Your friendly reminder that our Lord Jesus Christ founded only One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church...

Not very charitable, friend.

Read the early church fathers and it will be clear that the Orthodox Church upholds the true Christian faith far better than the Catholic church. They didn't believe in nonsense like absolute divine simplicity, the filioque, priestly celibacy, or that the bishop of Rome is a galactic God emperor.

By researching the topic for yourself:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbDsxw-e0m3mIkapUEZ_-5BEOr19F4t73
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0g7Y7uKp4egFoGQTB9jLgmF1tpbN-Od6
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKXGJjRU-bTV8i7pQ700Z4Jkw0WN1djiO

youtu.be/sxAzBOrtaRY
youtu.be/f3PGARSJeNU
youtu.be/713jhGWpiv4
youtu.be/y6zXs_cUSjQ
youtu.be/47XSHu617hM
youtu.be/biNNv68ON4U
youtu.be/R7RSd5kLd2w
youtu.be/R-s8v81ZkeU
youtu.be/DyuvkoiYlYk
youtu.be/Bqm8pt21cYg
youtu.be/SvEX15vd82w

orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Bulgakov_VaticanDogma.html
impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx
stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

This is a buzzword. There is no such thing as "ADS"–what you refer to is the Thomistic idea of Divine Simplicity, which is not dogmatic. You clearly are besotted with Jay Dyer.
Eastern Saints teach it, and it's also a matter of distinguishing the persons of the Holy Trinity. Read Contra Errores Graecorum by Blessed Aquinas.
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]).
Hello again, Jay Dyer. Florence refutes your entire religion, if the "Pentarchy" is to be upheld. And, lest we forget, ya'll also have female deacons which is a sacrilege.

...

Catholics and Orthodox may never like each other and always think the others are poor heretical sinners but hopefully you can both agree that being either is still somewhat better in living a life oriented towards Jesus than being an atheist or, God forbid, 'pagan.'

They do.
Pope Saint Leo changed canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, a council you accept as infallible, immutable, using his Apostolic authority. What was the canon? A rogue declaration that the Patriarch of Constantinople had the same authority as the Pope.
The issue of Popes and the Filioque (and its addition to the Creed) is a very, very complex one, something that one could write books on. I'll defer to
erickybarra.org/2019/06/30/6690/
(Yes, he's a meme, but if we're allowed to give Jay Dyer talking points, I'll also point to meme resources)
The essence of the celibacy issue is that Christians always understood celibacy to be a higher state than marriage. From the start. Thus, clergy submitted to the ideal. I mean, Saint Augustine thought that sex within marriage was still a sin.
You miss the point. That if we are to use your grounds of orthodoxy (the Pentarchy) it would be a valid council, because the Pentarchy accepted it.
Doesn't change the fact that you give them the sacrament of Holy Orders, when you give that to a female, it's a sacrilege.
Yes, modernism is a bigger problem in our Church than yours. But only one faith is true.

Attached: IesusLamb.jpg (552x549, 596.3K)

And what difference does that make? The Church always viewed the patriarchs as being fundamentally equal. It was only during matters of dispute that a certain hierarchy of neutral arbiters was followed. And the most "authoritative" Patriarch in those matters was never static, but depended on which parties the dispute was between. See vid related with your homeboy.

The question isn't whether celibacy is ideal or not, it's why on earth it became the minimum requirement for all clergy in the west. You guys literally set the bar higher for average priests than for saints and apostles. How do you justify this massive hierarchical inconsistency?

Therefore, according to that reasoning, the "ideal" is for humans to not have children at all, and the church should make celibacy a minimum requirement for becoming catholic as well.

Even Augustine himself didn't meet these kinds of unrealistic standards.

That is a biased and incomplete interpretation of utterly dubious events. Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople mysteriously died before signing anything in agreement to that Council, yet he magically managed to leave behind suspiciously latinized documents that casually agreed to all of the Pope's demands with no fuss whatsoever. How convenient.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx

Via prayers that are completely different from the ones used for men. The sacrament just designates the recognition of servants of God.

Then explain why it's contained in the scriptures:

You join the Catholics if you want clear answers.
You join the Orthodox if you want everything to be a mystery because they haven’t agreed on anything in over 1000 years and so just pass it off as a mystery and muh tradition and we can’t know.

Honestly the differences are minimal but the Orthodox will INSIST it is huge despite filioque being decided back in like 500 and they agreed with it then.

From the article you posted:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Seven

To expand on this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071219_attentata-ord-donna_en.html

So no, no woman has been "succeessfully ordained". I hope you're just misinformed, though

Polite sage for double post

...

Attached: 30CCB1E4-810F-4803-BE1A-4F5967B330E3.jpeg (977x626 53.98 KB, 850.15K)

Bold move to post memes like that on Zig Forums

Attached: 1504126818496.jpg (900x675, 95.97K)

Heh, finally Baptists admit being prots.

What I find hilarious is that Protestants are always projecting on to Christians that we never read the Bible, and yet they themselves have never even bothered to read through all of the Old Testament.

Random thought: As the church grew, the requirements for a priest's time did as well. A priest would probably make a poor husband/father by virtue of the amount of time it would require to attend to the affairs of the church, conflicting with the time to attend to the affairs of their family.

Surprised the memes are still up

Indeed. I've seen funerals with more humor tolerance.

My sides. Stop.

The only thing required for salvation is belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Seriously that’s all. This Catholic propaganda on this board is getting old

Faith without works is dead. The vain protestant propaganda is getting old on this board.

No works we can do can get us to heaven, only faith. Works are good and may get you to a higher level of heaven, but they have nothing to do with denominations

So, we're in agreement.

Attached: cathpup.jpg (400x400, 25.9K)

The problem with your assertion is that people can have faith, yet not put in the work to change their lives to become perfect in God's eyes.
According to you an alcoholic can have faith and still obtain salvation, even if he is killing his body and getting drunk everyday. A sodomite can believe that Jesus is the one and only Son of God and still be a sodomite and still obtain salvation.

If they don't bother to put in the work and repent from their sins they will not be saved. Yes, it is a denominational issue because only prots keep pushing this sola fide garbage around.

This is true, but this counts as the “faith part”, if you will, in becoming a Christian. Works means doing good deeds for His glory; nice but not necessary. If a disabled person truly believes that Christ is the way to heaven, but is unable to do any works, they’ll still achieve salvation.

Why would a person want to live in sin after learning the truth and being in grace? To show that they truly have listened to the Word of God, they must show it as in a reformed person in their actions.

Repenting and freeing yourself from sin isn't just a one and done thing. If it were that easy we wouldn't have a NoFap thread stickied at the top of the board.

Repentance is a work. It's literally something you choose to do.
Disabled people can still commit sins and they too can repent from their sins as well.

I personally wouldn’t think saying “Father forgive me” counts as a work but I suppose it depends on personal definitions and interpretations of the Bible

Merely saying the words is not repentance.

Then how else do you atone for your sins if they are paid in full by Christ’s blood other than accepting him as your Savior?

Read the Bible. If you're autistic enough, read the church fathers. There's a 10 volume set you can find online that compiles all known writings, see: ccel.org/fathers.html

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

And on a more practical level, even the most protestant of protestants will understand that you're doing a lot more than uttering words when you "repent" and "accept".

bahahaha BTFO!

Hello Mick

Seems legit

F*G BASED

Do your own research with the best of your ability.