>be cradle catholic. >decide to read church history. >ecumenical councils. >no papal infallibility

>be cradle catholic
>decide to read church history
>ecumenical councils
>no papal infallibility
>other caths try to convince me that history is wrong because of some out of context quotes
Wtf is going on? Are the Orthodox right?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Wtf is going on?
    Religions change over time, the Roman bishop asserted the power of his office from very early on, pushing for more and more. He got push back, largely from the east but over time was able to assert his authority over the western Church and when he tried to do the same in the east it resulted in schism.
    >Are the Orthodox right?
    about the pope? Kind of, about everything else? No. the combined east and west Church of Constantine was as much a product of politics and doctrinal developments as the current Roman Church. And its notable that most of the Churches from that time outside the Roman empire eventually went in their own directions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh atheism
      Reddit brained

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't mention atheism.

  2. 1 month ago
    Dirk

    The question is anachronistic because papal infallibility was not the cause of the great schism. It didn't even exist for 800 years.

    Western catholic vs EO divided on the issue of the filioque, whether it was orthodox and whether Rome had the right to add it to the creed.

    Roman catholic vs Protestant divided on justification, the sacraments and worship, which incidentally involved a challenge to the authority of Rome

    Rome vs Old Catholic divided over papal infallibility at Vatican 1.
    So, you should really be asking "are the old Catholics right"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The "Filioque" was the last straw and more related to Greek autism than Latin innovation. The Churches had been growing apart since before Pippin and before Leo III even. A lot happened in both camps between then and the Great Schism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Greeks didn't want to stray from what they had been given, what is wrong with that?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The Greeks didn't str-ack!
          Stray they did, at least as far as Latins were concerned. It was political/cultural though, not religious. Irene reversed iconoclasm (it still came back for a bit) but was atrocious elsewhere. A strong ERE ruled by a strong emperor would have not allowed Pope Leo III to crown Charlemagne. Both Leo and Constantine were strong and capable leaders. It is a misfortune they were succeeded by Irene and a bigger misfortune they alienated the West and most of their own citizens with excessive iconoclasm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shut the frick up moron filioque was an innovation and your moronic acrobatics don't make any sense, no one cares you read some irrelvant history

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >seething Greekling
            (you) on the right

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I believe that all Christian churches have strayed from the truth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that filioque is not a shared tradition amongst all the apostolic churches nor is it scriptural. It was just a way to justify Trinitarian doctrine.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nor is it Scriptural
            Jesus said "I will send"
            >to justify Trinitarianism
            Trinitarianism was already dogma for both. Filioque was just an excuse blown out of proportion, like unleavened bread and prelate celibacy. The men who argued for and against it did not care about any theological ramifications, for there were none. They cared about temporal power.

      • 1 month ago
        Dirk

        You can say that about any schism. The filioque was the final straw and the justification for the separation on both sides.

        Is Mel Gibson right?

        About?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm saying it was a poor justification, and on its own it's not nearly enough to cause any schism, no matter how small. All the reasons listed for the split (from both sides) are bs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moronic response, dismissed

    • 1 month ago
      Schizoidberg

      Is Mel Gibson right?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Orthodox are more correct, yes. Protestants are definitely wrong. The truth is that the Bronze Age Israelites are the only ones who got it right. Everything since then has been cope and heresy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Bronze Age Israelites a
      You mean Canaanite pagans who sacrificed children? Because the cult of Yahwism had only started gaining momentum in the iron age.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Lutheran church is the true Orthodox church

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No one takes protestants seriously, give it a break.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Watch the videos of Dr. Jordan B Cooper

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Roman catholicism is the 10th horn of the beast in Daniel with eyes and a mouth.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    COME HOME COPTIC MAN
    CHALCEDON A SHIT

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Papal Infallibility is such a fringe item of Dogma - covering only proclamations made by the Pope ex cathedra - that it’s incredibly unimportant.
    It’s only a hot button issue because critics of the Church use it as a scary phrase (to insinuate Catholics believe the Pope himself is infallible like mewling cultists), poorly catechized folks like yourself, and LARPcaths who don’t actually know the religion.
    There’s plenty of shit to be concerned about but this is hardly one of them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Roman catholicism is about submitting to the pope as a man ascended into godhood. Everything else is utterly irrelevant because the theology is completely different from one catholic to another.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Source: your ass

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *