Nick Fuentes says don't read your bible, just listen to "clergy"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Your question makes no sense. What has the post-schismatic Pope excomunicating the Patriarch Michael I has to do with EO being the true Church? The Melkites are uniates and went to Rome. What's confusing you there? We know what the true Church is because it keeps the apostolic faith unchanged in line with the dogmas of the ecumenical councils and the Church fathers. This is why Rome defected when they introduced the filioque and papal supremacy which contradicted the teaching and structure of the Church of the first millenium.
What about all the other churches who say they do the same and that the other churches left them? See, I don't see that credential for Orthodoxy among the 10,000. The credential I do see is that they had the upper hand in
10661054 and they've been well-reserved ever since. The question's logic is that if Rome is out because it excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity, well I find that Constantinople also excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity in 1724. If Rome "defected" by adding filioque (and/or supremacy), then why excommunicate the Uniats when they might be part of God's purpose to reveal the resolution of filioque or supremacy to the Orthodox? Why would the Orthodox take such a firm position on it when they reserve judgment about other matters because (I understand) they don't have critical mass to call ecumenical councils anymore, or they don't out of politeness? Does semper idem forbid new councils?Because I know the logic of excommunication or of reservation shouldn't be determinative, I don't see what logic would be useful, and I just see the root (Jesus) and the branches (body members). I'm glad this takes the discussion to meatier matters that we're both more interested in.
Let's go one by one if you wish. I already did Rome. The Protestant sects don't even have apostolic succession and are ahistorical (where was the Church before Luther came)?
Did you read my reply at all? Rome's falling away has nothing to do with what happened in 1066. The schism was 12 years before that and the reasons for it go back centuries before that.
Because the Church's foremost mission is to keep the true faith intact. The Body of Christ can't tolerate falsehoods and contradictions.
Ecumenical councils were called for a good reason, namely to resolve pressing issues dealing with Church dogma and doctrines. If such an issue presents itself such a council can be called.
Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.
I apologize for the wrong date, I meant 1054. It was formally supremacy and blamed on the extant filioque. But how do I know that adding the word broke Ephesus I canon 7 or not, because the Orthodox say yes and Rome says no? Then (writing so I know what I'm learning) Patriarch Paul II said the Pope was wrong for adding filioque, and Pope Theodore I excommunicated Patriarch Paul II for being monothelite, so how could the catholic orthodox Church (which kept Theodore and not Paul) know that Paul was right about filioque? Then Pope Nicholas I excommunicated Patriarch Photios I (863) and Photios excommunicated Nicholas (867) over the issue, so how could the church know that Photios was right? The back-and-forth bickering with several other unmentioned plots looks like a secretly imposed color revolution to me. See, the council system broke down (and later councils started canceling each other), and filioque was maybe the first sign of it. If everyone agrees the original Nicea-Constantinople is true, then when was it authoritatively decided that filioque was a false addition? And I ask because this is actually deeply interesting to me and I'm learning the history of my Church.
Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called. Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.
Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.
How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.
The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a cradle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes after hearing the truth. At this point you are a heretic and you'll be judged accordingly. Consider yourself - you have all the knowledge you need about Church history and Scripture but you still decide to do your own thing and come up with your own way to the faith. This is willful rejection of the Church but we always pray for God to bring back the schismatics and heretics to His Body, so hope is not lost.
I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.
I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.