Can I a Catholic venerate orthodox saints?

Can I a Catholic venerate orthodox saints?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If they haven't been recognised as Saints by the Catholic church, no.
    Otherwise, you can venerate saints which are both recognised by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, such as St.Boniface or Pope St.Leo I.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know nothing about it, but I do think it would be a great thing to do. What separates us seems very minor, all things considered.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/k6oGBHw.jpeg

      Can I a Catholic venerate orthodox saints?

      You guys should take religion more seriously, saints became saints because they took religion, God, Christ, his church,... seriously. Sinners, punished people, damned people on the other hand were just reckless, didn't really bother themselves about God truth and revelation, they just were passive, feminine.
      The creed is something confessed by all orthodox christians in the divine liturgy. It's the center, concise, and everyone has to believe and understand that.
      If you don't believe in your pope, in the dogmas about the pope,...why stay papist ? If you think denomination doesn't matter why still have a denomination ?
      You should take it seriously, otherwise it's a grave sin

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I do think it matters to be obedient to the Church, but I also love and often admire my Orthodox and Protestant brothers, who again are often so close to us despite our differences. I was speaking in ignorance about the issue, but if a man was obviously holy, who can fail to give him the respect he deserves? Our own Lord praised Samaritans and gentiles, who were considered non-entities by the israeli culture of the time.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if a man was obviously holy, who can fail to give him the respect he deserves?
          You see, saint Paissios was obedient to another church, he denied the rights your authority claims to have, he didn't obey but accused your authority (you are supposed to believe it was the church founded by Christ, saint peter blabla), he was supposedly schismatic, disobedient, claimed the pope is heretic on several points of mariology, and of theology in the creed,...
          But for you he is obviously a saint ? Try to think more seriously about what matters for salvation, and what is the church for you. Because there is a contradiction.
          Either you believe your church or you don't, and you believe sainthood isn't a matter of belonging to your faith and the right church. Maybe try to get a definition.

          >Our own Lord praised Samaritans and gentiles, who were considered non-entities by the israeli culture of the time.
          That was an ethnic difference, not on faith and free like today, and Christ did bring salvation to all, then some rejected him, israeli or not, and some accepted him, and some distorted his message, and divided the community (Church).So false teachings and false teachers exist. Who are the false teachers and false teachings that saint john talks about for example ?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/aF4HiOu.png

            You can venerate saint paissios, he can make you understand how orthodoxy is the truth

            ?si=eOwpz85SDqEM0WNl

            [...]
            You guys should take religion more seriously, saints became saints because they took religion, God, Christ, his church,... seriously. Sinners, punished people, damned people on the other hand were just reckless, didn't really bother themselves about God truth and revelation, they just were passive, feminine.
            The creed is something confessed by all orthodox christians in the divine liturgy. It's the center, concise, and everyone has to believe and understand that.
            If you don't believe in your pope, in the dogmas about the pope,...why stay papist ? If you think denomination doesn't matter why still have a denomination ?
            You should take it seriously, otherwise it's a grave sin

            Why are Orthogays so insufferable on the internet?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they're based when they point out the inherent dissonance of roman catholicism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're only making my point for me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Nega-Dirk

            You're only making my point for me

            Because 90% of “orthodox” who post here are LARPers and LARPs are usually insufferable.
            LARPodoxy promises them;
            1) An instance sense of identity (you are le one true church, le 2000yrs of “unchanged” tradition)
            2) A clear in and out group
            3) A sense of superiorty (you are smart, the other Christians are dumb and need more gnosis).
            4) A well of various historical texts that allows you to throw citations at your opposition, but you also never actually have to read any of those sauces.
            5) False promises of Trad Orthodicky
            6) Orthodoxy can be whatever you want it to be. There is so many different (and clashing) theological positions/writings and the offical church has no offical position on almost all of them, even basic stuff like soteriology or baptism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm orthodox, and i have met one of these types of gays, although he was an exceptional case
            moron came flaunting about his fake job claiming to make 6 figures as a business consultant (turned out to be a neet or something, but i commend his ability to lie so well), was a polgay, and made a fricking spreadsheet of the distribution of optimal women that fit his fetishes in different areas to tell him what the chance of finding that kind of woman was
            after just a few months of coming to the church he started going to a catholic church in some other state for some random egirl he met on discord
            as much as i hate that type of person, i just found the whole situation funny because of how absurd it was

          • 4 weeks ago
            Nega-Dirk

            And I’ll admit it’s not all orthodox, but they make a large % of the online community because it’s the current flavour (though it’s now on the decline from my perspective).
            I’m friends with a Greek family, lovely people, they touch grass.
            I also used to friends with a dude who converted and made the thing his whole personality. All he could ever talk about is “X saint or priest say Y on this topic”, “prots are le bad” and words to the effect of “ecumanism and the filioque are responsible for all the war in the world”. imo he’s a psuedo-TO.
            >met on discord
            That checks out.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That was an ethnic difference, not on faith and free like today,
            Not quite, the Samaritans are eerily a lot like the Orthodox to our Catholicism:
            >Although it developed alongside and is closely related to Judaism, Samaritanism asserts itself as the truly preserved form of the monotheistic faith that the Israelites adopted under Moses. Samaritan belief also holds that the Israelites' original holy site was Mount Gerizim, near Nablus,[3] and that Jerusalem only attained importance under Israelite dissenters who had followed Eli to the city of Shiloh; the Israelites who remained at Mount Gerizim would become the Samaritans in the Kingdom of Israel, whereas the Israelites who left would become the israelites in the Kingdom of Judah.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritanism
            Who can read men's hearts? I certainly can't, so I much prefer to err on the side of generosity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Who can read men's hearts?
            A muslim, a israeli,... denies Christ's divinity, does it means nothing for you ? Christ asked his father to forgave the israelites crucifying him, it doesn't mean it isn't a very dangerous thing to do. So some things, some opinions (like the israelites accusing Christ of blasphemy) are very bad and dangerous to have, even if God is mercy (because these opinions reject God's mercy and salvation)
            >so I much prefer to err on the side of generosity.
            One can certainly hope for the salvation of everyone, heretics or sinners.
            But praying for a saint is asking him for his helps and thinking he is saint : close to God, a model to emulate, a good influence. It's like having a spiritual mentor. Why choose an helper, a model, a mentor,... at odds with your church ? You can't have two master, two master in conflict.
            Maybe you don't believe in your church and you believe in something else, it's quite legitimate, and you can consider that then : do I really consider seriously that papism is right if I have admiration and pray to it's opponents ?

            I don't get your point with samaritains. Christ were going to bring a new spiritual religion, salvation, to Samaritans, israelites, gentiles, indiscriminately. And of course there were good natured samaritans. But he said to the samaritan woman that God will be worship in spirit, neither in the temple of Jerusalem, neither on the mountain on which samaritans were making prayer. He brought something new to both, didn't deny possible virtue,...

            Do I really have to explain to you what is a heresy and why it's bad ? Heresy is false teaching at odds with the teaching of Christ,... maybe you can think more deeply about what is the salvation and religion offered by Christ. You can come up with your new theory, or believe in those of a certain denomination.
            God's mercy doesn't deny the fact he instituted only one Church, and the full truth can only be one (notably when the different denominations contradict each other).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's unwise to slide to full veneration if we mean men in apparent contradiction with the Church, but I have known men outside of the Church who I will not hesitate to praise. Our Church does not want of saints, but one does nonetheless encounter such men, and it's silly to bring up such considerations because the point of a man's heart is not actually trivial, as far as we know, a man might be mistaken on grounds God does acknowledge as legitimate. This is not any endorsement to veneration, but charity and kindness do stand as articles of our faith.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Our Church does not want of saints
            ?
            >the point of a man's heart is not actually trivial
            Nor are the revealed dogmas.

            If you just want to praise him like you could praise a virtuous muslim or whatever, indeed you can do that.
            The thread's question is if you can venerate an orthodox saint as a catholic.
            I'm not telling you shouldn't pray to him, in fact, but I'm just pointing out to the need to find a solution to the contradiction between this true saint (not just a virtuous man) and your church. The solution is of course to reject papism, the heresy.
            To reject heresies, and just not be like a butterfly relativist who don't know what he believes in, who would in fact believe in nothing. There is a contradiction between your church and saint paissios because the papist church is wrong on lots of points. I'm sorry to be so blunt..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I agree, it would be wrong to pray to such men in presumption. Thank you for your replies and God bless you!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Toxic outlook you have

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-eastern-orthodox-canonizations-valid

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Eastern Roman Catholics can. It makes no sense because Orthodox saints like Gregory Palamas called the Filioque Satanic which is anathematised by Florence, but the Roman Church isn't one for consistency.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      short reply yes

      The EASTERN CATHOLICS venerate Palamas for example
      So it can be a possibility at least its not against catholicism to do so

      this is why it pretty much confirmed that the true faith is still within orthodoxy
      but catholics have their role in the church and christianity
      they were the evangelizers more or less

    • 4 weeks ago
      Nega-Dirl

      >Gregory Palamas called the Filioque Satanic which is anathematised by Florence, but the Roman Church isn't one for consistency.

      short reply yes

      The EASTERN CATHOLICS venerate Palamas for example
      So it can be a possibility at least its not against catholicism to do so

      this is why it pretty much confirmed that the true faith is still within orthodoxy
      but catholics have their role in the church and christianity
      they were the evangelizers more or less

      >this is why it pretty much confirmed that the true faith is still within orthodoxy
      Which orthodoxy?
      Also is anyone going to tell them about how the Palamite Church accidentally anathematised their own saints?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Which orthodoxy?

        https://i.imgur.com/IuYV3wi.jpeg

        >Which Orthodoxy?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Nega-Dirk

          Oriental Orthodox?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't there a Catholic and a Protestant version of picrel?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Nega-Dirk

            Wouldn’t surprise me at all but unfortunately I don’t have them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is this image supposed to show?
            The Sadducees were heretical and Christianity comes out of the Pharisees

          • 4 weeks ago
            Nega-Dirk

            I’m not going to bother with this because I assume (at least I hope) you have eyes and a brain.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah sorry, that's an annoying rhetorical habit I've fallen into
            The image is wrong

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The idea is that Christ founded a true church to keep his legacy. That's confessed in the creed :
          "I believe [...] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
          A church accepting the seven oeucumenical councils and so the doctrine defended by them, with priest and bishops validly ordained, in communion with other churches in the same case.
          So a chalcedonian orthodox canonical church. Apostolic succession, no heresy, not alone but in communion with other orthodox churches.
          Bonus is finding an experienced teacher on the Jesus prayer.
          Greek, romanian, russian, serbian, of Jerusalem,... of your country in a canonical church (church attached to autocephalic church, so you have lots of choice. But the definition is clear, a church in continuity doctrinaly and having apostolicity

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea is that Christ founded a true church to keep his legacy.
            Literally no Christian thinks Christ founded a fake Church.
            >That's confessed in the creed :
            "I believe [...] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”
            Correct, now point to where it says “I believe in one church which is exclusively bound to a visible institution”.
            >A church accepting the seven ecumencial councils
            Presupposition, why 7, why not 3?
            And which 7, was Hieria the 7th?
            Your standard of “Orthodoxy” seems already self referential to what you have already decided / been told is Orthodoxy.
            >and so the doctrine defended by them
            Well if I take that stance than I need to side with the Old Believers because the other Palamites attacked and persecuted them despite them holding perfectly to the conditions YOU have previously established. Since there can only be 1 visible institution (again by your standard) the moment the Mainline Russia Church started its persecution (& the other churches maintained communion with them) the Old Believers became the sole vestige of Christs church because the church can’t persecute itself right??
            >with priest and bishops validly ordained, in communion with other churches in the same case.
            See above, that leaves only the Old Believers.
            >So a chalcedonian orthodox canonical church. Apostolic succession, no heresy,
            Old Believers.
            >not alone but in communion with other orthodox churches.
            *Insert Athanasius quote about if the faithful are reduced to but a handful*

            >Bonus is finding an experienced teacher on the Jesus prayer.
            So this is a completely self referential standard with no foundation in scripture.
            >But the definition is clear
            Clear to you because you have presupposed the answer.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can venerate saint paissios, he can make you understand how orthodoxy is the truth

    ?si=eOwpz85SDqEM0WNl

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes you can venerate the Orthodox 21 Martyrs of Libya.

      >he can make you understand how orthodoxy is the truth
      Which Orthodoxy?
      Old Believer Orthodox (many Old Believers are not in communion with mainstream Russian Palamites in addition to groups such as the Bespopovtsy)?
      Oriental Orthodox?
      Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
      Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
      Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
      Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
      Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
      Or “True” Orthodox?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Which Orthodoxy?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Which Orthodoxy?
        Orthodoxy is a title that everyone claims, of course. It means in greek, right belief (ortho-dox). So the catholics claims themselves orthodox too, and you could have included them in the list, just like the orthodox (the churches in communion who recognize the creed of nicea-Constantinople and the seven oeucumenical council) logically claim themselves to be catholics (universal).
        >many old believers don't recognize the russian church
        so, many do.
        >there is also some groups like bespopovtsy
        There are some groups and sects ? Who could have guessed it
        >Oriental Orthodox?
        >Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
        Anti-chalcedonians, who reject the council of Chalcedon are also heretic in regard to catholic/normal western christology.
        >Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
        >Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
        It's not a matter of faith but of course there are political struggle.
        >Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
        Old calendarist don't necessarily deny the general orthodox church. The calendar is not a problem of faith.
        >Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
        It just appear like an uncanonical church founded by a sect guru who got an ordinarion by whatever heretic bishop wanted to consecrate him. It's a classical thing to do, it exist literally everywhere. These false church, gnostic, esoteric, druidic, parasynagogues, existed even by the time of saint ireneos.
        You just used the word "orthodox" to make up a list. One deist who reject the idea of church could do exactly the same. "Oh you say a christian needs to be part of the church ? Which church ? And then list all the denominations, churches and sects"
        Don't be confused, Christ has founded a Church, and people claim go be orthodox, because they know there exist a right belief.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >so, many do.
          Yes…….. is “le one true church” now determined by popular vote?
          >There are some groups and sects? Who could have guessed it
          As above so below.
          >Anti-chalcedonians, who reject the council of Chalcedon
          Not an argument. Built on presupposition. From an outside perspective why should I accept that as a real argument.
          >It's not a matter of faith
          They seem to disagree considering they banned communion with the other churches, which is directly related to faith.
          >but of course there are political struggle.
          So the EO churches are so cucked to the state that they allow it to divide the body of Christ? Yikes!
          >Old calendarist don't necessarily deny the general orthodox church.
          To quote you, *ahem* “so, many do.”
          >It just appear like an uncanonical church
          See the previous case of the OO.

          >You just used the word "orthodox" to make up a list.
          Anon, I………. do you need me to cite you.
          *ahem*
          “Orthodoxy is a title that everyone claims, of course.”
          >One deist who reject the idea of church could do exactly the same. "Oh you say a christian needs to be part of the church ? Which church ? And then list all the denominations, churches and sects"
          And I would calmly answer, not throw a shit fit. You seem to think that was a good counter argument?
          >Christ has founded a Church
          Correct, but not an institution. People who limit the church to a single institution.
          >and people claim go be orthodox, because they know there exist a right belief.
          Yes, but they incorrectly assume “right belief” is within an institution or club.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anti-chalcedonians, who reject the council of Chalcedon
            Not an argument. Built on presupposition. From an outside perspective why should I accept that as a real argument.
            Well you search the truth for yourself anon. Just see the different arguments. The point of this council is to confess the two natures of Christ, that he is both divine and human, in one person, two natures united without confusion, and distinguished without division. You just have to think. Faith is a question of doctrine as well as devotion, love and virtue. No one can choose for you, not a title, not a majority, not a community. That's your own search and acceptance of the revelation of Christ.
            In this search some of founded sects, some were false, some divided the church for contingent reason. Some didn't accept the true teaching, some were busy with political division.
            That doesn't deny Christ's Church and the fact you should search it as a christian, if you are christian.
            You seam bitter and to love polemics. It is not news that there have been lots of schisma in the east in the first and that sects or schismatic groups exist everywhere. It's really just humans being humans. It doesn't change the fact there is a true doctrine and communities faithful to the tradition.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oops, just a correction :
            >Anti-chalcedonians, who reject the council of Chalcedon
            >Not an argument. Built on presupposition. From an outside perspective why should I accept that as a real argument.
            Well you search the [...]

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well you search the truth for yourself anon.
            I have.
            I find the Oriental Orthodox have a better case then any of the EO denominations.
            >That doesn't deny Christ's Church
            No one here is denying Christ established a church, merely that you are incorrectly understanding it as a single institution.
            >Faith is a question of doctrine as well as devotion, love and virtue. No one can choose for you, not a title, not a majority, not a community.
            100% agree, ultimately faith is matter of private judgment.
            >and the fact you should search it as a christian
            Yes, Christians are called to search for truth and I encourage that. After looking at the “orthodox” churches I concluded that they have varying issues that shows they fail to uphold biblical teachings.
            >You seam bitter and to love polemics.
            Nah I actually despise polemics and think it’s toxic to Christian unity (I’m very ecumencial). To that end I like to showcase that the title of “orthodox” is not exclusive to a single denomination or institution.
            >It's really just humans being humans.
            Couldn’t agree more.
            >It doesn't change the fact there is a true doctrine
            I would say true doctrineS.
            >and communities faithful to the tradition.
            TraditionS
            And yes their are communities faithful to Christian Traditions, from the Latin West, to the Assyrian East.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I like to showcase that the title of “orthodox” is not exclusive to a single denomination or institution.
            Of course, it is a claim. Everyone has to claim he has right belief by necessity, there is no news there.
            Just point out to what you disagree with against orthodoxy then.
            >The Russian document that confirmed the schism says
            >To admit into communion schismatics……
            Maybe you didn't read it well and it was directed to the ukrainian schismatics. Or maybe they indeed believe the patriarch of Constantinople, by supporting the ukrainian schismatic church, has created a schism, a division in the church. Which is a fact. To be divided does not mean to be heretic (heterodox, not-orthodox). It means there is a temporary division in the church, like when the apostles had a disagreement, like when saint Paul disagreed with saint Peter. Of course the patriarch are not infaillible like the pope. It's not about a system, it's about the faith maintained by and within this system (the Church, community).
            >outside the canonical space
            Means logically in breach with the canon.
            >unless you admit that there can be 2 churches, or that the church is not actually limited to a single institution
            The autocephalic system of local churches and patriarchate already is this system where different churches simply are in communion and admit their respective orthodoxy. You make a big thing of a temporary fight between two jurisdiction. It has ALWAYS, been like that in the Church.
            Still the outward unity is : same faith, same liturgy, same mysteries, same common tradition and saints, same spiritual tradition (hesychasm, prayer of the heart), an obvious porosity of individuals and community,....
            And palamas theology has nothing unorthodox..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe you didn't read it well and it was directed to the ukrainian schismatics.
            No it very clearly stated the hierarch and layman of Constantinople, black ink white paper.
            >Which is a fact. To be divided does not mean to be heretic (heterodox, not-orthodox).
            Be to outside the canonical space, non-canonical does make one non-orthodox. As I stated b4.

            >It means there is a temporary division in the church
            Christs body can’t be divided, that would make his body 2 parts.
            >like when the apostles had a disagreement, like when saint Paul disagreed with saint Peter.
            So that showcases that the Church isn’t an single institution as bother Peter and Paul were always parts of The Church. That biblical citation proves my position.

            >It's not about a system, it's about the faith maintained by and within this system (the Church, community).
            Correct, so that would mean that 2 institutions that are maintaining the deposit of faith can be part of The Church. Thus it remains singular but not isolated to a single fallible institution such as the Russian or Greek EO church.

            >Means logically in breach with the canon.
            If one is in breach of canons one is not CANONical and thus is outside “orthodoxy”.

            >The autocephalic system of local churches
            Yes those are better called parishes.
            >and patriarchate already is this system where different churches simply are in communion and admit their respective orthodoxy.
            Yes the problem is Palamite documents state that no one outside of this communion can even be considered Christian let alone saved. Which is the point I’m arguing this communion, which is really just the institution that was formally the Imperial Byzantine Church is wrong to claim this. The current schism proves this because as you say
            >where different churches simply are in communion and admit their respective orthodoxy.
            And also admit
            >by supporting the ukrainian schismatic church, has created a schism, a division in the church.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe you didn't read it well and it was directed to the ukrainian schismatics.
            No it very clearly stated the hierarch and layman of Constantinople, black ink white paper.
            >Which is a fact. To be divided does not mean to be heretic (heterodox, not-orthodox).
            Be to outside the canonical space, non-canonical does make one non-orthodox. As I stated b4.

            >It means there is a temporary division in the church
            Christs body can’t be divided, that would make his body 2 parts.
            >like when the apostles had a disagreement, like when saint Paul disagreed with saint Peter.
            So that showcases that the Church isn’t an single institution as bother Peter and Paul were always parts of The Church. That biblical citation proves my position.

            >It's not about a system, it's about the faith maintained by and within this system (the Church, community).
            Correct, so that would mean that 2 institutions that are maintaining the deposit of faith can be part of The Church. Thus it remains singular but not isolated to a single fallible institution such as the Russian or Greek EO church.

            >Means logically in breach with the canon.
            If one is in breach of canons one is not CANONical and thus is outside “orthodoxy”.

            >The autocephalic system of local churches
            Yes those are better called parishes.
            >and patriarchate already is this system where different churches simply are in communion and admit their respective orthodoxy.
            Yes the problem is Palamite documents state that no one outside of this communion can even be considered Christian let alone saved. Which is the point I’m arguing this communion, which is really just the institution that was formally the Imperial Byzantine Church is wrong to claim this. The current schism proves this because as you say
            >where different churches simply are in communion and admit their respective orthodoxy.
            And also admit
            >by supporting the ukrainian schismatic church, has created a schism, a division in the church.

            Cont.
            >You make a big thing of a temporary fight between two jurisdiction. It has ALWAYS, been like that in the Church.
            Thank you for proving my point. So when the Palamites claim their is a single church they lie,
            >The Church is not only one inwardly, but also outwardly. Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of canonical order. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 3rd Edition, pg 240)
            There is no outward unity in the Palamite communion, and according to you this has ALWAYS been the case.
            Ergo the church isn’t limited to a single institution.
            >Still the outward unity is : same faith
            Which I will showcase is not true, but we will get to that in a second.
            >same liturgy
            Are Old Believers part of the Outward unity? They liturgy is different?
            A simple yes or no will suffice.
            >same mysteries
            Le mysteries, I’m not going to bother with this one.
            >same common tradition
            I would argue all Christians have the same common tradition and they have branches to have newer traditions, such as the Slavonic or Byzantine traditions.
            >and saints
            During the Middle Ages I’ve heard the Bulgarians considered Aquinas a Saint. If the Russians were to make Serephim Rose a saint they wouldn’t all have the same saints.
            >same spiritual tradition (hesychasm, prayer of the heart)
            See above.
            >And palamas theology has nothing unorthodox.
            I would argue otherwise but since palamite theology isn’t an actually systematic theology and he wrote his ideas ad hoc his theology is really whatever you want it to be. More appeal to le mystery.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The breaking of communion between the two patriarchates in this case does not mean they deny their respective orthodoxy, but that they have an ecclesiastical different.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The breaking of communion between the two patriarchates in this case does not mean they deny their respective orthodoxy
            Actually by definition it does.
            You cant divide your communion (refuse to commune with or otherwise boot out people who are perfectly orthodox). The Russian document that confirmed the schism says
            >To admit into communion schismatics……
            to claim the Greeks are schismatics (and logically not orthodox)
            >…….all this leads the Patriarchate of Constantinople beyond the canonical space and, to our great grief, makes it impossible for us to continue the Eucharistic community
            If someone is outside the canonical space they must logically not be orthodox.
            You can’t be non-canonical and orthodox in EO theology. It’s an absurd notion.

            So all this is to say the break in communion (the schism, which is what it is) places at least one side outside. You can’t have a schism and have both sides still in the church unless you admit that there can be 2 churches, or that the church is not actually limited to a single institution.
            >The Church is not only one inwardly, but also outwardly. Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of canonical order. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 3rd Edition, pg 240)
            There is no outward unity in the Palamite communion, simple as.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Correct, but not an institution. People who limit the church to a single institution.
            >>and people claim go be orthodox, because they know there exist a right belief.
            >Yes, but they incorrectly assume “right belief” is within an institution or club.
            Christ had a group, the church of Jerusalem had a group. In a normal society it's only natural to be in group. The limitation isn't inherent. People of all countries and different churches can belong to the body of Christ. Lots of disciples and apostles. But the fact is there is a limit to what is normal and canonical.
            For example a Church denying Christ's divinity, or the holy spirit, or marrying gay couples (some protestants, anglicans),... have fallen out of truth and of the fidelity to what was transmitted.
            What is transmitted is the revelation, the doctrine from the bible, the mysteries like the holy cup given and instituted for us to continue it in common by Christ. The Church is made of those faithful to Christ.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ had a group
            Yes. He had 12 disciples. His followers extended beyond that though. See Mark 9:38-40.
            >The church of Jerusalem had a group.
            Correct, see above.
            >In a normal society it's only natural to be in group.
            I’m not opposing groups, I don’t think anyone in this thread is?
            >The limitation isn't inherent. People of all countries and different churches can belong to the body of Christ.
            100% agreed.
            >Lots of disciples and apostles.
            100% agreed.
            >But the fact is there is a limit to what is normal and canonical.
            100% agree, I don’t expect to be able to walk into a Church community and just receive communion. However I also don’t claim people outside my Church are 100% damned.
            >For example a Church denying Christ's divinity, or the holy spirit, or marrying gay couples (some protestants, anglicans),... have fallen out of truth and of the fidelity to what was transmitted.
            Correct. Not disagreeing with that.
            >more stuff that I don’t need to address because I agree with it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To resume your opinion you think the orthodox church is just "palamist churches" and that anti-chalcedonians, nestorians, catholics, some protestants also are totally valid too. You think there is only a mystical church and disagree with the oeucumenical councils who rejected some heretics like Nestorius, you just are like most protestant or modern who think God doesn't really care about these questions. You might be non-denominational. What is you denomination ? Is that what you think ?

            Then you deny outward unity of the Church by blowing things out of their proportion.
            Other than it's claim to be the true church maybe you don't really disagree with orthodoxy ?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >To assume your opinion you think the orthodox church is just "palamist churches"
            You assumed wrong.
            I think all orthodox churches are orthodox churches, whereever their is true faith practiced and the deposit of faith preserved (it might not be 100% intact, exactly how the apostles did it, no church has that for varying reasons).
            >and that anti-chalcedonians, nestorians, catholics, some protestants also are totally valid too.
            No, I think that some Miaphysites, Church of the East, Palamites, Catholics, Protestants etc. are part of the Church. It’s not limited to an institution. THE Church is 1, the faithful are spread across many institutions. See Mark 9:38-40.

            >You think there is only a mystical church you assume false again, I believe in the visible church. It can be seen in the faithful and their actions just as the man in Mark 9 was visible. Just as communities such as the Amish are visible. I don’t look at the Amish and then “well I’m sorry you may have dedicated your entire life to Christ, but since you don’t follow the 5th council of sneed and feed you aren’t a real Christian and are hell bound”.
            >and disagree with the oeucumenical councils
            I agree with many of their conclusions but I think they errored in place. I’m not unique in this stance, the Palamites can’t even agree
            1) what makes an ecumenical council just that there are 7 of them
            2) what parts are infallible, because recently there are now parts of the Palamites communion that want to cherry pick parts of the council as infallible and toss out other parts. And that not even mention the other councils Palamites are bound to like Jerusalem (1672).

            >you just are like most protestant or modern who think God doesn't really care about these questions.
            You assume false again. I didn’t reach this conclusion cause I didn’t care, I reached it because your position is untenable.
            >You might be non-denominational. What is you denomination?
            Old Catholic

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To resume your opinion you think the orthodox church is just "palamist churches" and that anti-chalcedonians, nestorians, catholics, some protestants also are totally valid too. You think there is only a mystical church and disagree with the oeucumenical councils who rejected some heretics like Nestorius, you just are like most protestant or modern who think God doesn't really care about these questions. You might be non-denominational. What is you denomination ? Is that what you think ?

            Then you deny outward unity of the Church by blowing things out of their proportion.
            Other than it's claim to be the true church maybe you don't really disagree with orthodoxy ?

            To clarify When I say “Old Catholic” I mean Catholic in full communion with the Magisterium but I consider myself to hold to the Older Catholic views that are fundamental and more faithful uphold the deposit of faithful, which have been more clearly clarified in Vatican II, rather than a TradCaths (I do not like that term) who obsesses over aesthetics and/or holds to Feenyite Doctrine.
            You can call me a Vatican II Catholic if you would like but I prefer the term Old Catholic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not the poster you replied to. "Old Catholics" is a term referring to the schismatics that rejected the Vatican I council. Just accept the LARP and join the Tradcaths, we're fun!

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    some saints are shared by both churches and they are all pre-schism.
    if the catholic church doesnt venerate them you arent supposed to if youre catholic. Although I think theres this loophole with eastern rite catholicism for a few saints.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love all Apostolic faiths
    These arguments are above my intelligence, but I see us all as united
    And I deeply love you all as brothers and sisters

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can I a Catholic venerate orthodox saints?
    Why not? Embrace the aesthetics obssesed larp.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    don't the orthodox venerate soviet premiers?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can I a Catholic think the Pope is a gay?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not in the slightest.
    Catholic canonization requires an investigation that'd prove truly extraordinary faith, unblemished moral conduct, and miraculous acts of the person in question.
    Orthodox glorification is just a popularity contest among the masses so you end up with icons of St. Stalin and St. Lenin circulating among the populace.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Eastern Catholics venerate Palamas and Mark of Ephesus.

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