Christianity won't survive wokeness

[Decline]

I remember when the question "Is the pope catholic?" didn't require a philosophical debate to answer.

Yeah, that phrase now stands for extreme uncertainty in uncertain times instead of certainty.
But honestly it always was this way since A.D. 325, when the pozz started to glow really hard.

If you don't denounce everything from 325 onward you are not a real christian and never were.

[Nooneatall]

I don't like protestantism, because I don't like it's (((bibles))). I don't like catholicism, because its alien. I don't like orthodoxy, because its alien. My father and his father's father weren't buried with it. They're strangers' religions. Converting on believism is something a pagan would do. Give me a catholic or orthodox wife, and I will be converted through marriage.

The Orthodox Church is universal, you do not have to be "born into it" or "married into it" or be a part of this culture or that culture. You simply have to decide that you are willing to start the process of conversion and walk that path. If you know and understand that something is lacking from modern, western churches, that they are sliding headfirst into degeneracy, you owe it to yourself to seek Orthodoxy. Even in this age of absolute moral decay, It is the original Church that continues to stand tall and has not fallen into corruption, and it continues to grow in the west as more english-speaking churches are being founded. It is no longer the case that Orthodox churches are mainly for Russians, Greeks or Ukrainians, but are now being seen by the Anglo populace as was originally the case prior to the schism. As for the Catholics, they believe in papal supremacy, and so they were really doomed from the start as soon as the schism occurred in 1056. The Pope is moving into this direction of enabling sodomy, openly, within the Catholic Church, and there is nothing the traditionally-minded Catholics can do. They risk always being on the fringe and coping eternally, hoping that the Pope will change his mind or be replaced by a proper successor. But that is unlikely to ever happen.

The Catholic Church allies itself with the WEF, and I believe one of Francis' mentors is a close associate of Klaus Schwab. The devil is using the Catholic Church like he does all these other organizations, operated by his servants. So if you are serious about your faith, as I hope you are, you should listen to this advice and at least make the effort of looking into it. Not dismiss it out of hand because of a misconceived idea.

I'm not a Christian but I have no idea how anyone is Christian wouldn't want to be orthodox. If I was going to convert it would be orthodox or nothing, I wouldn't even go near a non orthodox church. Just go into one and you can just feel it's the true Christianity.
Again, I have no argument except muh feels because I'm not Christian.

[Decline]

I'm not a Christian but I have no idea how anyone is Christian wouldn't want to be orthodox.

Because these so-called orthodox are not orthodox enough.

Ante-nicean christianity is the true belief

The second and third centuries saw a sharp divorce of Christianity from its early roots. There was an explicit rejection of then-modern Judaism and Jewish culture by the end of the second century, with a growing body of adversus Judaeos literature. Fourth- and fifth-century Christianity experienced pressure from the government of the Roman Empire and developed strong episcopal and unifying structure. The ante-Nicene period was without such authority and was more diverse. Many variations in this era defy neat categorizations, as various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion.

Just a bunch of free thinkers joined by their belief in god and their hate of jews.

[rusty_shackleford]

east-west schism was caused by eastern barbarians massacring tens of thousands of western Christians in Constantinople followed by centuries of eastern history rewriting to the point where orthodox aren't even taught about the event anymore and think the schism was over unleavened bread.
They also never apologized for it, unlike far lesser events Catholicism has apologized to Orthodox for, btw.

[rusty_shackleford]

followed by centuries of eastern history rewriting

https://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?sear ... the latins

lol
lmao
It's not even on their Catholic/Orthodox timeline page:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Or ... _relations

1180 Last formal reception of Latins to communion at an Orthodox altar, in Antioch.
1182 Maronites (formerly Monothelite heretics) submit to Rome.
1187 Saladin retakes Jerusalem after destroying crusader army at Battle of Hattin, and returns Christian holy places to the Orthodox Church.

we dindu nuffin!

[Nooneatall]

My Christian ranking as a non-Christian:
1. Orthodox
Pros
1. Cool looking churches
2. Icons are cool
3. Incense
4. Cool songs
5. Priests are based

Cons
1. Larpers
2. Slavonic masses

2. Catholic
Pros
1. Some churches are okay
2. Latin masses

Cons
1. Priests are all gay and effeminate because no marriage
2. Pedophilia
3. Non-Latin masses
4. Virgin Mary worship

3. Protestant
Pros
1. Some churches are okay

Cons
1. Extremely anti-christian for the most part
2. Usually non-act based theology (everyone goes to heaven if they believe, even if they killed everyone around them and ate their flesh)
3. Women priests
4. Embraces sin and spreads it
5. Responsible for weakening Christianity in Europe

4. Weird fake Christians (Mormons, Jehovahs witness)
Pros
1. Mormons look trad and stuff

Cons
1. Annoying door to door salesmen
2. Fake beliefs that don't make sense
3. Weird cult-like behavior

[WhiteShark]

east-west schism was caused by eastern barbarians massacring tens of thousands of western Christians in Constantinople followed by centuries of eastern history rewriting to the point where orthodox aren't even taught about the event anymore and think the schism was over unleavened bread.
They also never apologized for it, unlike far lesser events Catholicism has apologized to Orthodox for, btw.

What on Earth are you talking about? The schism was already formalized more than a century before that and, theologically, it was over the filioque. The massacre of the Latins was a truly regrettable event but to say that it was the cause for the schism is a bald-faced lie. Here's the actual political background for the schism instead of your weird anachronistic cope:

► Show Spoiler

In Spain in 589 AD, a local synod, in violation of the Canons of the Church, added the word filioque (lit.: and the son) to the Nicene Creed asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the 9th century, the Frankish King Charlemagne, seeking to divide the Western half of the Roman Empire from the Eastern half in order to establish his own empire, attacked the Church in the East. He began to lodge accusations of heresy against Christians in the East. In order to further create divisions between Romans of the East and Romans of the West, he called those in the East “Greeks” which means “barbarians” and referred only to those in the West as Romans. (The so-called Greeks were Roman citizens of the Roman Empire, which Empire had as its capital the Eastern city of Constantinople. To this day the Greeks in Turkey are called the Rum or Rumi). He accused the Greeks of false doctrine for using the Creed as originally given, i.e., without the filioque. At the same time, he began to pressure the Apostolic See in Rome. As the eminent Theologian and Church Historian, John Romanides has written:

An unsuccessful attempt was made on the life of (the Roman) Pope Leo III (795-816), the successor of Hadrian. Pope Leo was then accused of immoral conduct. Charlemagne took a personal and active interest in the investigations, which caused Leo to be brought to him in Paderborn. Leo was sent back to Rome, followed by Charlemagne, who continued the investigations. The Frankish king required finally that Leo swear his innocence on the Bible, which he did on December 23, (800). Two days later Leo crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans.” Charlemagne had arranged to get the title “Emperor” in exchange for Leo’s exoneration. Charlemagne caused the filioque (the new line in the Creed that said that the Holy Spirit, "proceeds from the Father and the Son," instead of the original which read, "proceeds from the Father,”) to be added to the Frankish Creed, without consulting the pope. When the controversy over this addition broke out in Jerusalem, Charlemagne convoked the Council of Aachen (809) and decreed that this addition was a dogma necessary for salvation. With this fait accomplit under his belt, he tried to pressure Pope Leo III into accepting it.

Pope Leo rejected the filioque not only as an addition to the Creed, but also as doctrine, claiming that the Fathers left it out of the Creed neither out of ignorance, nor out of negligence, nor out of oversight, but on purpose and by divine inspiration. What Leo said to the Franks but in diplomatic terms, was that the addition of the filioque to the Creed is a heresy.

The so-called split between East and West was, in reality, the importation into Old Rome of the schism provoked by Charlemagne and carried there by the Franks and Germans who took over the papacy.

The Franks exercised a very deliberate policy of provoking doctrinal differences between the East Romans (the Orthodox) and the West Romans (the Roman Catholics). This policy was adopted “in order to break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the original Roman nation.” Romanides again,

“Because of this deliberate policy, the filioque question took on irreparable dimensions. However, the identity of the West Romans and of the East Romans as one indivisible nation, faithful to the Roman Christian faith promulgated at the Ecumenical Synods held in the Eastern part of the Empire, is completely lost to the historians of Germanic background, since the East Romans are consistently called "Greeks" and "Byzantines."

Thus, the historical myth has been created that the West Roman Fathers of the Church, the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Normans, etc., are one continuous and historically unbroken “Latin” Christendom, clearly distinguished and different from a mythical “Greek” Christendom. The frame of reference accepted without reservation by Western historians for so many centuries has been “the Greek East and the Latin West.”

In 879 AD, the Eighth Ecumenical Council condemned all those who would either add to or delete anything from the Nicene Creed. It is clear from the correspondence of St. Photios in the East with the Western Pope John VIII, that the Pope joined in condemning the filioque.

[rusty_shackleford]

The schism was already formalized more than a century before that

noooooope

Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. ... The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware. It was the crusades that made the schism definitive.

Both sides fully expected a reconciliation prior to the massacre. Again, orthodox aren't taught this. Even Kallistos fails to acknowledge the role the massacre had in the events, just laying the blame at the feet of the "crusades", when those followed the massacre, not a pretext. Indeed, he goes on to completely ignore the massacre and jumps right to 1204, as expected.

[WhiteShark]

The schism is fundamentally theological and ecclesiological. The massacre and the crusades may have been what made the split apparent to the laypeople of the time, but Rome was in schism from the moment it decided that the Pope could unilaterally override councils. Even your quote says that they were 'not yet conscious' of the schism, not that it wasn't there.

[rusty_shackleford]

The schism is fundamentally theological and ecclesiological. The massacre and the crusades may have been what made the split apparent to the laypeople of the time, but Rome was in schism from the moment it decided that the Pope could unilaterally override councils. Even your quote says that they were 'not yet conscious' of the schism, not that it wasn't there.

Without the massacre and the ensuing events caused by, the schism would have likely healed, it wasn't the first or the last time the church has had a schism.
Who, after all, speaks for the Acacians today?

[Lhynn]

It is pretty clear that the church has been infiltrated and is a tool of satan nowadays, just another tentacle.

[WhiteShark]

Without the massacre and the ensuing events caused by, the schism would have likely healed, it wasn't the first or the last time the church has had a schism.
Who, after all, speaks for the Acacians today?

Perhaps, but what you said is that the massacre caused the schism, not that it made reconciliation afterwards difficult, and this is false. Rome caused the schism when it altered the Creed in violation of the councils and in contradiction to the judgements of its own prior popes.

[rusty_shackleford]

Without the massacre and the ensuing events caused by, the schism would have likely healed, it wasn't the first or the last time the church has had a schism.
Who, after all, speaks for the Acacians today?

Perhaps, but what you said is that the massacre caused the schism, not that it made reconciliation afterwards difficult, and this is false. Rome caused the schism when it altered the Creed in violation of the councils and in contradiction to the judgements of its own prior popes.

The massacre caused the schism and the orthodox refuse to acknowledge it even happened.

[WhiteShark]

The massacre caused the schism and the orthodox refuse to acknowledge it even happened.

Incoherent nonsense. Schism is a fundamentally theological issue. Massacres can sour political relations but they don't cause schisms. If Rome hadn't already been in schism, massacre certainly wouldn't have caused one.

[Decline]

The so-called schism and the debate surrounding it is just a diversion from the real issues that plague the church(es).

[Lhynn]

The so-called schism and the debate surrounding it is just a diversion from the real issues that plague the church(es).

Faggotry and pedophilia?

[Decline]

The so-called schism and the debate surrounding it is just a diversion from the real issues that plague the church(es).

Faggotry and pedophilia?

All sexual relations - regardless of the details - are a barrier stopping you from a closer relationship with God.

[Sweeper]

1187 Saladin retakes Jerusalem after destroying crusader army at Battle of Hattin, and returns Christian holy places to the Orthodox Church.

Based Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub. westerner go home!

Yeah, that phrase now stands for extreme uncertainty in uncertain times instead of certainty.
But honestly it always was this way since A.D. 325, when the pozz started to glow really hard.

If you don't denounce everything from 325 onward you are not a real christian and never were.

I honestly can't even tell when people are baiting anymore, but on the off-chance that you're being unironic with this, to call all the holy fathers and saints the Church has produced since 325 unchristian because they follow the Nicene Creed speaks to a mindboggling level of arrogance. Go to confession, speak with a priest, you're unironically possessed by demons.

[A Chinese opium den]

This pope is a servant to satan's children.


(inside the Vatican if someone didn't already know)

Now while its in bad taste for a Pope, that is a very cool looking amphitheater and would be the most radical assembly room if you were in fact a serpent worship cult. Its a shame they couldn't just build that in a huge Pentecostal compound somewhere in the American South, and instead the current faggot infested papacy has to build it while it being entirely heretical.

[maidenhaver]

Its ugly but the idea of it, souls rising out of the mouth of a snake, is biblical.

[Decline]

I honestly can't even tell when people are baiting anymore, but on the off-chance that you're being unironic with this, to call all the holy fathers and saints the Church has produced since 325 unchristian because they follow the Nicene Creed speaks to a mindboggling level of arrogance. Go to confession, speak with a priest, you're unironically possessed by demons.

I am not saying the Saints were necessarily insincere (who am I to judge anyway) or that individual Christians did not produce anything of value since 325. I am saying the Church's dogmas are. You can't rely on the Church to tell you what is Heresy and what isn't, only your personal communication with God can. You can claim that is arrogance, but fact of the matter is that since the Nicene Creed the Church has been systematically used to suppress spirituality.

[Wretch]

Denomination wars are stupid. I don’t understand how people can just pick a denomination and then proceed to blindly support it and fight against all others like it’s their favorite sports team. We’re supposed to live our faith not externally decorate ourselves with it. That being said I don’t understand how anyone can take western Christianity seriously at all. I know there are outliers who are full of a simple faith and are truly close to God but a large number of so called Christians of the modern day are complete caricatures of what they should be. Living inversions of the teachings of Christ.

I also don’t understand how anyone could come across Orthodox teaching, especially on prayer or eschatology, and not immediately discern it to be the Truth. There’s undoubtedly all sorts of issues with the human element of Orthodoxy that I fully understand wanting to avoid. However the Orthodox faith is life giving to anyone who lives it out. In contrast the western expression of Christianity is self destructive, not only harmful to those who put erring beliefs into practice but so hard of heart that they can’t see their issues to fix the problems.

[Wretch]

I honestly can't even tell when people are baiting anymore, but on the off-chance that you're being unironic with this, to call all the holy fathers and saints the Church has produced since 325 unchristian because they follow the Nicene Creed speaks to a mindboggling level of arrogance. Go to confession, speak with a priest, you're unironically possessed by demons.

I am not saying the Saints were necessarily insincere (who am I to judge anyway) or that individual Christians did not produce anything of value since 325. I am saying the Church's dogmas are. You can't rely on the Church to tell you what is Heresy and what isn't, only your personal communication with God can. You can claim that is arrogance, but fact of the matter is that since the Nicene Creed the Church has been systematically used to suppress spirituality.

I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water here. The Church has been used by people to suppress spirituality at times but it always comes back around. Not only that but the Saints come from these times of suffering. If we dare to bear the name of Christ we will also bear many of the trials and suffering He did, after-all the servant is not greater than the Master. Even when Christ Himself was personally teaching His Church there were betrayers and wicked sorts. Also there is really no level of spirituality close to Orthodox Monastics and the Saints of the Church. If you’ve had bad experiences with individuals in positions of authority that hurts a lot and can take time to heal.

All groups of people whether families or businesses or even something as insignificant as a knitting club have designated leaders. This is the way God has arranged it. The Church is no different, those who despise the Church and want to remove all form from it are really no different than women rebelling against man’s God given authority.

[Lhynn]

The so-called schism and the debate surrounding it is just a diversion from the real issues that plague the church(es).

Faggotry and pedophilia?

All sexual relations - regardless of the details - are a barrier stopping you from a closer relationship with God.

You could have your men of the church marry women and the institution would not only survive but it would thrive, as long as the position of the woman was that of servitude to her man.

The main reason the church is a pedophile paradise is that real men wont join it because they want to have children and form a family.
The sole reason men arent allowed to get married in the church is greed, they church wants the assets they leave behind, dont want to share them with the family.

[Decline]

Faggotry and pedophilia?

All sexual relations - regardless of the details - are a barrier stopping you from a closer relationship with God.

You could have your men of the church marry women and the institution would not only survive but it would thrive, as long as the position of the woman was that of servitude to her man.

The main reason the church is a pedophile paradise is that real men wont join it because they want to have children and form a family.
The sole reason men arent allowed to get married in the church is greed, they church wants the assets they leave behind, dont want to share them with the family.

A man is beholden to his wife. If a priest is allowed worldly marriage he also is beholden to his wife and family. A Priest that is beholden to worldly matters and - even worse - a woman cannot be beholden to his belief and The Lord, at least not as much as an unmarried one. What's more, just because someone is married does not absolve him of all sin. Married priests have the potential to sin just as much because whether married or not, a priest is human.

If you hold rank and file in he church you live for the faith and die for the faith. Your assets are therefore not your assets, this worldly concept does not even exist. The church just continues to make use of your resources you provided to it after your death, using them to further the faith. Again, this does not preclude the existence of corruption within the church.

Your criticism of the church is shallow and lazy.

Edit: @rusty_shackleford my previous post successfully posted but never appeared in the thread. Something's broken.

[Lhynn]

All sexual relations - regardless of the details - are a barrier stopping you from a closer relationship with God.

You could have your men of the church marry women and the institution would not only survive but it would thrive, as long as the position of the woman was that of servitude to her man.

The main reason the church is a pedophile paradise is that real men wont join it because they want to have children and form a family.
The sole reason men arent allowed to get married in the church is greed, they church wants the assets they leave behind, dont want to share them with the family.

A man is beholden to his wife. If a priest is allowed worldly marriage he also is beholden to his wife and family. A Priest that is beholden to worldly matters and - even worse - a woman cannot be beholden to his belief and The Lord, at least not as much as an unmarried one. What's more, just because someone is married does not absolve him of all sin. Married priests have the potential to sin just as much because whether married or not, a priest is human.

If you hold rank and file in he church you live for the faith and die for the faith. Your assets are therefore not your assets, this worldly concept does not even exist. The church just continues to make use of your resources you provided to it after your death, using them to further the faith. Again, this does not preclude the existence of corruption within the church.

Your criticism of the church is shallow and lazy.

Edit: @rusty_shackleford my previous post successfully posted but never appeared in the thread. Something's broken.

A civil servant can be loyal to his country and his family, it stands to reason a man of god can do the same. He can borrow the assets of the church to fulfill his duty and when it is time to retire or depart, the assets go back to the church.

Having a bunch of degenerates in your ranks is very much a result of the church policies, and they should be revised and amended to prevent this.
Your excuses to house an army of faggots and pedophiles are poorly thought out.

To say that a married man cannot serve god or the church is so laughable on its face that you should be ashamed to believe it.

[Decline]

A civil servant can be loyal to his country and his family, it stands to reason a man of god can do the same.

No, he cannot.

Having a bunch of degenerates in your ranks is very much a result of the church policies

There is no policy that will protect you from the sinfulness of man except perhaps those that are sinful unto itself.

To say that a married man cannot serve god or the church is so laughable on its face that you should be ashamed to believe it.

It does not matter how laughable it seems to you, it is the truth. This is why The Church adopted celibacy. Your protestant delusions will never change this simple truth.

[Lhynn]

It does not matter how laughable it seems to you, it is the truth. This is why The Church adopted celibacy. Your protestant delusions will never change this simple truth.

The church adopted celibacy out of greed. And I am not protestant, it is merely an observation.

Reject modernity, embrace tradition, walk back that horrible change so that the house of god can be inhabited by men of virtue instead of pedophiles.

[Wretch]

It does not matter how laughable it seems to you, it is the truth. This is why The Church adopted celibacy. Your protestant delusions will never change this simple truth.

The church adopted celibacy out of greed. And I am not protestant, it is merely an observation.

Reject modernity, embrace tradition, walk back that horrible change so that the house of god can be inhabited by men of virtue instead of pedophiles.

Orthodox Priests are usually married. There are actually canons in the early Church saying it’s highly preferred for priests to be married. The Catholics only started to depart from this tradition sometime around 900ad. Obviously the skills and temperament required to be the head of a house transfers over to being the head of a Church family too.

[Sweeper]

I am saying the Church's dogmas are

That's heresy friendo.