What in the world.

So, how many RC are online now?

I have a question but rel doesn't appear anywhere in my newsfeed.

Everytime ;_;

At least we have this i guess.

Same, merry christmas orthodox brethren.

Chaplets are a roman catholic devotion of prayer beads consecrated to a certain theological aspect/saint/etc.

The chaplet of St Michael is a form of salutations to ArchAngel Michael to invoke remembrance of him in the name of God, usually with the intention of protection against evil.

I have one myself made by a priest who has been fighting cancer for sometimes, everytime he visits he brings different chaplets or rosaries made by him for the community.

Folks, i have a question.

If a person is not baptized can they use other sacraments like confession and eucharistry, i'm assuming not obviously but let's say the person in question intends to do so, just has not don it, can they get ahead of it and use them?

Such as confession for example.

I know some girl who is probably not baptized and is using confession, probably as a placebo tbh, wich would be an abuse of the sacrament as well but before screaming out i wanted to make sure.

I don't really care tho, she is your average tradlarp look me i'm christian and girl, and she constantly larps anti christian stuff like Anarco-primitivism, ideals of that book siege and with islam, but still care for the sacraments in the end.

As i see it, is a way of profanation.

You mean it's not valid because she is not baptized?

Oh, as usual.

I thought orthodox considered confession as a sacrament as well.

Oh, right, i forgot you hate us still for those political intrigues done by the corrupt emperors of the byzantines.
What a contrast, in several ocassions my catholic brethren have accepted validity of the apostolic orthodox sacraments, so i'm assuming it's a popular view of catholicism, while orthodox go full "No you're not valid, you're not true church" despite being apostolic as well.

Yeah, thank you in anycase, i'm going to take just what's useful.

I attend traditional, and recently i have begun to get ready to move to the melkite cath rite.

As there is a bizantine rite parrish nearby.

And, i have gotten deeper into eastern theology and spirituallity, finding it very fitting for me so, there is that.

What about a priest ordered under the VII but that still gives traditional mass?

If he was ordained under the traditional one too it counts as well?

Well, even if that's the case the eastern caths have also been ordained as they are also in communion with the postconciliar church.

So, we have to be carefult with validity.

I see, i can understand some of the reasoning behind this but i still think Christ could not let so many souls get lost like that, to some extend there must be something redeemable.

That sounds like forcing us into protestantism tbh, if we lack to the practice of sacraments.

Without sacraments we cannot stand firm in the faith.

Sacramentals alone are not enough.

And that's why i moved to eastern christianity.

Also nice pun.

Btw Aquinas is largely misunderstood by the eastern orthodox world mainly because they read him with distance, rather than with the actual scholastic way his work is comformed.

Anyone there?

k

I'm interested in moving to orthodoxy.

Let's say i got mostly convinced by some orthobros i argued with, they seem to have a pretty good fix on it and seeing how the roman rite has slowly dried in theology product of their scholastic abuse etc, i really convinced myself of the idea of moving to orthodoxy, i also do not view the orthodox as schismatics.

Considering also that from my view your sacraments are as valid in their apostolic tradition i have no reason not to acknowledge salvation in orthodoxy.

Orthodox seem to do the same, they usually do not do re-chrismation for a catholic, they are more leaning to do so with people from protestant backgrounds for what i know.

So you're east cath?

Nois.

Hmmm, guess i'll have to think on that, i already tried going with the maronites but they have included many aspects that are wrong from the modern latin rite and it didn't really work out for me.

There are catholic ruthenians nearby, but their liturgy schedule is a bit incompaddible with my free time. :/

I live in mexico atm the church is called The Nativity of the Theotokos "Natividad de la Theotokos" in spanish.

No worries, i guess i'm going to get in touch with them, but distance would also be a problem. Thanks for the time none the less.

Godbless.

Antifa "grrr no guns"
Also antifa:

*Pulls out gun¨*

Btw i just "switched" to orthodox church fams, pls put my tag as Dog. (?

Well, for once i consider both churches to be one and the same, so i don't really thing i'm converting or changing anything but for lack of a better term i say it that way.

I have decided to profess the orthodox doctrine now.

Thank you a lot.

Prayers for my faith in my "switch" to the orthodox Church, i'm seeing a lot of dificulties and opossition from friends that are doing everything to dish the orthodox faith in my eyes, As a newcommer i really want to persevere in a choice i have done for once in my life.

Also, Prayers for the grandmother of one of my friends, she's called Silvia Maria, she is having a surgery. Thanks in advance.

>Not overcoming gender through pseudo scientifical and pseudo metaphisical nonsense in plain XXI century Okay honey <:wojaksoy:515271052071534592>

Orthodoxy is the only true gender. *

Also, i'm still shocked at the fact we gave rights to objects of reproduction known as females.

>Tfw Saudi Arabia was right all along.

Orgasms due to car vibrations. *

<:turk:509493332443922462> <:turk:509493332443922462> Saudis be like

That got deep all of the sudden man. ;;

Btw Lent starts this monday right?

I'm sorry i don't get that abreviation.

Ah, i see.

Gonna have to get me a calendar to begin with.

Are you Old Calendar Kristov?

Oh, nvm you're Byz cath i forgot.

But i think you guys use a calendar different from the cath one in general?

Are we talking about refutations on islam?

Cause i have some.

Mainly from reading Old Testament theology books and a book on the history of the arabic people's by Albert Hourani.

It's usually a bigger composed argument but basically Mohammed cannot be a prophet by abrahamic standards.

Okay, i'm going to make it as breef as possible without letting the heavy parts of the argument out.

According to theological observations on the rise of prophet figures in the old testament, Prophets are oftenly seen with the vocation already, but at somepoint they got it directly from God, when he requires them to speak in his name, sometimes, certain "missions" they are to accomplish are announced by "the Angel of Yhwh" these ministries, according to theologian Gerard Von Rad, can only be observed as a confirmation of pre-prophetic hebrew religious tradition, wich means that the prophet's have to bring those clean as they are, to be a true revival of the tradition, it cannot be a new covenant, or a new law that it's not truly fundamented in principles of that pre-prophetic period, and such we can observe with Moses, for example, wich is not a new Covenant, but commandments, a form of practice that we know already from pre-Mosaic times.

So the prophets cannot add new principles, nor invent or be harbingers of completly new laws, nor could the patriarch's

To try and ease this disctintion, Islam usually gives the title of prophet "Nabawi" to many figures in the old testament, such as King Solomon, Patriarch Noah and Patriarch Ibrahim, etc.
This way they make it impossible to distinguish what a prophet can do or do not or who can be one.

Problem is, in the hebrew text's the word "Nabi" wich is associated with prophethood, is never reffered to Solomon, Ibrahim, Noah, or any of these figures wich they (the muslims) claim to be "prophets"

Mohammed takes advantage of this somewhat clever way to make the figure of the prophet blurry, and claims a rather curious way to claim himself a prophet, as instead of being announced as the prophet's of the old law, he goes for a more christological approach, he doesn't claim a celestial messenger of Allah to be the one to call him, nor does he claim that Allah himself has called him, but rather that Gabriel (Angel of Annunciation that also announced Christ) has done so, but he does not have enough with that, he also claims with the help of a historian known as Al-Tabari, that when he was a child he was warned by the apostate monk Bahira, that he saw the simbol of the prophets in Mohammed's back, and that the natural element's behaved as if they were greeting him. To wich we know there is not a "simbol of the prophecy" like a literal simbol for the ancient prophets, rather the signs of the prophet's are meant to be miracles they can make under certain considerations that make them stand up from common sorcery.

So, we can see Mohammed want to claim himself as a Christological figure so he can be a special sort of prophet himself, enough to break the old laws of Christianity and Judaism, and give legitimacy to his new law wich he is about to impose.

But considered the facts, Mohammed can simply not be a prophet by abrahamic standards, as he had to modify the Old law understandings, and later he claims that the ones to corrupt those are the Christians and the jews.

On top of that, we know that Islam cannot be a continuation of the earlier laws, as both the ancient hebrew faith and christianity, have a liturgical-invocative character.

While Islam has a worship character with no liturgical practices whatsoever.
Worship character that of course, we know comes from the fact the pilars of islam are just pre-islamic arabian practices that Mohammed took and said "I like this, Allah likes this too"

And that is pretty much it.

TL;DR
Mohammed cannot be a prophet coinciding with the old laws because:

He does not reafirm them, he breaks them and brings a completly new one, and of different nature to that of the previous laws.

It's not the way of the prophet's to do that.

He is not annointed as the prophets usually were annointed.

Instead he blurs the understanding of prophet, and gives himself a christological aura to himself so he can claim to be able to make a rupture of traditions.

<:eksdee:515271965712318502>

I have studied their judaism enough to conclude their talmudic tradition has incorporated elements of esoterical origin, thus misinterpreted the whole old law they claim to preserve.

They of course right insult Our Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos in their book, so, more than a thought i'd say i'm convinced they are wicked and scum of the earth, not to mention they always work from the shadows for whatever goal they pursue, so i cannot bring the idea of them as alies, not even their so called mizrahi orthodox branch. They are all enemies of Christ.

Oy vey goy it's totally another Jesus, we are Jews for Jesus.

What are you guys arguing about?

Isn't there the part where it's stated that Jesus the son of Mary boils in hell in a pool of semen and feces? like, even if you could "refute" the other "Totally not Jesus" parts, i think it's clear there is something against the Christ we preach there, and if there is i would not have any reason why i should not connect the dots that it's not just any Yeshu, but rather one that has a clear connection and it's specified to be oddly similar to our Jesus.

That makes the point even stronger since, why would they censor if those if it's totally another Jesus.

I'm sorry but i'm inclined to say it's obvious any modification to the story of the Jesus in the talmud is meant to make him viewed by the general public as what they want to be thought of him, not a historically accurate one with the true details that happened.

To say that it's not the same Jesus just because obvious changes made deliberately seems weak.

And just as Mozalbete says, it's obvious they did not really had many of the details, giving them reason to completely add things untrue or make up some, you don't really need deep exegesis for this.

With that in mind, i remain in my argument that they would not construct a historically accurate discourse of Christ, their new generations would need to have their own version so they would not flock to christianity saying "Well if this happened? Could that guys Yeshu be right?" they needed to have Christ complete depicted as it would serve their discourse better. And the coincidences with the actuall Jesus and this Yeshu are literally too similar like to think it's a different one, it's evident they made up something that would accomodate to their vision.

Again, you don't need deep exegesis for this with hebrew and that, just common sense.

Gotta go to college now, see ya, Peace be with you.

Anyone here has seen the videos of Fr. Josimah?

He mostly condemns the agresive secularism subsecuent in the roots of protestant America, he has also condemned much of the gay mafia infiltrated in the Roman Catholic Church and such.

In short i feel the church needs to stand more ground, or they are going to force this on more and more churches. :/

You mean turkish from turkey or turkic?

Yes i was about to say that lmao.

Levantine in any case for southeast, i don't think they have a lot of arab tbh.

southeast anatolia. *

True egiptians are still mediterranean copts.

Despite nor being arabs, can we consider levantines as semitic too?

And nowdays levantines aren't?