Thinking about converting to Christianity

Literal, laity echo-chamber. Cathodox don't really resemble -or try to- like the apostles, which we know aka the standard, because of their writings.

The first church didn't follow the monastic/ascetic movement, they relied on Christ grace. The first century church followed a plurality of elders, not the bishops who eventually overruled them (Jerome admits this in his commentary on Titus!)
The first century church use the word of God as it's measure of faith for the church, not the writings of future theologians.
There was virtually nothing about venerating icons until the Carpocrates corrupted the church, first in syria and rome (irenaeus attest this), and many Christian leaders warn against this heresy.
You guys claim to follow the earliest interpretation of the holy word, yet the churches reject the earliest testament of this, namely the commentary of the apostle John's friend Papias, and adopted a third century Alexandrian method invented by Origen who was later declared a heretic. If that doesn't scream there's 'no apostolic interpretation' than there's no helping you.

If the church dependent upon the so-called 'seas of the apostles', then the whole church subsumed by hell. For every elected church leader joined the Arian movement, even Roma! tI wasn't until exiled someone who believed that the apostle wrote/believed was the sole measurement of faith for church reformed the leadership.

And so much more.

Listen here little brother . You're gonna get a lot of orthodox and papist replies, but that ain't what I'm about. Let me just say, The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you. You hear me brother? PERFECT. Now read the KJV Bible for yourself and see the truth. You deserve truth and truth only. Stay safe for me from papist and orthodox, brother.

mfw thinking of you falling for papist.

Attached: 1501980838791.png (632x650, 98.98K)

Yeah, you mean the political machinations of Photius.

Only Peter has the keys to the kingdom.

Are you trying to pick a fight? I made no commentary on who is right and who is to blame for the incorrect doctrine. Please be considerate and do the same.

I'm putting some context into the filioque dispute that the OP is probably unaware of. The political dimension is ignored far too often.

Yeah, you mean the political machinations of Charlemagne.

You do know the East and the West co-existed despite the 'tism over the filioque for many centuries right? At least 500 years+

The most important things are The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Christ being physically present in every Catholic Church
youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU
It's historically undeniable literally everyone maintained this until 1100 and the first person to go against it repented.

The second is the ecclesiology/institution of the Church and the Papacy
These two go into that
youtube.com/watch?v=faIB-sOBDKk
youtube.com/watch?v=xl3pD4l0K5U

Orthos will lie or ignorantly repeat memes and claims the Church Fathers taught differently but they are a weirdo obscure nationalist group that has never evangelized outside of eastern Europe that no one should take seriously. (see attached pic)
The only reason they exist in the west at all is because of them being forced out as refugees, they just aren't at all serious.

If you want to test those claims in an unbiased way though you should just read the Church fathers, not random people's commentary (though scripture alone makes the papacy stupidly obvious).

pastebin.com/kNMtcmsi

This is a complete collection of writings from the Apostolic Church Fathers, that is Fathers who were taught by the apostles themselves.
It's really not very much and you could get through all of them and it makes it pretty obvious the orthos are just ignorant or lying. (Which explains why they are a totally insignificant group of eastern european nationalists and internet larpers.) The fact they approve of divorce, contraception, and at times abortion should make that obvious enough .

There are also the oriental orthodox which should be taken just as seriously as the eastern ones, but are too foreign and brown for the internet larpers to like so no one talks about them.

This is my favorite book on ecclesiology (the institution of the Church, it's structure and the papacy), it's partly focused at refuting protestants but is mostly just a really interesting analysis of the parables. Super insightful and will help you in this question archive.org/details/thechurchofthepa00pracuoft/page/n11

These are all going fairly in depth on the particular points that matter but if you want something general check the embed video or this
youtu.be/8F7eIrh80V8

Nothing but Catholicism is really at allserious, protestants are a complete joke logically, and EASTERN orthos are historically as well as logically and if you see them at all but they don't evangelize at all so it's hard to see all the issues without looking in deeper. All people have against Catholicism is it has sinners for it's members or totally fake historical memes, there isn't any competition. It's the only clear access to the Truth, and totally dwarfs all other denominations by an order of magnitude.

The primary reason WHY to be Catholic is because it's the institution founded by Christ to get to heaven, outside of which there is no salvation.

Weep for all the oriental Orthos who didn't have communists to make them evangelize and are too foreign for internet larpers to be attracted to, they are totally forgotten :(

But again the key issue is just
not really deniable and discounts protestants
and
not really deniable if you approach the matter seriously, it's completely obvious from scripture and everyone who came later. Lots of lies and falsehoods spread around though, like I said before reading on this just read the Apostolic Fathers to give you an idea of what the early ideas are before getting a biased take pastebin.com/kNMtcmsi

those are here again

Pic failed to attach

Attached: churchpop.PNG (1715x908, 91.4K)

And if you want something shorter then 2 hours on the papacy.
Those go very in depth and the issue is important and merits it however this covers a couple things.

Lots of people say this is cheap/not realistic but the idea God's Church would survive and thrive with the help of supernatural grace more then heretics seems pretty fair.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Only Catholics can even arguably be said to follow this

Absolute divine simplicity is such a retarded doctrine that i just can't take "Catholics" seriously tbh.

you mean like the fact that the 'Roman Catholic Church' is the product and continuation of the Frankish empire, and that the entire notion of the 'primacy of Peter' was devised purely to establish Rome's political superiority over the various churches at the time?

Until you've studied philosophy and theology for a decade I don't care about your insights, you are too ignorant to even say anything at all substantial. Theology isn't a fun thing to talk about for you to post your hot takes on twitter, it can only be seriously done after decades of intensive study.

However the key differences aren't in matters of theology, they are in matters of how we come to know theology. A Catholic doesn't believe in the made up ideas dwyer think he knows because they studied philosophy and theology and thought they were correct, they believe them because Christ founded an institution with his teaching authority, and it has taught something.
That's what actually matters, anything other then the papacy is a red herring.
I'd recommend you listen to the lectures I posted on it

youtube.com/watch?v=faIB-sOBDKk

youtube.com/watch?v=xl3pD4l0K5U

And I'd recommend
archive.org/details/thechurchofthepa00pracuoft/page/n11

as well, they are by actually serious learned people and not youtube ecelebs.

I can promise you that unless you have intensely studied philosophy and theology and read a ton you don't actually understand what divine simplicity, let alone energy/essence stuff or anything else in complicated theology. All of the words are super subtle/complex and imbued with meaning from several thousand years of intense philosophical discussion. If you think you understand them you certainly don't, however the matter of the papacy is quite obvious and clear even just in scripture as I'm sure you'll agree after reading the stuff I've linked.
(if you want to learn stuff read, don't listen to youtube videos. No serious theologian has used the phrase ADS and everyone will think you are a joke for using it, it doesn't mean anything)

Another factor that helped me decide between Catholicism and EO was the fact that many Church Fathers (Ambrose, Cyprian, Hippolytus, and Augustine (of course)) clearly taught doctrine of Purgatory. Yes, it's a shame that "tradition" is the norm for EO, while it's the exception for Catholicism, but it seems that many young Catholics are changing that.

You guys let the Ottoman millet system change the very notion of what it means to be "Catholic"…

Attached: Passionist.jpg (1536x2048 512.04 KB, 456.73K)

funny, because that's exactly what Dyer did (for 2 decades in fact), and that seems to be pretty irrelevant to you.

okay dude lmao

Yeah the consistency of teaching from the beginning is really astounding, especially sad is because as people reject purgatory they always seem to tend towards universalism or other strange errors.

Of course no Catholic can remain a Catholic and deny purgatory because well it's just obvious and cannot be explained away, but primarily because the teaching authority of the Church has taught it, and that's what determines theology.

To be fair to the Eastern Orthodox though the rational/orthodox ones do actually accept it, they just reject the term because they hate Rome. Though many really bad ones just turn hell into purgatory and make it universalist without saying so clearly because if you are vauge and change your position people can't prove you wrong.

But hey sure everyone openly taught the real presence without doubt for a thousand years, yet plenty of people somehow deny that as well. Everything just becomes easy when you submit to the Pope and the true Church of Christ.

That is a really boring argument, it's valid but over used, my favorite thing to talk about is the parables. I'll post one just for an example.

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, 34 and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[a] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’

It's totally obvious the inn is the Church, the samaritan is Christ, and we are the half dead person.
Notice Christ puts control in the hands of the single innkeeper, not a community of innkeepers. (It's an inn, one person runs it)
Like this just totally obviously and clearly expresses the papacy, the book I linked on archive goes way more in depth but here is a quick commentary from lapide.

he traveller is Adam wounded, and all but dead in trespasses and sins. For Adam went from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell from grace into the power of Satan. For the thieves are the evil spirits who tempted Adam and Eve to sin, and corrupted the souls of all with the lust of concupiscence. The priest and Levite represent the ancient law, which was unable to remedy the consequences of Adam’s fall.

The Samaritan is Christ, by whom men are rescued from sin and promised salvation. The beast is his human nature, to which the divine is united, and on which it is carried and borne. The inn is the Church, which receives all believers. The wine is the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from sin. The oil represents his mercy and pity. The host, who is the head of the inn, i.e. of the Church, is S. Peter. So S. Ambrose, Origen, and the Fathers.

However basically everything in scripture and the fathers point to the Pope so there are a million other things to talk about. Don't get me wrong the keys do objectively prove the papacy but people have heard it so often they just respond to it with memes instead of actually thinking about it.

so according to you, this shouldn't even exist then:
oca.org/

how strange!

Do you believe that the pope has temporal potentate power?

That doesn't mean you can learn it vicariously through his experience, avoiding my point doesn't make it false. If you haven't studied that stuff, you simply can not understand it. You can't avoid reading even if you really want to, learning takes work.

Also just to add on, their or fringe scholars in every field. Knowledge and study doesn't guarantee an accurate understanding of things, but it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of things.

To climb a mountain you need mountain climbing gear, once you gain that (gear as an analogy for knowledge), you are able to climb the mountain (come to understanding). However many people can have that mountain climbing gear and fail to climb the mountain because of their personal failures, or just bad weather. It's still necessary for the best mountain climbers to have the gear to climb, and they will scale it. If you have no gear and aren't a good mountain climber you are probably just going to die.

Basically, without knowledge you will certainly be doomed to failure in understanding.
With knowledge you still may fail based on either intrinsic or extrinsic factors.
Those who do come to understanding will require knowledge in addition to the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that allow it.

So basically you gotta read before you can talk trash about theology, even if you have some random person's views you repeat with an empty mind. You literally just do not have the tools to participate in a high level conversation and if you want them you need to read.

A bit around the way but your point was odd so I thought I'd make clear how people can know stuff and still be wrong.

I believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth. I try to avoid having hot takes on things beyond my level of learning, especially if they don't help me get to heaven.

Yeah that only started in 1970
from their site

and they also openly talk how it's based in immigrants

Also the OCA is hardly without controversy

From wiki so not a very good source but it summarizes it well

by that metric, becoming a Protestant makes things even easier.

For people who aren't aware it's against Eastern Orthodox canon law to have overlapping diocese/territories but they kind of don't care. Shame they have no central authority that can resolve these conflicts.

You can't submit to anything as anything but a Catholic, not genuinely at least. You still maintain the idea the ultimate test is your ability to interpret scripture, you could have some cult of personality but in every other situation the individual is always the highest authority.

Pick one. Stop moving goal posts.

Why would I bother reading when I can just inhale papal bulls. According to you theology is just some dumb surrogate activity that you could never understand(unless you're the pope).

Uh alaska was russia bro

US bought it 70 years later

The Pope isn't guaranteed understanding at all, he can be totally clueless, he is just protected from infallibly teaching error. Study is also good for us, gives clear thought, provides material for mental prayer, and helps evangelization.

Of course it can become an idol, this is a great sermon on it.

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2017/12/30/true-wisdom-consists-st-alphonsus/

Let us be persuaded that the truly wise are those who know how to love God and to gain Heaven. Happy the man to whom God has given the science of the saints. “Dedit illi scientiam sanctorum” (Wis. x. 10.) Oh! how sublime the science which teaches us to know how to love God and to save our souls! Happy, says St. Augustine, is the man “who knows God, although he is ignorant of other things.”

They who know God, the love which he merits, and how to love him, stand not in need of any other knowledge. They are wiser than those who are masters of many sciences, but know not how to love God. Brother Egidius, of the order of St. Francis, once said to St. Bonaventure: Happy you, Father Bonaventure, who are so learned, and who, by your learning, can become more holy than I can, who am a poor ignorant man. Listen, replied the saint: if an old woman knows how to love God better than I do, she is more learned and more holy than I am. At hearing this, Brother Egidius exclaimed: ”poor old woman! poor old woman! Father Bonaventure says that, if you love God more than he does, you can surpass him in sanctity.”

This excited the envy of St. Augustine, and made him ashamed of himself. ”Surgunt indocti,” he exclaimed, “et rapiunt cœlum.” Alas! the ignorant rise up, and bear away the kingdom of Heaven; and what are we, the learned of this world, doing? Oh! how many of the rude and illiterate are saved, because, though unable to read, they know how to love God; and how many of the wise of the world are damned!

good sermon

Both are infallible. Which one do I listen to?

I don't have the knowledge to answer that question. I don't know latin and I don't know specifically what they meant by the words. Vatican 2 is even more difficult because it doesn't clearly anathematize anything. What it taught is infallible but it's not terribly clear what it taught. (many Cardinals active in the Church seem to be saying things opposite to what radtrads would assert it teaches infallibly, and they are one's that the modernist boogeymen would love to excommunicate if they had the ability to.)
Teaching though is interactive, if i'm being excommunicated for heresy that'll clarify it and I'll make sure to submit to the Pope, we aren't saved by knowledge but by being in a state of Grace and united with the Church, and heresy only becomes mortal when done with the knowledge you are going against the teaching of the Church.

Also another thing I'm atleast I'm aware of is the different levels of teaching is more complicated then is generally represented.

Our job isn't to become theologians, it's to become saints. The proofs of the Church are plain and simple enough for anyone to understand and your supposed contradiction based on your simple popular reading can't really compare.

Catholicism in a nutshell.

In one breath you use your biblical exegesis in an attempt to prove that papacy and in another you claim that you have no authority as a lowly layman to interpret anything. This is circular.

Yeah I think that sums it up, only one person is protected from teaching error, and I don't think anyone can deny basically everyone is totally incompetent, so it works out.

as I pointed out

We are some half dead people who have nothing and can't walk.
We have to use Christ's means to get to the inn. We have to trust the innkeeper to take care of us.

Christ personally trusted the innkeeper to tend to us and take care of us, and I trust Christ.

Now how is a sick person recovering for severe injury supposed to relate to someone freely helping them other then submission?
Would you say Hey I can climb up myself and heal my own wounds, or just leave the inn and not be there when Christ gets back?

archive.org/details/thechurchofthepa00pracuoft/page/n11

First section of this goes more in depth or for people against reading the attached video covers some of the points made in it.

As a half dead person Christ lifted up and entrusted to the innkeeper, I say yes I will trust the innkeeper who Christ put his trust in, I will submit because I am so broken and unhealthy that if I went out on my own I would surely die.

It's not my exegesis it's the Fathers, but it is absurdly obvious and is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church. Notice how literally 0 people even tried to respond to it because it is so clear.

Also, and I'm not sure why this needs to be said, reasoning isn't the explanation for the Faith that is infused by God. A Christian using an argument for God's existence doesn't mean that's the reason for their belief in God. It's just another beautiful image pointing to God.

I believe in the Church because of supernatural Grace
youtube.com/watch?v=ggm_dMae8io
learn more here^
I find all the deep interwoven connections pointing to it's truth beautiful so I share them with those who don't see them.

There is a political dimension to literally every major schism in the history of Christendom.
It's not a coincidence that the Christianity associated with the Sassanid Empire was the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Christianity associated with the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Christianity associated with the Holy Roman Empire was the Roman Catholic Church, and the Christianity associated with the Kingdom of England was the Anglican Church. Even the Chalcedonian schism was strongly motivated by a desire for Egypt to be independant from the Byzantine emperor. And let's not talk about the mess that was the Reformation.
The political ambitions of men have poisoned the well of not simply doctrine, but even simply reaching a mutual understanding about what we claim and why it would be wrong. Thankfully we're entering an era in which Christianity is not the friend, but the ennemy, of the world's empires. Sadly branch theory heretics have been trying to make ecumenical dialogue difficult, and not about dialogue but about compromise.

By what authority can you say that the fathers did not err.

It's easy, Catholics are pedophiles, Orthodox are Christians.
Choose what you want to be.

Come on bro. Don't act like our church doesn't have problems either. Calling Catholics pedophiles only reflects poorly on Orthodoxy and drives more people away.

that's only been the case since 1870, and even that was "decided" under dubious circumstances:
orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma

Of course the fathers can error, 2 of them at least I know of are condemned heretics. You should relate to certain things as they actually are.
The pope is guaranteed to not infallibly teach error, and also teaches in the ordinary magisterium so i ought to relate to him that way.

The fathers show what was was believed in early Christianity, and offer many great insights. My case wasn't simply an appeal to authority, it seems quite obvious to me like I said, and I linked a book going much more in depth with the reasoning. I don't think any rational person can think that reading is anything extreme or unjustified though.

Also the fathers have a degree of magisterial teaching at least where they are all unified.

So long as you don't become a sola scriptura with more reading material reading stuff can give good insights.

Yeah that's just false check out the stuff I linked above you just don't really understand how the magisterium works.

see

Why do you care what early Christians believe? If only the Pope has the authority to define what is true and not true than your reasoning for believing in papal supremacy is "I believe that the Pope is supreme because the Pope says he is". You cannot then cite people other than the Pope because they have no authority to define doctrine or interpret scripture, only the Pope can.

...

This is quite a shallow and shallowing argument… that one Church is the right one merely because of the numbers. I’m not gonna reveal my affiliation, but think: if all of the sudden an heresy was to spread and engulfed a good 80% of all Christianity, that would still not give it validity.

Tradition is considered almost infallible in and of itself.

Marriage was not formally declared by the Pope until the 16th century, obviously you cannot say Marriage didn't exist until the Pope ratified it. Additionally, this is why despite how the Church clergy can personally oppose the death penalty in modern times, but cannot infallibly condemn it, because it has been reinforced both in Scripture and in the Magisterium for over 2,000 years now.

You are speaking from a position of ignorance, the Papal Supremacy is a pillar of the magisterium, the other two pillars consist of Tradition and the Holy Scripture.

Wrong, we can cite Jesus Christ or 2,000 years worth of belief and regular teaching by the Magisterium, which consists of the wider Church and (usually) many other Popes.

No, it seems like you really do not know how the Catholic Church works. The Pope does not create new dogma, He is presented with questions and dilemmas, and what He ratifies is what the Holy Spirit ratifies. What He ratifies does not, and cannot conflict with the past magisterium, the holy scriptures, or Tradition.

Now, Tradition itself tends to lead one to open questions. For example, on the question of papal supremacy, there are various amounts of Saints that oppose, and others (many more) that strongly support the supreme seat of Peter.

As an Orthodox you come off as hypocritical for at one time ranting about the infallibility of the Church Fathers but then (perhaps not you, but others in your scene) ranting at the Latins for following the teachings of St. Augustine.

What does this even mean? "Almost infallible" is not how Catholics typically define their dogma.

Magisterium which is defined by the Pope presumably. So the Pope defines "infallible magisterium" which proclaims the infallability of the Pope. The whole scheme presupposes the authority of the Pope before all else.

The person I was responding to claimed that scripture and doctrine could only be interpreted and defined by the Pope. So under that logic you as a layman cannot cite those teachings alone because you have no authority to interpret it. Your position might be different idk.

meant for

What I just said. I should have clarified I considered Church Fathers part of Tradition, but there are contradictions between the Church Fathers on issues (St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom on Mary's freedom from sin or otherwise).

No, the Magisterium consists of the wider Church, all 2,000 years worth of it. Marriage suffices as an example of what I'm talking about.

Which he always had, but yes. Again, in the same manner that we know marriage is a valid sacrament and only between a man and a woman - but still needed a declaration due to the Divorce crisis occurring in the Reformation.

Well then that person is wrong, the Pope is the pillar of the magisterium, not the magisterium and the Church itself, all wrapped up in one.

Good thing he's completely wrong lol

The CCC states "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops in communion with Him". Regarding the "college of bishops" we also learn from the CCC that "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor". So final authority on what is and is not magisterium belongs to the Pope. You are basing your doctrine of papal supremacy on magisterium which is defined and interpreted by the Pope. This is circular.

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hated. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church that is accused of being behind the times, as our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusions of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly it is other worldly. since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine."

Fulton Sheen

Now if there was a Church that was protected from failing, that existed from the beginning, and received supernatural grace to help it spread (I can give an argument for this if you deny it as well), why is it not perfectly reasonable to assume that it would be the largest Body of claimed believers.

The Fact is Catholics cannot be compared to anyone in terms of sheer number, and spread of the variety of nations they have significant populations in. This has been the case from the beginning.
I understand why other people from other denoms might want to deny this the fact there is a single Church that is and always has been totally dominant from the beginning seems like actually a pretty clear indicator.
The other thing is no one else can even claim this, no one has anything resembling the absolute dominance of the Catholic Church. So I see why others would deny it (it makes them look bad) but the fact of the timeless dominance of Catholicism is something everyone needs to contend with, on that alone it merits the most investigation for being the True Church, because if God wanted to make it clear which is his Church that's the best way to do it. It obviously isn't a complete proof but it an extremely strong indicator that shouldn't be ignored.

I am Catholic uwu

You need to level up your triumphalism stat then, it's one of the strangest things about the Church and can't really be handwaved away honestly. At the least do you agree that it's total dominance throughout all history at least merits that people look into it more so then other claims?

Attached: EO_LARP.png (2384x102, 35.02K)

This is the exact line of thinking that leads people to "non-denominational" "churches".

Which aren't non-denominational at all, but evangelical, mostly of the white suburban variety who read NIVs and sing cheesy Christian rock songs.

haven't met many non-denominational Protestants, have you? They're usually non-denominational because they dislike those aspects of mainstream denominations. I've never even been a Prot and I know this. We shouldn't be bearing false witness, user.

Congratulations OP, you're witnessing an embarrassing tire fire of a thread to show you just what "Christianity" is all about, because some of autistic Catholics just couldn't keep their pride under control. As a Catholic, I apologize for this mess, even though I'm tired of apologizing for stuff like this, which is one of the reasons why I'm looking to begin my conversation process towards Orthodoxy this year. As you may have gathered from the arguments in this thread, Catholicism is more like a political system than an authentic belief system. May God be with you OP.

I've met plenty. There hasn't been one time when I either ran for the hills (the charismatics) or cringed at their music and Bible translations.

I have a problem with this approach. And my problem is that you can't understand the faith through knowledge alone. Just knowing many things about God and philosophy will not grant you the fullness of faith. You cannot believe based on reason alone. If you could, there would be only christians in this world.

Faith is an experiential thing. You cannot have faith simply because of some complex logical argument for the existence of God, but it becomes self-evident once you start living the life that God called you to live.

I'd applaud Catholic missions to a point, but it isn't all it's cracked up to be. I live where a bunch of Mexican Americans are Catholic, but many still have strange pagan beliefs under the surface. I don't know if it's exactly Santeria, but it's definitely creepy. Just like those silly Evangelical charismatics, I've had to run for the hills from some Catholics too. One time my friend's own grandma, once I realize she was trying to read my palm. These people haven't truly converted to Christ, much like others deeper in South America (or Caribbean with it's voodoo beliefs). They've only dressed up their paganism with Christian images, sadly.

Thank you, finally someone who gets it. This excessive focus on intellectualizing beliefs over actual practice and gaining experiential wisdom, is really quite unfulfilling and seems to bear a lot of questionable fruits. The Orthodox's emphasis on actually experiencing Christianity, following ascetic practices, and having deep respect for it's monks, is one of the reasons I'm planning on converting to it.

youtu.be/WDEBz25lGdY
youtu.be/OTAz7XIUy_0
youtu.be/MzrVCdtJ1WQ
youtu.be/hycjHApNNOM

Attached: D05B097A-EA93-4744-AFC9-689FBA44B470.jpeg (557x513, 109.6K)

I think it's risible seeing this argument get a fair shake, Dyer cultists bring it up all the time - that somehow the Scholastic tradition of the West lead to effete theology and Protestantism was the conclusion to it. I'd have to staunchly disagree, the West has a panoply of mystics, victim souls, apparitions, monastics, etc. It's very glib to say that the Enlightenment is simply the result of "rationalism" or "legalism" (a red herring). Great job, you've just painted intricate movements in history with a broad brush; just like how Bart Ehrman will claim that there is no "true" Christianity because we have no idea what the early Church was like. And take a look - Orthodox Christianity in Orthodox countries is not a part of the culture at all. Blame the Bolsheviks, but why is it that Poland re-criminalized abortion while the rates in Eastern Europe are still ne plus ultra? All the Catholic parts of Europe (Croatia, Poland, Bavaria, Italy, even Hungary now) are less profligate. Sure, poll one hundred Western Catholics and the results are shameful, with most not knowing that Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays, and some even saying that transubstantiation is not real. But, pray tell, how does this reflect "rationalism" - this is simply ignorance of the faith. The same as it is in your countries, where the vast majority are atheist. Stop peddling this idea that the Orthodox faith is this "traditionalist" bastion (people really will fall for it, and then they'll have their rude awakening) - it's just like when you guys talk about "Holy Russia". Ironically enough, these OrthoLARPers don't even live their faith aside from having an icon corner and chotki - most of these people avoid the OCA/ROCOR like the plague (Heterodox!!! REEEEE!!!) and so they end up going to a Romanian/Serbian/Greek Church, and then they realize what ethnophyletism feels like. You will never feel like an authentic member of these communities. Most obviously use the internet too much (I'm living my faith by denigrating Papism all day, OKAY) and, bizarrely, they are the most legalistic about their faith, ready to squabble and rabble-rouse over the same points, over and over and over. I'm frankly sick of these Dyer cultist points chundered endlessly. You can "actually experience" Christianity… outside.

Attached: Mary_mother.jpg (435x503, 33.56K)

boy, look at all that projection. All that was mentioned was that orthodoxy places a high importance on experiencing belief, and you took that on a totally unrelated tangent. Nobody was peddling "traditionalism". Nobody mentioned Dyer when it came to asceticism and experiential practices, because he's a theology nerd doing the same thing the post you're responding to was complaining about. Yet somehow appreciating Orthodox monastic wisdom, which is emphasised and encouraged by practically all Orthodox teachers, somehow makes us "Dyer cultists" now. Smh.

Also, news flash: the whole East/West thing you're complaining about isn't a Jay Dyer production either. It's a standard part of Orthodox catechisms that all Orthodox know about:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx

Are you seriously this uninformed about orthodoxy? Or do you just enjoy spouting off anti-orthodox propaganda at any chance you get? Either way, your pride is blinding you.

actually, this very post is a perfect example of the toxicity over-intellectualizing Christianity has. More concern is placed on being "right" than on actually getting closer to God. It's a real shame.

The attachment of a picture of Mary to your post is an insult to her glory. You also go on a tangent about Jay Dyer who was never mentioned in the 6-7 sentences me and the other user combined posted in response to you.

No one denies that there is an experiential tradition in catholicism, but it's far from the emphasis. It's mostly about laws and rules, guarantees, dependencies. An example is *Humanae Vitae*, which makes radical statements about certain acts regardless of conditions and circumstances. It's a perfect example of the "rule" aspect of catholicism.

On the other hand, the orthodox emphasis experiential faith over reason-based faith. In the case of humanae vitae, the decisions usually lie on the bishop of the area. It's expected that he knows his flock, and he can better decide what is appropriate for them. And the bishop does not decide (ideally) based on rules, but based on his spiritual experience of how to help people.

Here's a common anecdote told by russian clerics: A merchant and a priest are sitting opposite each other in a train. The priest is praying, while the merchant is smoking cigars in an arrogant manner, clearly trying to annoy the priest. The priest remains undisturbed in his prayer. The merchant, seeing that smoking doesn't work, asks the priest "say, where in the bible does it say not to smoke cigars? I myself couldn't find any, yet you preach against smoking. Why not?". The priest answers "Try smoking while reading the Lord's Prayer, and see if you feel like you're doing God's work".

Again, the priest didn't cite the bible, a church father, or a papal edict. He referenced the experience of conscience that God gave to all of us. Hopefully this again demonstrates the different focus of Orthodoxy. God bless

to add on to this, the Orthodox have this perspective because they believe that all humans have a nous, and that it can be tuned to the will of God through the process of theosis:
orthodoxwiki.org/Nous
orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

and this is something that can only be accomplished through practice, not 'book learning' alone. Now compare and contrast that perspective with the Catholic user earlier that was saying we're all too incompetent to understand anything.

I brought up Dyer because the Orthodox that post here are besotted with him, and he was giving just another blithe Dyer talking point - Dyer basically just compartmentalizes the Christian blogosphere and his understanding of the Church Fathers, so that the people who follow him can feel like they're just as sapient as someone who has studied Church history. The reason it's so frustrating is that most of his followers have never given Western theology an actual fair shake - not just Aquinas and Augustine, but other Doctors of the Church. Because the Western Church has been in decline, Orthodoxy must be the true Church! It's that simple guys. His filioque article is so bad it makes one want to burst into raucous laughter. The reason the comparison is relevant is because every Orthodox country is an immoral slum - your countries should at least demonstrably reflect this reverent/deferential attitude for God that you claim exists because of mysticism/direct experience of God in His uncreated energies. My post does have an uncharitable spirit, and I am sorry for that, but OrthoLARPers still can be rebuked, because the entire "Internet Orthodox" phenomenon is a fatuous charade, just like Internet Sedevacantism. It's a classic "conservative/non-liberal" response, we'll just run off and find something "uncorrupt" that will remind us of the halcyon days instead of fighting. This accelerates the decay. Orthodoxy is completely alien to the West and incredibly hard to become truly accepted into, but hey, the ornate Churches look pretty cool. Your "faith" is simply going to be another hobby you abandon if you have no community of worship. If the Church could kick out the Kasperites, the Lavenders, and the St. Gallens Mafia, have a V3, defrock many Jesuits, most OrthoLARPers would return to the fold anyways. Because it's just the ethos of these Rod Dreher types. The intellectual tradition of Catholicism -combined- with spirituality is what made Catholics such staunch believers before. Now we're just vaguely (and in many ways, new-agey) spiritual and that has lead in tandem with liberal globalism to atheism… just like it did in your countries, even though Palamism is purported to be a "bulwark" against atheism. Eastern Rome was always more smug than the West, because it was more opulent, and before Mohamed, more stable. Constantine removed the Caesar in the East (for a fair reason, he was still persecuting the Church) and had the capital moved. Many people will claim that "Papism" started when Constantine paganized the West. This is false. He moved the imperial city to the East, but the Pope did not go with him. He understood that he had to remain in Rome. There were times when emperors even tried to seize the Pope. He was never servile to Constantine or emperors, because he knew his role.
erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/

Have you seen a Jay Dyer debate? Internet Orthodox are just as legalistic as they claim Catholics are - even if their religion is not supposed to be.

The true root of orthodox anti-scholasiticsm
we just wanna use contraception!!!! don't make evil rules!!!

These are both totally absurd and ignorant, I already responded to this earlier
I quote

I believe in the Church because of supernatural Grace

youtube.com/watch?v=ggm_dMae8io

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2017/12/30/true-wisdom-consists-st-alphonsus/
Let us be persuaded that the truly wise are those who know how to love God and to gain Heaven. Happy the man to whom God has given the science of the saints. “Dedit illi scientiam sanctorum” (Wis. x. 10.) Oh! how sublime the science which teaches us to know how to love God and to save our souls! Happy, says St. Augustine, is the man “who knows God, although he is ignorant of other things.”

They who know God, the love which he merits, and how to love him, stand not in need of any other knowledge. They are wiser than those who are masters of many sciences, but know not how to love God. Brother Egidius, of the order of St. Francis, once said to St. Bonaventure: Happy you, Father Bonaventure, who are so learned, and who, by your learning, can become more holy than I can, who am a poor ignorant man. Listen, replied the saint: if an old woman knows how to love God better than I do, she is more learned and more holy than I am. At hearing this, Brother Egidius exclaimed: ”poor old woman! poor old woman! Father Bonaventure says that, if you love God more than he does, you can surpass him in sanctity.”

This excited the envy of St. Augustine, and made him ashamed of himself. ”Surgunt indocti,” he exclaimed, “et rapiunt cœlum.” Alas! the ignorant rise up, and bear away the kingdom of Heaven; and what are we, the learned of this world, doing? Oh! how many of the rude and illiterate are saved, because, though unable to read, they know how to love God; and how many of the wise of the world are damned!

3 doctors of the Church all affirming the same point

This is just a vague and meaningless statement, what's the criticism, thinking clearly? How much is excessive, what's the proper amount of "intellecutalization"
Of course it's a total lie that any Catholic ever has recommended study above prayer
St. Thomas is said to have been a great theologian because of his prayer life and purity, not his studies.

This whole thing seems like a bunch of excuses to avoid reading or responding to arguments (so you can avoid reading)

yes but they are legalistic in approving sexual sin like divorce/fornication and contraception
Remember you can only divorce 3 times! For… some reason…

Calling something legalistic for saying something is intrinsically evil, when you yourself maintain an act becomes evil only after it is done 3 times because that's what canon law says is hillarious

yes, which is why I said:

please save your complaining about internet LARPers for when you're actually dealing with them least.

???

The bare minimum that is in the bible. The Disciples were fishermen, many not even literate. Yet they understood God better than any of us ever will. They didn't read Aquinas or Palamas and they probably wouldn't understand them even if they read them. What guided them was the Holy Spirit, and he requires no intellectualization.

The intellectuals of the day, the rabbis and the pharissees who had intellectual debates about how to properly obey the law and how to properly pray were blinded by their deemed wit and cleverness that they missed the King of Kings that was among them. Let's not be like them.

Would God condemn me for initially converting to Catholicism, even though with my current understanding I think that the Orthodox church is more correct on theology and then maybe switch to Orthodoxy in the future? I'm a non-christian and Catholicism is much more accessible to me where I live. I think it would make the transition from being a non-christian much easier with the bigger community and all, it would strengthen my faith even more.

I'm struggling with the same issue, myself. I wouldn't want to convert and then switch churches, but I wonder if no church at all is worse/more dangerous than a schismatic one. On top of that, I'm afraid that the latin church seems so much more "at home", at least in my eyes. I suppose I'm just a romaboo that happens to agree with the Orthodoxy on its theology.

Attached: 348a194ef0bddc09cefe199e491e6db0f4360a23efc7a42933bcce9240680d9a.jpg (294x283, 28.47K)

Converting to a religion is an oath and a commitment. Please do not make an oath you do not actually plan to go through.
It would also be better to convert to Orthodoxy from atheism, than from blasphemous filioquism.
But maybe you could attend Mass (without receiving their so-called Eucharist) so you can be around a community and hear the Word of God, at least. You can keep reading the Bible, doing good works, etc. until you can actually reach out to an Orthodox priest.
Some good books you can read for catechesis also:
- The Living God (2 parts)
- The Incarnate God (2 parts) (Catherine Aslanoff)
- The Orthodox Church (Mgr Kallistos Ware)
- The Orthodox Way (Mgr Kallistos Ware)
- The Jesus Prayer (Fr Lev Gillet)

Absolutely. Where did I say it did not? However, the Pope cannot contradict infallible dogma infallibly.

The magisterium is defined and interpreted alongside Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which again, I had mentioned above in the earlier chain of posts.

This is not circular, the authority of the Pope is derived from Scripture, the historical circumstance is derived from history and tradition, and the authority of the Seat itself comes from Jesus Christ.

Your re-framing is circular.

Sorry, but this method of argumentation belongs in resetera, not among Christians

Studying sacred scripture is not mere "book learning". If this isn't what you mean, you should take the time to clarify.

It's not a matter of competency, it's a matter of fallacious arguing.

What is this even supposed to mean? The schism is theological in nature, how can you possibly expect theological discussion not creeping into the argument?

yes, let us all apologize for all the "concern trolling" warning against the passion of pride, and the mindsets that often lead to it. Not like such warnings were a central teaching of the gospels or anything……

Do Catholics believe in "Sola Scriptura" now too? Because if not, then this really shouldn't be an issue here. The point is that having faith is akin to playing a musical instrument: it's not something you can just learn vicariously through reading about it alone, you need to actually put it into practice so you can gain the experience of it. No amount of Bible reading is going to get you to theosis if you're not actually enacting any Christian practices in your life. Look into the teachings of the desert fathers and the saints of Mt Athos if you're still unsure about this.

so promoting experience through prayer and ascetic practices is "fallacious arguing" now? what are you even talking about?

What does the schism or theological discussion have to do with people always assuming all the Orthodox on here are internet LARPers? Are you insinuating that complaining about LARPers counts as "theological discussion" or something? Your responses seriously don't make any sense. Honestly, it sounds like you're struggling with actual autism of some sort, so I'm not gonna push this any further, but I will legitimately pray for you, as I'm not sure how any of us normies can communicate anything effectively given how you've been responding to things here. All I can suggest is that you learn more about actual Orthodoxy from legitimate Orthodox sources before going on tirades against it in the future.

I can only assume you are an Orthodox priest to be able to discern what is or what is not prelest then.

Please look over Hosea 4:6 and re-consider this.

I'm unsure where Catholics do not prayerful devotion paramount, you do know of the Rosary right? Or that Catholic tradition states that prayer is salvific?

There is more than enough room to study the scriptures with your mind and purify your soul through prayer, your false dichotomy is at odds with Scripture. Our Lord was a child when He preached and disputed with the Rabbis in the Temple.

Prideful affectation probably.

I am not, and shame on you for lowering yourself to insult.

Every Christian tradition teaches this, that was never up for debate. The point throughout this entire thread has been the relatively little importance it's given in the West compared to theology. The way Catholics approach prayer is also noticably different and theoretical rather than practical, as was highlighted quite clearly in a thread on the Jesus prayer while back.

It's not an insult, I am close to people with autism and know it can be challenging to communicate with them at times. The fact that you think my concern about this is an insult, reveals your own lowly opinion of such people, and that's what's really insulting. Doesn't change the fact that your responses so far have been rather odd regardless.

(cont)
P.S. I'll still pray for you either way, because I doubt this discussion is going anywhere.

an erroneous claim you cannot possibly substantiate. St. Thomas Aquinas - aka big bad philosophy man - was one of the more "modern" major proponents of the salvific status of prayer.

What is the Rosary for 150,000 dollars?

once again, merely asserting that "prayer is good" isn't the issue. Until you gain familiarity with the Eastern mystical tradition as practiced by Orthodox monks, you'll be missing a crucial point of comparison to your worldview. You can't just claim to know how to play a musical instrument well because you're familiar with music theory. The point was already substantiated by pointing you to the desert fathers and the ascetic saints to learn more, but it seems you completely ignored that.

if the rosary were all there was to Catholic prayer, that'd be one thing, but we're talking about stuff like this:
youtu.be/WeOLenpKta8

Here you go, newfriend, I embeded the video for you.
Now tell me, why is listing off the several types of prayer "not practical"? Which level of prayer offendeds you and your protestant sensibilities?

First become a Christian and then join a denomination. Read the New Testament. Re read it a couple of times until you start to get a general picture.

If you want Catholic apologetics, read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton, for protestantism, check out John Piper and JI Packer, and though I can't think of any particular work. Please keep in mind that protestantism is NOT a denomination, it's a category of denominations, like Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, etc. Orthodoxy is a meme outside of Eastern Europe, so don't know any authors there.

Protestants have always been pedobaptistic state churches. So then it obviously doesn't include baptist, local churches. Just a friendly reminder

Attached: 1c5cdbc99.png (945x666, 104.75K)

I said "prayer is salvific". As in, if you do not prayer, you may not be saved. I don't really understand why you aren't able to understand me, but Catholicism preaches that prayer is -essential- for salvation; to not pray, may put your salvation into jeopardy.

Prayer being "salvific" isn't the issue either. ALL Christian sects teach this. Even Protestants with their "faith alone" doctrine think prayer is part of having that faith that's essential for salvation. You think the Orthos aren't understanding what you're saying, but they very likely do, and it is you who in fact isn't understanding them. I don't know why it is so difficult to comprehend that the Orthodox are taking about something else when they refer to the experience of prayer. You need to step outside your Catholic bubble and read the Philokalia or listen to some Orthodox priests talk about prayer to see what they're actually referring to, because otherwise you'll just continue to misunderstand this whole thing. It has nothing to do with prayer being salvific, nor prayer being essential, nor any rules for prayer, nor "levels" of prayer. The fact that what they're talking about is so difficult to grasp for you, just proves the Orthodox's point about the West not focusing on these things. The Orthodox here are taking about how to play the piano, while you're are off talking about the internal mechanics of piano hardware. It's completely apples and oranges.

t. Catholic who actually knows about Orthodoxy

I'm responding to that user specifically, he re-framed what I had said as "prayer is good".

I'm aware the Orthodox think differently, but if the person has to twist my words I have the right to correct him.

I'm not talking about, nor really care what the Orthodox think - this argument is apologetic.
If the Orthodox is happy to agree that prayer is essential for salvation, I'm not at all concerned about the whatsit and whozit of what they believe.

so you started an argument with the Orthodox over something you know damn well all Christians believe, just because you don't like them? Shame on you. The Orthodox are our brothers. People like you are the reason Catholics get a bad reputation, and it is deeply unfortunate that Catholics have such a history of antagonizing the Orthodox like this.

What? Where did I do that? Your entire post comes off facetious.

see:

it was obviously either you or other Catholic anons who started this needless harassment over prayer. The Orthodox in this thread have done nothing more than explain their positions on this matter while being exposed to embarrassing Catholic vitriol. I don't care if it was you specifically who started this mess, but all of you should really quit this nonsense and go confess to your priests, because for all our differences, this is one of the most ridiculous things to be arguing about.

I'm sure OP is very convinced by your indiscriminate lecturing.