Orthodoxy is the true faith

[Herr Abubu]

Orthodoxy is most pagan influenced version of Christianity...

That's why historically Orthodox countries feel connection to their religion...

It possess strong traditional folk faith component unlike Judeo-Protestantism...

I believe Pagan Pantheism is most correct religion/believe system...

The "Paganism" in Christianity can usually be chalked up to Christians theologians being too enamored with certain non-Christian philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, which is a fault of Catholicism and Protestantism, not Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is in fact the most affirming of the Old Testament and its theology. The "Judaic" elements of Catholicism and Protestantism, on the other hand, are Talmudic-Kabbalistic in origin.

[Karol Klačansky]

The "Paganism" in Christianity can usually be chalked up to Christians theologians being too enamored with certain non-Christian philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, which is a fault of Catholicism and Protestantism, not Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is in fact the most affirming of the Old Testament and its theology. The "Judaic" elements of Catholicism and Protestantism, on the other hand, are Talmudic-Kabbalistic in origin.

What a load of nonsense

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

[Herr Abubu]

What a load of nonsense

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Nope. The big failures of Western theology stem exactly from an overreliance on Platonic, Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic philosophy. This is where you get idiotisms like the Western notions of divine simplicity, of God as actus purus, that can only lead to deism and atheism, as St. Gregory Palamas actually predicted in the 14th century. In addition, the Scholastic approach to theology is pretty much the same as that of the Pagans and also as many Jews and Muslims during the Medieval period. Not only did Western theologians like Aquinas rely far too much on Aristotle, his theology was even influenced by Maimonides of all people! Orthodox theology doesn't have those problem because Orthodox theologians did as St. Basil the Great advised and only took the nectar out of the flower like a bee, not the whole flower. The approach is completely different and doesn't end up in a notion of a general theology of a generalized God.

[Karol Klačansky]

Nope. The big failures of Western theology stem exactly from an overreliance on Platonic, Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic philosophy. This is where you get idiotisms like the Western notions of divine simplicity, of God as actus purus, that can only lead to deism and atheism, as St. Gregory Palamas actually predicted in the 14th century. In addition, the Scholastic approach to theology is pretty much the same as that of the Pagans and also as many Jews and Muslims during the Medieval period. Not only did Western theologians like Aquinas rely far too much on Aristotle, his theology was even influenced by Maimonides of all people! Orthodox theology doesn't have those problem because Orthodox theologians did as St. Basil the Great advised and only took the nectar out of the flower like a bee, not the whole flower. The approach is completely different and doesn't end up in a notion of a general theology of a generalized God.

Orthodox theology is stagnant and doesnt bloom at all, just filled with long liturgies and traditions that they never bend. Bishops are never in agreement with each other and the church is dominated by secular authorities in each country. The catholic church rules itself and flourishes in every way, it combines the physical world and spiritual in the best possible way. If aristotle says something wise, doesnt matter if he was a pagan greek, only puritans would shun knowledge which is true. Jesus stated to Peter that he is Kephas(rock) and he will build his church on him. Quite a coincidence then that the vatican literally is built on his grave.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

[wvwvw]

Orthodox theology is stagnant and doesnt bloom at all, just filled with long liturgies and traditions that they never bend. Bishops are never in agreement with each other and the church is dominated by secular authorities in each country. The catholic church rules itself and flourishes in every way, it combines the physical world and spiritual in the best possible way. If aristotle says something wise, doesnt matter if he was a pagan greek, only puritans would shun knowledge which is true. Jesus stated to Peter that he is Kephas(rock) and he will build his church on him. Quite a coincidence then that the vatican literally is built on his grave.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

You're Slovak right? Are Czechs also Catholics?

[Karol Klačansky]

You're Slovak right? Are Czechs also Catholics?

No they are the most atheistic country in europe something which was reinforced by easter slavic communists.

[Herr Abubu]

Orthodox theology is stagnant and doesnt bloom at all, just filled with long liturgies and traditions that they never bend. Bishops are never in agreement with each other and the church is dominated by secular authorities in each country. The catholic church rules itself and flourishes in every way, it combines the physical world and spiritual in the best possible way. If aristotle says something wise, doesnt matter if he was a pagan greek, only puritans would shun knowledge which is true. Jesus stated to Peter that he is Kephas(rock) and he will build his church on him. Quite a coincidence then that the vatican literally is built on his grave.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, we really need to be like the Roman Church and bring in rock & roll liturgies or maybe even circus liturgies! We have to continuously avoid being too stagnant for your tastes, after all.

That you think that I am completely rejecting Aristotle, or that the Orthodox Catholic Church does this, shows how you aren't capable of discussing the issue. I already referenced St. Basil the Great on what the proper attitude towards Aristotle and other non-Christian, non-Orthodox thinkers is. That you also completely avoid my points about Catholic theology and come up with some vague, loaded gibberish and unsubstantiated claims about bishops never agreeing (about what?) and so on also shows you have nothing useful to say. You don't know either Catholic or Orthodox theology and that's why you go into something completely different.

You don't even know your Bible, like most Papists you simply impose your idiotic Papist ideology onto scripture. It's clear Jesus isn't referring to Peter being the rock upon which the church will be built because the Greek differentiates between masculine Petros and feminine petra. Jesus also says that he will build upon this rock after Peter's statement that, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." The rock here isn't Peter, but his confession of faith, which indeed is the rock upon which the church is built: Christ's divinity. Clearly even the apostles understood this different from you Papists, because in 1st Corinthians Jesus is referred to as the rock by St. Paul: "... and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Your Papist beliefs don't even conform to Church history seeing as there were several apostolic sees and even several popes in different places. Rome never had the role it took upon itself later on in the history of the early Church, this is something even Ratzinger admitted. Of course, you might argue that the church develops it beliefs and that jazz, even to the extent that it contradicts former beliefs and doctrine. This plays to my accusations of Papism being Paganistic and worldly, because it conforms to worldly relativism and notions of flux.

[Karol Klačansky]

Oh yeah, we really need to be like the Roman Church and bring in rock & roll liturgies or maybe even circus liturgies! We have to continuously avoid being too stagnant for your tastes, after all.

That you think that I am completely rejecting Aristotle, or that the Orthodox Catholic Church does this, shows how you aren't capable of discussing the issue. I already referenced St. Basil the Great on what the proper attitude towards Aristotle and other non-Christian, non-Orthodox thinkers is. That you also completely avoid my points about Catholic theology and come up with some vague, loaded gibberish and unsubstantiated claims about bishops never agreeing (about what?) and so on also shows you have nothing useful to say. You don't know either Catholic or Orthodox theology and that's why you go into something completely different.

You don't even know your Bible, like most Papists you simply impose your idiotic Papist ideology onto scripture. It's clear Jesus isn't referring to Peter being the rock upon which the church will be built because the Greek differentiates between masculine Petros and feminine petra. Jesus also says that he will build upon this rock after Peter's statement that, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." The rock here isn't Peter, but his confession of faith, which indeed is the rock upon which the church is built: Christ's divinity. Clearly even the apostles understood this different from you Papists, because in 1st Corinthians Jesus is referred to as the rock by St. Paul: "... and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Your Papist beliefs don't even conform to Church history seeing as there were several apostolic sees and even several popes in different places. Rome never had the role it took upon itself later on in the history of the early Church, this is something even Ratzinger admitted. Of course, you might argue that the church develops it beliefs and that jazz, even to the extent that it contradicts former beliefs and doctrine. This plays to my accusations of Papism being Paganistic and worldly, because it conforms to worldly relativism and notions of flux.

LOL ive been catholic all my life and never once have I ever seen a church with rock and roll liturgies, as if praising the Lord with an electrical guitar is somehow eveil lol, thats how silly and pharasee like you orthodox can be.

Jesus specifically says to Peter, you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church. Petros is just the masculine form of Petra, if you spoke a language with genders you would know the name has to be declined to be masculine. Also Jesus didnt call him Petros but Kephas and in aramaic and hebrew Kephas is a just a rock. Why would Jesus give him the name rock and call him rock but then suddenly be referring to himself. You complete deny the bible, and this argument is old and not supported by modern Orthodox or Protestant theologians as it was proven false time and again.

Lol what utter nonsense you are in complete contradiction to the early church fathers. They all aknowledged and supported the Bishop of Rome as the head of the entire church and none of them interpreted the scripture where Jesus calls peter the rock like you do.

What the early church said about Rome and the Papacy

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Origen

"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with



Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).



Irenaeus



"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid. 3:3:2).



Cyprian



"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).



Optatus



"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

[wvwvw]

No they are the most atheistic country in europe something which was reinforced by easter slavic communists.

I know that but I was wondering whether Catholic or Protestanism was once most dominant.

[Karol Klačansky]

I know that but I was wondering whether Catholic or Protestanism was once most dominant.

Catholic at first but then they became Hussites(protestants) catholic hapsburgs then recatholocized the.czechs but they werent ever quite like before.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk