"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two or three heads like a monster."

Honestly, as long as the protestant heresies exists, I see no reason to worry about the Orthodox. All their differences between Catholics and Orthodoxs in beliefs and hierarchy are really minor, specially while Bible idolaters exists out there.

Attached: 2e6b80ec065777817b77a2efc53c7ffd2894d552a4cc413602860281c2a35788.jpg (463x684, 48.2K)

Um, you do know that Rome excommunicated first? In essence, Rome walked away first, they set the schism in motion. Rome is the first Protestant.

Rome doesn't excommunicate for no reason. Excommunication is the response to an action that someone did. The patriarch of Constantinople received the excommunication because he was illegally closing down Latin churches in Constantinople and wouldn't stop. So if we really want to play the blame game yet again it is the East in their pride that broke away from the body of Christ first.
Though the past is the past. Both the Pope and the Eastern pope lifted the excommunications already. Forgive and forget. We have more important matters to attend to as this user said.

Attached: were-on-a-mission-from-god-were-getting-the-band-20661502.png (535x376 1.32 MB, 64.12K)

Hmm, then maybe there was a reason for why Constantinople did what it did then? Surely you guys don't just give Rome the benefit of the doubt while conveniently denying it to Constantinople because of bias or anything…
youtu.be/DyuvkoiYlYk
youtu.be/Bqm8pt21cYg
youtu.be/SvEX15vd82w

Or in other words :

Gee I wonder why indeed

What's redundant is unity lol Orthodoxy is more like perpetual mutations that results in cancer.

"He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." - 1 Cor 11:13

What cancer and perpetual mutations? I'm not even Orthodox, but literally no doctrine about Orthodoxy has changed since the 7 Councils (which Rome once believed as well). If there is anything you can appreciate about them, it's consistency. You're not even living in Reality if you see "perpetual mutations".

Yet Catholics, unfortunately, ever since John Henry Newman, have had all Popes adopt his "development of Christian doctrine". That's why Catholic doctrine slowly caved in to so much modernism in the 20th century. It's no longer based on timeless Revelation, but "development" and "progress" of revelatory truth. The only Catholics who are facing this with any honesty seem to be Sedes (I'm not one of them either btw..but I do appreciate their sincerity).

Attached: J89lg.jpg (360x567, 385.1K)

...

No, it's because Humbert was stubborn and "trigger happy".
And then it steamrolled out of proportion.
But yeah, that's in the past.

Ironically, we nearly got back together with the orientals, too, some decades ago.

What are you then, a Monophysite?

Isn't it still in talks atm? Reunification is a long process and it's been about 30 years. I would imagine there is work being done.

The appropriate term is "miaphysite" shit-lord.

It appears that atm the EO has been particularly difficult do to the conservative nature of several patriachates. Here is an interesting interview with Archbishop Aram of the Armenian Oriental Orthodox Church back in 1994. ==I HIGHLY RECCOMEND EVERYONE READ THIS INTERVIEW REGARDLESS OF OPINION OR CHURCH==

oxbridgepartners.com/hratch/index.php/publications/articles/145-unity-efforts-between-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-churches

The 3 main problems are 1.) The conservative and slow nature of the EOC. 2.) The understanding of the 7 ecumenical councils and 3.) The acceptance of another Liturgical type and traditions. The EOC has been really adapting to meet these three issues in the past 20 years and saw a recent Meeting in 2016 to deal with Ecumenism broadly in a way that does not compromise the faith:

publicorthodoxy.org/2016/04/15/in-the-hope-of-restoration-of-communion-between-the-orthodox-and-oriental-orthodox-churches

The accord in question is listed here;

holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world

The main point is to help ease concern over the perception of absolute compromise regarding ecumenism (a concern that has caused at least 3 schismatic churches to splinter off). It's just clarifying what the intention behind participating in an official discussion or something like the WCC would mean, how to go about it jurisdictionally, and what the implications would be in the wider church. This accordance would require every recognized Church to sign it to have any effect, which excludes around 6 of the current Patriarchates, most notably Moscow. Considering the current issues regarding Ukraine and the state of American Orthodoxy, this is likely not going to be resolved soon (although to memory Kirill has been particularly receptive to Ecumenism and this particular issue in the past). This accord would have a huge effect on the Church as a whole, especially regarding jurisdiction in the US and abroad, so expect at least 10 or so years for it to be fully signed on.

This has been the issue with the Old Country Churches for a long time. They have been very set in their approach and comfortable in a way that American Churches could never be. They have only relatively recently experienced their version of schismaticism and even that is nowhere near the same level of Protestantism. They have every right to be cautious in the approach of ecumenism, but it seems even they understand that "not showing up" isn't helpful anymore. The OCA at least seem to really emphasize the conclusions come to by the Oriental Archbishop. The acceptance of the validity in other Liturgical traditions is a bit warmer here, and in the Antiochian and Gallician Churches. But the most important part is the welcoming of native traditions into the Church. Cautiously, yes but welcoming so long as it is Good. There have been recent additions to the Liturgy in my parish for example, where they sing a small portion of the Liturgy in an Appalachian Hymn style. Same words, same meaning, different tune. This came from an OCA endeavor back in 2014 to compile a distinctly American style for the Americans they want to serve. Yet even the OCA is not officially recognized as autonomous by any other church but Moscow because of the jurisdictional implications.

I still much prefer this over the Pope being the head and steamrolling all other unique Liturgics for the sake of corrupted Latin Unity.

At one church there's a stain glass window with a Lion (Mark) holding a pen in his hand writing in a book and it always cracks me up when I see it :)

...

Also no they are not minor, majority of EOs are heretics. Majority of them do not believe in Original Sin, in the immaculate conception, in purgatory (Nestle Toll House). Actually every single one of them are heretics because none of them believe for salvation you must submit to the Roman Pontiff. By denying that dogma you are already a heretic.

As per the council of Florence, schismatics infallibly go to Hell. They are in grave danger of going to Hell, we have to bring everyone back to the true Church.

So do you guys ever do anything besides boast about your own ignorance?

also, in case it wasn't clear, Orthodox don't disagree with the immaculate conception per se, we just think you're silly for thinking this was an exception made only for Mary, because otherwise your theology turned Jesus into a sinner.

orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception
orthochristian.com/73378.html

I hope you were joking user. Whoever told you that the Orthodox accept the Immaculate Conception was wrong. The Immaculate Conception requires Original Sin as the Roman Church understands it to function, which is not accepted by the EOC.

You misunderstand what I said. I'm a former Catholic, I know very well what the difference between the West's "original" and the East's "ancestral" sin are. What catholics are trying to say about Mary with the "immaculate conception" is what we orthodox already believe about everyone, therefore we don't actually disagree about Mary, much less Jesus' sinlessness. As I pointed out, and you restated, it's the west's own contrived interpretation of original sin that required such a loopy doctrine to correct their understanding in the first place.

Oh okay so you're not a normal heretic, you're
a mega heretic. You're going to big time Hell friend. Imagine if a prot gets into Heaven and you don't repent of your heresy and end up in Hell, now THAT is gonna be entertaining. And also you don't understand, the immaculate conception means it was unique you silly heretic. You do deny the immaculate conception. Or you deny what baptism does, that it removes your original sin. Jesus is sinless because Mary had no original sin to pass on to him. What a heretic.

um, I hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what the orthodox believe. We just don't require pharisee tier mental gymnastics to get there, newfriend. You guys literally needed to invent that doctrine in 1854 in order to avoid the implications of your heretical theology suggesting Jesus was sinful. In other words, you guys were blatant heretics for about 800 years until you finally (somewhat) realized your mistake. Silly geese.

Neither of you know what 'Ancestral Sin' and 'Original Sin' are;

Ancestral Sin versus Original Sin is a false dialectic invented by Romanides and his ilk in the 20th century:
journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/01/24/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-church-dividing-issue/

>journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/01/24/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-church-dividing-issue/
Stop spreading this heretical fringe nonsense. This was already addressed in the other thread

I would finish with "Original sin" part, seeing how Rome wants to enforce this upon others. But constant idiocy I face regarding purgatory-toll house analogy needs to be adjusted.
TOLLHOUSES ARE NOT AND NEVER MEANT TO HAVE ANY FUNCTION THAT WOULD MAKE ANALOGY FOR A PURGATORY.
it isn't even a teaching accepted by the church, it's simply a description of "being bound by the cord of our own sins" for dummies.
Stop. Comparing. These. Two.

*Adressed

You were already addressed in neighbouring thread. Shoo

Not an argument.

LEL. You losers are fighting over the same things Protestants and Catholics did hundreds of years ago. You each claim the other will burn in hell and attack your fellow Christian brothers. All of you are lacking the love that Christ taught us to have.

Sure bud, whatever you say.

Attached: 61616684_2187421484709799_5586429443255042048_n.jpg (960x774, 33.67K)

Wrong board, heretic. This isn't islam.

Was it autism?

Do one of the protestant branches lol

Attached: 1521715013358.png (1149x832, 168.03K)

No it's not

They have another definition for what is in essence the very same thing as our Original Sin.
Baptism is still used to cleanse one from it, and we got it from Adam.

This is true because of the Original Sin thing, but they still believe in her being completely free from sin.
This is at most a minor, technical heresy because they are not blaspheming the Mother of God.

One of the few real differences between us and EO.

Sure Achmed, whatever you say.

Attached: xo6CbIi.jpg (640x664, 143.31K)

You're not correcting anything, be honest when you're only trying to convince yourself that you're right. This religion is just an accessory to you and all the other LARPers. You don't care and you never cared.

They are actually all heretics because they deny that you must submit to the Bishop of Rome for salvation. This is infallible dogma which they deny (if you don't deny this you aren't Eastern Orthodox), hence every Eastern Orthodox is a heretic.

Not really, once you understand their teaching on Hades. Easterns believe that those who die in venial sin are cast into Hades for a time until they're fished out by the prayers of Christians. In other words, they believe in Purgatory but don't call it Purgatory. Aquinas himself wrote that Purgarory was in the same place as Hell, so it's not like the two teachings are irreconcilable.

We don't consider heaven or hell to be places in the first place, but think as states of soul.

Bump to dab on Orthos

head of the church is christ :3

The idea of the universal bishop was condemned by St. Gregory the Great and its unsupported by the church fathers. It sounds like the antichrist. It's bad to put all your eggs all in one basket basically.

Explain how the Pope makes it easier to be a Christian. It's the same as Prots with Sola Scriptura, there are a million subjective interpretations of the Pope's encyclicals, statements, etc. For example, some Catholics live by Vatican II. Some just want to shelf it.

Christ is the head of the church, not one bishop or one group of bishops. These charts should have Christ at the center. This is incorrect theology.

Christ is the head of the church. This is true. What is also true is Jesus gave stewardship of His church to St. Peter, just like how the Kings of Israel gave stewardship to their kingdoms to chief stewards to help them administer the kingdom in the place of the king.

Attached: 494362305.jpg.resize.710x399.jpg (266x399, 18.95K)

There are many governments in the Old Testament, not just monarchy… for example the judges. And the monarch is Christ… He is descended from King David, so comparing the pope to a monarch is a bad comparison.

Peter was bishop of Antioch for 8 years.

Also the Latins haven't answered the question. How does the Pope make it easier to be a Christian? Most Latins can't even agree on how the Pope is to be interpreted.

there's nothing against this in orthodoxy

Than why do you people protest the Pope? He has the keys to the kingdom which were given to him by Jesus after all. The keys only revert to the king once the king dies.

simply on the fact that rome has moved out of communion. if it was to renounce heresy, it would be the center of christianity for us.

Only Peter had keys? That means only he had the ability to bind and loose, to forgive sins and set dogma. That’s not how the early church functioned.

Except St Peter is the only one that received the keys.
The keys to the kingdom. The binding and loosing is a separate privilege.

Christ even tells St. Peter to "feed his sheep" the sheep reffering to the laity and the other Apostles.

You guys can always renounce your heresy and come home to Rome. We will even let you keep your rite as an Eastern Catholic. You keep married priests, mixed species of the eucharist, even the filioque. The best part is you will be in communion with Jesus' Church. Whats not to love?

So people like Father James Martin are respected members of the Catholic Church in good standing, while Orthodox Christians are "heretics." Interesting. Very interesting.

James Martin isn't a respected member of the Church, but it is true; he is not in schism.

Orthodox Christians are schismatics; not in communion with St. Peter, and thus not in communion with the Church Christ built.

I'm sick and tired of answering this charge, Peter gave up this position to someone else, and Peter was the head of the Church in Rome.

If the Early Church believed as you did, then patriarchs/bishops would be able to hold two simultaneous posts, or St. Peter's Seat would have been clearly identified with BOTH Rome AND Antioch, simultaneously.

It's incredibly obvious that neither is the case, quit arguing in bad faith.

Lie. He's a personal advisor to the current Pope and he was invited to speak at a Youth Synod in 2018.
cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/06/17/father-james-martin-lgbt-community-bridge-far/
So how the hell is he not in schism? Isn't this the definition of a schismatic group?

I'd like to ask you as a Christian to hold off on accusation. When I mean the Church, I mean the wider Church - me, Zig Forums, nearly any Catholic with a keyboard, traditionalist catholics, orthodox catholics, center catholics, right catholics, etc etc.

I'm certainly not happy that Martin hasn't been defrocked and thrown out, but he is quite clearly unpopular in the wider Church, I didn't necessarily speak of the Vatican. Contrary to what you might think, all the Church Herself isn't merely constrained to Rome, though it be the crown of the Church Herself.

schism means to not be in communion with the Pope or the Catholic Church, there are many heretics, or liberal modernist Catholics, or Catholics in mortal sin, or Catholics in dubious moral standing who are not guilty of schism.

look up the definition. Martin "associating" with the group, does not mean he himself is guilty of schism. there are Catholics who attend SSPX masses whom are not necessarily guilty of schism either.