Eastern Heterodoxy is in constant schism, has constant excommunications, and has weird morally relativistic standards like 3 divorces is fine and contraception is okay, amongst other things. Not to mention, I am born of Western European blood, and all the Eastern Churches are separated based upon ethnicity. So what am I? Greek? Russian? Something else? It's all a huge clustermuck... No thanks! We may have heretics in the Catholic Church hierarchy, but at least the official teachings are what Christians have believed since the First Century!
Excommunications are biblical, let’s keep that going. I don’t know where you’re getting 3 divorces from but that’s wrong just to address it. Contraception is more tolerated among Roman Catholics than EO, yes some fringe accept contraception on both sides but they are minorities. Disagreements in the church? Yeah have you read the Bible that happens. That’s why church issues are settled synodally, like in the Bible.
We may have heretics in the Catholic Church hierarchy, but at least the official teachings are what Christians have believed since the First Century!
Papal infallibility, purgatory, unam sanctam, the immaculate conception of Mary, all aren’t found in the first century of the church.
There’s a reason why the papacy had to use forged documents to establish their rule. The Vatican admits it used false documents.
Your Vatican says that the Eastern Orthodox Church has the valid sacraments, and has apostolic succession. Even Rome can’t object to the fact that EO has held fast to the traditions of the apostles.
At the end of the day, the pope is a false authority, wearing a yamulka, eating unleavened bread Eucharist, with Rothschilds and the CIA running his money. It’s not looking great for your “first century” fantasy. Was Vatican 1 or Vatican 2 in the first century?
First among equals is the how the ecumenical councils agreed upon. The East and West agreed upon that in the early days of the church. Orthodox still would hold Rome as first among equals if Rome came back to the faith. Bishops with cannonical privileges is way different than having an infallible pope.
The bishop of Rome is important but not infallible.
I have no idea. I honestly don't care about the Eastern Heterodox.
There have been wayyyy more schisms than that if you study the history of Christendom. My point is that the Eastern Heterodox church is not as great of an alternative to Catholicism as they try to make you believe. I honestly lost a lot of respect for them after a lot of them attacked me online because of my super-orthodox Christian views...
Understood. I don't know much about the "American Orthodox Church" to be frank. But I do know enough about Church ecclesiology and history to know that I am not really interested in taking a "deep dive" into Eastern Heterodoxy. I've already written them off. But, I guess if it means anything, I will concede that apparently there is now an American ethnic church.
Eastern Heterodoxy is in constant schism, has constant excommunications, and has weird morally relativistic standards like 3 divorces is fine and contraception is okay, amongst other things. Not to mention, I am born of Western European blood, and all the Eastern Churches are separated based upon ethnicity. So what am I? Greek? Russian? Something else? It's all a huge clustermuck... No thanks! We may have heretics in the Catholic Church hierarchy, but at least the official teachings are what Christians have believed since the First Century!
Excommunications are biblical, let’s keep that going. I don’t know where you’re getting 3 divorces from but that’s wrong just to address it. Contraception is more tolerated among Roman Catholics than EO, yes some fringe accept contraception on both sides but they are minorities. Disagreements in the church? Yeah have you read the Bible that happens. That’s why church issues are settled synodally, like in the Bible.
Papal infallibility, purgatory, unam sanctam, the immaculate conception of Mary, all aren’t found in the first century of the church.
There’s a reason why the papacy had to use forged documents to establish their rule. The Vatican admits it used false documents.
Your Vatican says that the Eastern Orthodox Church has the valid sacraments, and has apostolic succession. Even Rome can’t object to the fact that EO has held fast to the traditions of the apostles.
At the end of the day, the pope is a false authority, wearing a yamulka, eating unleavened bread Eucharist, with Rothschilds and the CIA running his money. It’s not looking great for your “first century” fantasy. Was Vatican 1 or Vatican 2 in the first century?
Even the Church Fathers the Eastern Heterodox venerate knew the Pope was the supreme ruler of the Church:
https://thecatholicstate.com/papal-supremacy-is-proven-by-the-bible-and-early-church/
First among equals is the how the ecumenical councils agreed upon. The East and West agreed upon that in the early days of the church. Orthodox still would hold Rome as first among equals if Rome came back to the faith. Bishops with cannonical privileges is way different than having an infallible pope.
The bishop of Rome is important but not infallible.
Except many Eastern bishops ran to Rome for help when they argued with each other...
And you say the Pope is "important" but you reject being in communion with him... Non-sequitur.