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:
Back in the day when I red the Bible I became a convinced atheist. Almost as if a person needs to read Scripture through a correct paradigm to come to a correct interpretation. I wonder what that paradigm is? Could it perhaps be the institution established by the One that speaks through the text? Nah, that's a man-made tradition. Just read it in your closet and you'll definitely get everything right on your own. Your interpretation will most likely align with what at least one of the 10000 different sects teaches out there.
Assuming any of them is the true Church (spoiler alert: it is not because history) 10000 to 1 for being correct is not that bad I guess.
Sincere question: If the Orthodox were the true church because the Pope excommunicated Patriarch Michael I in
10661054, why wouldn't the Greek Melkites be the true church after the Patriarch excommunicated Patriarch Cyril IV in 1724? Or more generally how do we know one branch is favored over another or whether both are favored differently?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.