Constantinople has separated itself from the Orthodox Church. No other Church recognizes the autocephaly of Ukraine...

LMAOing @ ur heresy

Attached: il papa.gif (200x230, 124.44K)

(checked)
Quints confirmed.
There will be two EPs
hopefully one if Constantinople comes home to Rome

Attached: arktos-pepe.jpg (750x375, 48.26K)

Is this satire? I haven't laughed this hard at an imageboard post in years.

Attached: eh eh eh eh eh eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.webm (480x360, 706.75K)

Attached: kindacringe.png (669x365, 277.99K)

Nice IP swap btw

EXTRA MOSCOWIUM NULLA SALLUS?

holysynergy.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/early-church-papacy/
erickybarra.org/2019/05/24/pope-st-celestine-i-422-432-and-immediate-universal-jurisdiction/
Papacy:
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):
"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Ibid.)
St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022):
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is A MATTER OF NECESSITY that all other city-churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its PREEMINENT AUTHORITY." (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).
St Jerome
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built"
Contraception is forbidden by the Fathers:
Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3).
Epiphanius , bishop of Salamis, Cyprus c. 310–320 – 403)
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption"(Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
John Chrysostom
"[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws?" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Purgatory and the Filioque are clearly taught by the Fathers as well. If you like Eastern traditions so much, become an Eastern Rite Catholic.

Attached: papacy.jpg (720x1152, 91.13K)

Do we really need an argument against the same tired old third Rome meme that russiaboos have been spouting for literal centuries? Every other day you come up with some new excuse to pretend that Constantinople is fallen and try to strongarm the East into submission to Moscow.
Moscow will never EVER be the third Rome. Ever.

Attached: one (you).png (428x111, 10.51K)

This isn't an accusation I've ever heard before. Could you elaborate?

Attached: superlative.jpg (431x580, 43.3K)

It's amazing how you can ruin potentially profitable things for you due to sheer amount of autism. And this coming from an Orthodox.

They sacramentally ordain female deacons and have allowed married priests even though from Christ's mouth and St. Paul's, celibacy has always been the Christian ideal, especially for clergy. The Eastern Fathers witness against the later Eastern practice with their clergy.
Clement of Alexandria
"Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused" (Stromata 3:6:53 [AD 202]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"For it became Him who is most pure, and a teacher of purity, to have come forth from a pure bride-chamber. For if he who well fulfils the office of a priest of Jesus abstains froth a wife, how should Jesus Himself be born of man and woman?" (Catechetical Lectures 12:25 [AD 350]).
St. Epiphanius
"Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to" (Panarion [AD 374-377]).
St. John Chrysostom
"If then he who is married cares for the things of the world 1 Corinthians 7:33, and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none. 1 Corinthians 7:29 For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage" (Homily 10 on 1 Timothy [AD 393-397]).

I don't think you actually understand what those quotes mean. You papists love taking the Fathers out of context.

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates. (Ep. 33.1) - St. Cyprian of Carthage

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors… Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one… He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. (To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria) - St. Gregory the Great

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. - (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) - St. Ignatius of Antioch.

John Meyendorff explains this best:

"The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’— i.e., the bishops of the early Church— refers immediately to the image of Peter….Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual."

All Bishops are sucessors of Peter. Rome held a special honor among the Churches, no one denies Papal Primacy. The Roman ministry was very large, it was the capital of the Roman Empire, gained mass influence over the Church because of this, and because Rome bolstered traditions regarding both Paul and especially Peter, it was given a primacy over the Church, a primacy given to it by canon law (see St. Maximos on this). Subsequently, if Rome apostatized (which it did) this primacy could and has been transferred to the next Apostolic See in line (that being Constantinople). Rome by no means held a supremacy, for as St. Cyprian and St. Gregory the Great tell us, all Bishops are equal because all are Peter.

Archbishop Kenrick (who rejected Vatican I) puts it like this:

"In a remarkable pamphlete printed in fac-simile of manuscript and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word "rock", in the place cited; "the first of which declares (I transcribe the words) "that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers, among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine.
"The second interpretation understands from these words 'on this rock will I build my church', that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primacy. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers - among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret.
"The third interpretation asserts that the words, 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed - that this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.
The fourth interpretation declare that the words 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ - that the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.
The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of 'the rock', the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built.
Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.
From this it follows, either that no argument at all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, 'on this rock will I build my church', in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by 'the rock' is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infalibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by 'the rock' should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith."
Archbishop Kenrick in "An Inside View of the Vatican Council"

You are a heretic and are probably going to hell, Papist.

That is completely irrelevant to this thread. Go debate this issue somewhere else, not here. I can tell you have no understanding of the Orthodox opinion.

Ah the "context" line that Orthos always bring up… great job champ. I can just as easily castigate you for those "out of context" quotes. St Cyprian (and… Ambrose, Hippolytus, Augustine) also teach purgatory, a "Papist" doctrine. Filioque is taught by Eastern Saints.
You deny it…? You are aware of the quotes teaching the infallibility of the Holy See, and, how this infallibility was understood to be much broader than what Vatican I defined (if you want to make the blithe Vatican I apostasy argument)
But you're right - quotes of the Church Fathers can only take us so far. So let's see examples of this fatuous pseudo-Pentarchy (Jesus established a democracy!) in the Early Church. Is every council finished with the risk of annulment? After the council if everyone professes it as "Orthodox", then that means it's truly ecumenical and inspired by the Holy Ghost. Sounds circular to me (same glib criticism of the Papacy Orthos peddle). Canon 28 of Chalcedon (something you accept as a truly ecumenical council) was changed, using the immediate, temporal authority of St Peter, by Pope St Leo. Florence is also a huge problem for you.
You have valid Apostolic succession, and a valid Eucharist. Your mortal sin of schism means that every time you receive the Eucharist, you commit sacrilege.
Separating the procreation from coitus is intrinsically evil. You also sacramentally ordain women, a theological impossibility.

(checked)
Obligatory.

Attached: D6zp4DsVsAAtzvj.jpg (828x847, 88.88K)

This entire thread is a good example of why "apostolics" are a joke

It's hard to bait Orthodox on this board when most of them are banned

(checked)

I visit this board less and less but each time I come back it manages to chip away at my goodwill toward the Romans a little bit more.

Same. At first it was interesting and fun and I had hoped for dialogue with other denominations, but Popish something here got insufferable throughout years to the point that you cannot even haven an Orthodox thread without some random Catholic screeching about muh keys. Not to mention flamboyant and irritating posting with scholastic autism. It's like reading from a Talmud.

Obvious false flag is obvious.

pretty dress

Yeah, maybe if your IQ is like 90.

Attached: IMG_20181229_142515.jpg (500x300 211.36 KB, 84.22K)

I've always hated the orthodox authors Vs Catholic authors Vs protestant authors pic. Like Protestants don't have Kierkegaard and C.S Lewis. Very unfairly biased towards Cathodoxy and shows their ignorance of protestant tradition.

...

They're an easily triggered and insensitive bunch, they don't want to admit that their system is falling apart due to the rampant degeneracy going on in the 'church' so they attack everyone else to feel better about themselves.

I wish Jay Dyer would stick more to these types of videos and stop trying so hard to be a youtube "personality"

Seriously get a grip

Attached: 1464918332848.png (250x317, 81.37K)

By modern standards orders like the Templars or the Teutonic Knights would essentially be considered Armed Security Guards who's job is to protect missionaries, pilgrims as well as churches/relics from persecutors (And especially from terrorists, jihadists or suicide bombers).

So why don't we create Catholic based both Armed and Unarmed Security groups dedicated to doing this once again?

Whether its paid or unpaid, if unpaid we can muster faithful or parish members who have experience (Or want to get some) that are willing to volunteer as well depending.

Same poster here, wait sorry I intended to post a standalone thread* Will get to it

Trips of truth

no please enlighten me, i have never seen any father say the see of Rome is infallible.

I know this is inconceivable to someone in the Roman communion, but in Orthodoxy we actually obey our bishops when give us guidance. Unlike Rome, we don't have to constantly worry about globalhomo subversion and whether or not our bishops even believe in God. If you're under Russian jurisdiction, then your bishop has laid out for you, "as a means of chastizement for wayward members of the Church, we will not be participating in the Sacraments at parishes under the Ecumenical Patriarch, as a sign of how seriously his actions are damaging the Church."