It doesn't cease to amaze me how people declare themselves followers of that evil man who declared war on the Church, celebrate his perverse rebelion, and then tike to brag about how orthodox they are, and how much they love tradition, and want to "fit in". Well, you can't have it both ways,

Calling the Church of Christ a corrupt establishment

Dense question.

My great grandfather was OO

What's OO?

My great grandfather was OO

Oriental Orthodox

Ah.

Pack it up boys, Christ is corrupt

Yeah, cause we all know how the EO, OO, and RC all agree on tradition

It's not the tradition itself

It is the fact that there is a mechanism inspired by the HS, set up by Christ, through apostolic succession, that is NEEDEED

Then come the lutherans and start talking about how evil that Church is, giving themselves the name of a perverse heretic

And even daring to say "this is a heresy", when they are defined by their hate towards the authority that can determine what is a heresy

Yeah, so when the OO got anathematized at Chalcedon did they lose Apostolic Succession too?

Don't try to move the goalposts

Those who rebel against the Church have nothing.

I have class

Luther knew about the Church, about its authority and its divinity, and still spat on it

Now Lutherans try to justify this man by saying how outraged he was regarding the bahaviour of some bishops or whatever was. The point of the Church is precisely that what comes from divine authority is beyond these things, and while he had the right to complain (like priests and bishops complain about the modernist plague in clerics), that is in no way an excuse, because again, the very point of the Church is that no matter how bad someone is, certain things are protected by the Holy Spirit

Certain things like the declaration of Luther's heresies as heresies, just like the thousand heresies before, and the thousand heresies afterwards.

My point in bringing up the OO is that you have to declare them equally lacking in succession since they denied Chalcedon and they attended the council. They knew they were going against the unanimous agreement of the other Bishops and clergy and, in particular, Rome and Constantinople

The debate about Luther and then invoking EO being able to marry is missing the point

Luther was a Catholic monk who had made a lifelong vow of celibacy and then broke those vows and encouraged a nun to do so as well

Married men are allowed to become priests in the Eastern tradition as long as they are married before they take their vows

in fact this is the older tradition and mandatory celibacy is relatively newer

to try and justify what Luther did by drawing on the practices of the East is really disingenuous

Pretty sure there was also a big scandal about Luther saying to a German prince that it's cool to marry a second wife

Protestant movements either began as (CoE), or were latched on by royals seeking, wealth transfers from the Church to the royal families.

E Michael Jones discusses this a lot

Uwotm8

Have you read Luther or Calvin?

That's how CoE began yeah

Most Protestant reformers had secret mistresses and children with them outside marriage

And all Protestant reformers taught false doctrine

And all (((Christians))) who are not orthodox taught false doctrine.*

<:rubbetirub:492691976081375242>

<:rubbetirub:492691976081375242>

To be clear I was not saying that Luther was seeking wealth transfers himself, I said that opportunists latched on to his movement, and various other Prot movements for their own end

they, rightly, saw it as an opportunity to...democratize the Church and assume their wealth

Would you date a chick with tourettes if she blasphemed during her tics