I'm Orthodox Jewish, and Orthodox Christians are literally 100% better.

Catholics and Prots split when Prots realized the catholic church was too corrupt and did not follow Christ. Thus the church was moved to the prots.

Me

I am right

There are differences because there's no real way to reconcile a bunch of crazy pants positions without just swallowing the atheist pill

yeah ok my fellow redditor, I tip my fedora to you @Spider Sutra

@Spider Sutra Cringe by dude

<:really:591181753625083905>

My challenge is still open, I have yet to hear any reason why an insturmentalist like myself should believe in God.

Cultural and theological differences between the east and west caused the Easterners to schism and reject the Seat of Peter.

Protestantism stems from an absolutely insane heretic who neglected his priestly duties.

@Maksim do you honestly believe Luther was a good person? Have you heard his messages? How can the church be "moved" to someone who held such anti Christ beliefs?

Im not talking about Luther specifically, just in general the concept of Protestantism

The Catholic Church at the time was incredibly corrupt

He literally invented it, it did not exist before him

So?

Meaning a Christ hater established protestantism.

And the church had established it was indefectible before Luther

So it couldn't have just lost it's mojo

How did he hate Christ

```“I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.

“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (ref. Table Talk, 2397b).

“It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters” (ref. Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126).```

There are endless quotes of heresy after heresy from him

<:really:591181753625083905>

Looks pretty heretical to me.

http://www.davidlgray.info/2013/09/11/500-years-of-protestantism-the-33-most-ridiculous-things-martin-luther-ever-wrote/

Sounds like it's time to return home to the catholic pedo cult luther cucks

> The solemn obligation of reciting the daily Office, an obligation binding under the penalty of mortal sin, was neglected to allow more ample time for study, with the result that the Breviary was abandoned for weeks. Then in paroxysmal remorse Luther would lock himself into his cell and by one retroactive act make amends for all he neglected; he would abstain from all food and drink, torture himself by harrowing mortifications, to an extent that not only made him the victim of insomnia for five weeks at one time but threatened to drive him into insanity (Seckendorf, op. cit:, I, fol. 21 b).

<:bruh:591181809493082113>

Wow this seems pretty damning.

This martin guy was a real piece of work.

When they split is just ecclesiastical history... but who's right? I lean towards the orthos. Protties are just plain wrong, the position of the Roman Catholic is too.... messy... in my opinion. There are too many changes in direction of doctrine and dogma, especially in the last century, Holy Tradition, Apostolic succession and the supremacy of Ecclesiastical General Councils in the Eastern Churches make much more sense to me than said Tradition, Succession in the Catholic view plus ofc the notion of the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, Ex Cathedra which leads to shit like (forgive me I forget the name of the doctrine but its smth about the seeds of new dogma being taught by the pope every time he goes ex cathedra was always in the faith, the apostles just didn't realise it yet), like that is completely at odds with Holy Tradition of the Church Fathers and Holy Apostles, It's verging on saying the faith gets more false (or at least less "Whole") the closer it you go to The Apostles. Plus I'm not a great fan of the whole scholastic tradition of the western churches, Orthodox quasi-mysticism seems to be closer to the Christian view of man, and his logical capabilities.
Thats my tuppence anyway, feel free to inform me of any errors I have made.

It's time to stop

@Kaiser Roman Catholicism is correct. Ex Cathedra statements are not new statements, they are simply making dogmatic statements clarifying doctrine. Often with thousands of years of tradition around. This is the same with any other method of creating infallible dogma.

(On the other hand I do really like the Catholic Church's strong links with Philosophy and Political Science - Social Catholicsm etc - which the east is pretty sparse on)

And there were no changes in dogma

The Orthodox deny the filioque too, which is cringe and wrong.

In my communications with any ortho they only really hate the filioque bcs they dislike the way it was put in place, not its content. Orthodox disagreement with the theology behind the filioque was only constructed post schism

ie. via Papal recommendation not an ecumenical council, as they would hold the Creed as being so central and important only such a council could have the authority to change it (ofc them holding the Roman 'Patriarch' to be Primus Inter Pares not supreme)

Orthodox Christians deny the reality that Jesus had brothers to secure the narrative of immaculate conception. Catholics don't really seem to broach the topic either.

Sure, these groups are all part of the same faith: but small changes to the architecture of belief can go a long way

They were cousins