<: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

eoppa is correct

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Jesus had three brothers

Mary was not a virgin her entire life: what an absurd prospect

Most orthodox do deny the filioque, and the papacy was regarded as supreme, even the early easterns recognize it

See Cyprian of Carthage

They call themselves brothers of Christ, the word brother has more meanings than litteral genetic brother in the original language

Sorry if my language caused confusion I didnt say they did not deny the filioque, i was merely making a statement from my experiance on why they did so

@Eoppa Plus I will not argue further on the content of any Ex Cathedra statement as it has simply been to long since I have studied anything related. But I will make a comment on my position on Papal supremacy in general. It seems to be propped up by a single verse of the Bible that is extremally vague (That the church will be built upon the rock of Peter's faith) leads to Peters Successors being supreme amongst all bishops, and the catechism of the catholic church uses this (and other verses) to point out that Peter was foremost amongst the apostles. Yes this is completely true but what about this gives his decendants the position of control over the other bishops all over the world, let alone the rest of the Pentarchy. This supremacy doesn't get valid 'infallible' support until Vatican I, which is not a church wide *Ecclesiastical General* council and only had infallibility in catholic thought as it received papal approval, therefore Papal supremacy and infallibility becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

@Kaiser don't they literally refer to James as the son of Joseph?

That could be from a previous marriage

Imagine thinking Joseph and Mary never had sex

meaning if its from a previous marriage then they are half-brothers, and if not they are cousins.

Denying Immaculate conception is yucky and cringe af

The papacy was considered the most important position in the church and their leader, but not with authority over the whole church @Eoppa

@Kaiser the concept of Papal Supremacy has plenty of verses in the bible supporting it. That verse is simply the clearest. The infallibility of the church *derives* from Peter, the seat that does not err.

@Kaiser see, I told you: you feel the need to deny the brothers of Christ in order to secure the narrative of immaculate conception

```The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity``` this is why the orthodox deny the filioque

Which is so obviously false, and should indicate who was wrong on the schism.

Why can't Jesus be divinely conceived with natural brothers?

@ComradeChaos yes, because that 'narrative' is correct, therefore if Mary remained a virgin its illogical to say that those listed are Christ's full biological brothers

They also claim it denies the father as prime