be very enthusiastic about the Orthodox Church. And the enthusiasm is infectious.

I am seeing both directions tbh.

But they both are the "True Church", or at least once were. Why is it so hard to reunite them? Most theological differences that I see are based on limited understanding of the Divine (like Filioque), which doesn't matter because we still won't fully know it in this life.

Filioque seems like a meme tbh. The main difference between the two is whether St. Peter was named Christ's vicar or a "primus inter pares".

"‘Come out from among them and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Touch no unclean thing. I will receive you. I will be a Father to you. You will be to me sons and daughters,’ says the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:17-18)

"Things that we have heard and known,
that our fathers have told us.
We will not hide them from their children,
but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might,
and the wonders that he has done.
He established a testimony in Jacob
and appointed a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers
to teach to their children,
that the next generation might know them,
the children yet unborn,
and arise and tell them to their children."
(Psalm 77(78):3-6)

It is a meme, but it raises larger issues like whether the Pope had the power to change the creed without calling an ecumenical council.

the true church is the evangelical
who can stand in front of this truth

Orthodoxy is correct.

It's more than the filioque. Our differences seem minute but they make a world of difference, hence why we are still in schism 1000 years later.

Orthodoxy is the straight and righteous way of true worship.

Attached: BE35221D-B506-4813-B360-38E440D651E5.jpeg (4032x3024, 2.46M)

I love you my Orthodox brothers.

I've been to services of both, and honestly, I don't find them to be that different insofar as traditional Catholic Latin Mass goes. Novus Ordo Catholicism seems almost like a different religion entirely.

My beliefs tend towards Catholicism because I believe it best fits the characterization of God in my readings of the Bible. God tended to be very specific about what he wanted his followers to do and would judge them on the smallest of deviances. Catholic legalism and reason would be the best mirror of that. I don't necessarily believe in every single ordinance the church puts out, but I believe they are the closest to getting at the truth behind God.

This series here is an excellent summation
bonald.wordpress.com/the-catholic-perspective/

The Orthodox church, I definitely do appreciate the beauty of, but I'm not as familiar with them. I did not spend too much time with them, but I will say that from what I could tell, they still took a more disciplined approach to theology than Protestants do. But still, it didn't seem as if they were as methodical about clearing up ambiguities as Catholics are, so I don't think I would have stayed with them anyway

And Papal Supremacy
And Purgatory
And Scholasticism
And Views on Heaven and Hell
And Excessive Dogmaticism
And Legalism
And List Goes On

Following that train of thought, wouldn't Phariseeism be even more in-line with that interpretation of God in the Bible? I know "Pharisee" is a loaded term now because Jesus condemned them and all, but it's not like they were irrational in their understandings. Hypocritical in their ways of running things maybe, but if you ignore Jesus' scoldings for a moment, you can probably make a decent argument for how Phariseeism was a perfectly reasonable response from Jews given everything they'd lived through.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the Jewish objections to Christian teachings revolve around Western understandings of theology. The teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy however, are often interpreted as being closer to the original Jewish understandings of scripture, which to Jews, makes it appear more like the continuation of the Israelite religion that Christianity claims to be. The 'Jews for Jesus' movement was founded by a Jewish convert to EO for example, after studying the theological differences between Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

Because that would defeat the purpose of things intentionally being left out of the revelations we've received from God. It's not like the Orthodox are sloppy or lazy about it, it's a conscious precautionary measure to make sure we don't accidentally fall into heresy by hastily affirming interpretations of less-than-straightforward matters. Orthodox theology is primarily centered around ruling out incorrect teachings, not positively affirming "correct" ones. If something can't be adequately deduced to be incorrect, no corollary "correct" interpretation will be derived from it, and it will remain a mystery.

Are you sure about this?

Denominations represents idolatry. One God, one people. You are shirking the responsibilities to your deity by splitting up endlessly.

Yes, the founder wrote a whole book about his conversion process called "Surprised By Christ". Vid related.

He's one of the founders at least. Very cool though. But they treated him badly when he converted to Orthodox, since Jews for Jesus (and pretty much all Messianics) are basically Evangelicals. Which is actually kind of odd that more aren't Orthodox…. as both biblical and rabbinic Jewish religion is liturgical as well.

Duh. That's why he wants to be Orthodox. It's not a "denomination". All that orthodox means is "right teaching". It only call itself that because Catholics split from it and acted like knuckleheads. It needed to warn people who was "teaching things right". That's it.

It's always been just the "Church" from the beginning (from the beginning in ACTUAL reality and not pretending it was.. like, for example, Baptists and Presbyterians with their retarded "Waldensian" mythology).