ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 07, 2020

I can't honestly criticize

China is cracking down on Roman Catholics:
China will enforce new restrictions on religious groups, organizations, meetings, and other related events starting on Feb 1. The country’s state-controlled media announced the new policy on Dec. 30, after Chinese authorities moved to further suppress Catholics in the Archdiocese of Fuzhou who are refusing to join the state-run Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

According to UCA News, the new “Administrative Measures for Religious Groups,” which consists of six sections and 41 articles, will control every aspect of religious activity within China, and will mandate that all religions and believers in China comply with regulations issued by the Chinese Communist Party, which must be acknowledged as the higher authority.
I don't know that one can consider this a persecution of actual Christians, though. At this point, anyone who swears allegiance to the so-called Pope Francis is pretty damn suspect in my opinion. Whatever god it is that cult of grotesqueries worships, I'm fairly confident it isn't God the Father, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or even anything related to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Where is the Inquisition when you need it?

Labels: ,

176 Comments:

Blogger NP_see May 07, 2020 7:19 AM  

Does anyone know where that picture was taken and on what occasion? It's rather creepy.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 07, 2020 7:29 AM  

There is a civil war within the Catholic Church. In China, there was the fake Catholic Church run by the Chinese state, and then there was the one kept alive by those faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Pope Francis, who appears to hate Catholicism, endorsed and supported the communist attack against the faithful Catholics, and propped up the fake Catholic church there, which melds state worship within the faux Catholicism.

So that's what the civil war front in China is looking like. Meanwhile, here in the West, FrancisChurch is working hard to scandalize and ruin Catholicism by drowning it in effeminacy. A recent "survey" was sent out to...measure...the effectiveness of faithful Latin Mass parishes who've resisted the antichrist trends within Catholicism within the last 60 years. Soon, it appears, FrancisChurch will make a definitive attack against the practicing Catholics in the West.

South America is being subverted by the Jesuits. Africa...I'm uncertain what's going on there. But I know they frustrate the Vatican.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 07, 2020 7:30 AM  

By the way, that picture Vox is showing is from the Paul VI audience hall (the pope who brought us Vatican II). If you take a wider look at the room, you'll see that it is shaped like a serpent's mouth.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A752-Snake.htm

Blogger VFM #7634 May 07, 2020 7:34 AM  

Must suck being a Catholic in China... having to avoid both the schismatic CCPA and the heretical converged mainstream Vatican-run church.

Maybe God will work a miracle and Xi could decide that Francis and Vatican II are illegitimate and order the CCPA to adopt the sedevacantist position and dump the Novus Ordo "mass" and fake orders, which they had previously adopted in the 1990s. The North Koreans made a quip about the "so-called Pope" a few years back, so I suspect sedevacantism is being considered at least a possibility over there.

It would piss off the Deep State even further, but considering what's happened with covid, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Blogger Doktor Jeep May 07, 2020 7:38 AM  

I didn't know H.R.Giger did sculpture.

Blogger Solon May 07, 2020 7:50 AM  

That picture is demonic, in the full width and breadth of the word. The only thing missing is hoods and upside down crosses.

Blogger Aaron May 07, 2020 8:02 AM  

I don't know what the hell that is behind them but it looks more Lovecraftian than Christian. Is that supposed to be Jesus or Dagon?

Blogger Michael West May 07, 2020 8:07 AM  

Francis had Uncle Ted broker a deal to make the patriotic association the only game in town. Those who refuse to play are opposed to Francis, or at least to him selling them down the river.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 07, 2020 8:08 AM  

It looks like they "suppress Catholics ... who are refusing to join the state-run Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association"
It looks like the state-run Chinese Catholic thing is supported by Francis.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-encourages-chinese-catholic-priests-to-register-with-beijing-11561731404

Blogger JG May 07, 2020 8:09 AM  

Nothing at all good, beautiful, or true in that photo. The Vatican is in Italy, and that abomination is what they choose?

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2020 8:19 AM  

Do these creepy things (there's also the auditorium styled as if seated within a serpent's head) predate the current pope?

It's one thing to name a telescope LUCIFER (oh, see, it's a pun, get it?!). How do they even explain these things to their adherents, and the preference for disturbingly demonic imagery over that of Divine?

Blogger Unknown May 07, 2020 8:27 AM  

Sorry - you have it backwards. The Chinese are forcing the group that is opposed to Francis to join the Chinese/Vatican sanctioned group. And again, your knowledge of Catholicism is quite poor. We have had evil popes in history (you can read up on it) and the Catholicism survived for 2000 years as as the only way to eternal salvation.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 8:29 AM  

The "Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association" is not Christian. It is a Chinese-endorsed faux-religion to control the spread of Christianity in China. China's attack on Catholics is also worrying for other Christian groups in the region, especially the ones with fewer resources and networks to deal with persecution. The Christians in China are going to have to transition to the Kakure Kirishtan way of doing things. The good news is that Asians have a lot of practice being Christian secretly, so I'm sure they'll be fine.
The modernist "art" in the recent Cathedrals and churches is worrying because it is ugly and goes against the idea of art made to glorify God, but it does not take away from anything the Catholic Church has done to spread Christianity and to do good. A bad Pope does not disqualify the legitimacy of Catholicism in the same way that a bad US president doesn't disqualify the legitimacy of the American nation.

Blogger VD May 07, 2020 8:33 AM  

And again, your knowledge of Catholicism is quite poor.

By their fruits you will know them.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 8:41 AM  

@3. It does not look like a serpent's head in person. The windows are parallel and there is no angle inside the church where the human eye can perceive the head of a serpent. The serpent is one of those things you have to go out of your way to see. However, I heard that the "artpiece" was designed after WW2 as a "warning" against nuclear weapons. Why Jesus should be depicted in the middle of a nuclear explosion is beyond me. I would much rather see Jesus seated on a throne surrounded by saints and angels.

Blogger Sargent.matrim May 07, 2020 8:41 AM  

I love that this true and also pokes those in the eye that accused you of siding with China.

Full disclosure I'm not a Catholic, and I recognize that there is corruption in my denomination, just as faithful Catholics believe there is in theirs.

Evil is evil whether it wears Baptist clothes or Catholic clothes.

Blogger VD May 07, 2020 8:46 AM  

The modernist "art" in the recent Cathedrals and churches is worrying because it is ugly and goes against the idea of art made to glorify God, but it does not take away from anything the Catholic Church has done to spread Christianity and to do good. A bad Pope does not disqualify the legitimacy of Catholicism in the same way that a bad US president doesn't disqualify the legitimacy of the American nation.

I expect they'll be sacrificing infants to Satan on the cathedral altars before you papal apologists will begin to consider that you just might possibly have been wrong all along. And even then, you still wouldn't do anything more about it than you have about all the boy-rape by the priestly homoarchy.

Blogger WillBound May 07, 2020 8:48 AM  

The thing in the background of the photo is supposed to be a sculpture of the Resurrection.

Blogger xsdenied May 07, 2020 8:49 AM  

Now I know where they got the inspiration for the movieposter for Alien Covenant.

Blogger iDrakian May 07, 2020 8:50 AM  

This horror was inaugurated in 1971!
I cannot believe Pope John Paul II did agree with it.
Or am I still living in the Matrix?

Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 9:04 AM  

The homosexual priest problem is disappearing. At least in Australia, we have almost completely eradicated child abuse thanks to efforts by Cardinal Pell, then Archbishop, in the 90s. There was a huge influx of homosexuals in the 70s, and those homosexuals are now at high levels of the Vatican, but after the 70s that wave stopped. In 20 years, the all pedo boomers will be in hell where they belong. It would be better to publicly execute them immediately.

After everything Pope Francis says, millions of Catholics strongly consider the possibility that we might be wrong. And most of us conclude that we're not wrong and that it's worth fighting to restore the Catholic Church. Even so, there is a lot of resentment towards Pope Francis. Imagine if your pastor was telling his parishioners that Christianity is a nice story and it doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as we're nice to each other. You would be furious, and you would probably switch churches. We don't get that luxury because there is one Catholic Church, and that's all we get. No running, only option is to fight it.

Blogger matism May 07, 2020 9:10 AM  

Bergoglio is a heretical homosexual Communist. Why would you expect anything else from him???

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia May 07, 2020 9:15 AM  

“Administrative Measures for Religious Groups”

Nice.

Gotta love the Confucian bureaucratic touch.

It's a light touch no doubt.

What could go wrong?

Blogger roundeye May 07, 2020 9:18 AM  

Christianity will always be on bad paper in China, seeing how it spawned the Taiping Rebellion. I can't blame them for thinking it is a tool of outsiders to cause trouble.

Blogger Sargent.matrim May 07, 2020 9:19 AM  

If I knew nothing of this pope. That picture alone would convince me he had Satan's number on speed dial.

Blogger Matthew May 07, 2020 9:20 AM  

I must admit, I get tired of TradCaths blaming the world's ills on Protestants when I see that the leadership they claim is infallible is really this corrupt. The Roman Church would benefit more in in the long run if her adherents tended to the beams in their own eyes instead of dunking on Protestant strawmen on social media and pretending that Martin Luther is somehow personally responsible for 21st century social justice.

Blogger Enjcj May 07, 2020 9:48 AM  

Benedict XVI is still pope. There is a large segment of Catholics who still say so. Especially the ever vocal Ann Barnhardt, it does puzzle me why she quoted you on her website when you are against Catholicism. Truth is truth though. Calling out an anti-Pope is still true nonetheless.

Benedict XVI caused a stir this week by saying abortion and gay marriage (which Bergoglio supports) is of the Anti-Christ, which it is.
https://www.newsweek.com/former-pope-benedict-xvi-just-connected-gay-marriage-antichrist-1501835

I'd wish he'd grow a pair and reclaim what is rightfully his so we could stop this madness.

If the Catholic Church isn't the bride of Christ, that the gates of hell will never prevail against. Why don't we treat them like the Episcopal Church in the USA? Does anybody seem to care what the Protty's, Lutheran's, Episcopalians, Mormons are doing? Nope, and they will continue to be disregarded because they don't have the absolute truth and never will. The Catholic Church with all her problems throughout the centuries should've been swept away to the dust bin of history. Yet here she stands, still here, still as relevant as ever. She is supernaturally protected which is why hell hates her with such a fury.

Blogger upchuckmcduck May 07, 2020 9:51 AM  

I am curious what impact Christianity will have on Chinese culture if it takes root their. If it goes the route of the Orthodox where the State and Church are intertwined I don't see as big of a shift happening as that already fits with Chinese central authority culture. But if something like Catholicism takes root we could see another cultural transformation like hasn't been seen since the Fall of Rome to the Medieval ages. Will be fascinating to see what route this goes.

Blogger ThirdMonkey May 07, 2020 9:58 AM  

Roman Catholicism is centered on idolatry. Why should we be surprised at the end result?

Blogger JamesB.BKK May 07, 2020 10:01 AM  

There are images floating around of half of that sculpture mirrored. https://images.app.goo.gl/fyot65qEVeR4kqvJ9

Blogger Paulito May 07, 2020 10:10 AM  

@12 so the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, is it? I recall the Messiah saying something different.

Blogger xevious2030 May 07, 2020 10:11 AM  

When the Jesuits cry over what China does, that would distinguish. When the killing of babies stops, according to the metric of where things go cyclically.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 07, 2020 10:11 AM  

The "Pope's" Satanic Throne. Officially “The Resurrection” by Pericle Fazzini. It was completed in 1977, but commissioned by Paul VI in 1965, the year Vatican II ended.

I've written a couple of posts on this monstrosity. The symbolism is terrible.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 07, 2020 10:11 AM  

Unfortunately, this move is at the behest and/or with the support of Francis as far as I know.

Blogger Darren May 07, 2020 10:31 AM  

https://social.infogalactic.com/micropost/193c1fec-1692-415e-bd29-56eb1c019fa3

^I don't think this is what was meant by "be as wise as SERPENTS" -- who designed these Vatican monstrosities!? And why...

Blogger xevious2030 May 07, 2020 10:33 AM  

AA, so far as I have heard as well. Francis and Xi don't like Kurgans.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 10:41 AM  

@27. Benedict XVI is Pope Emeritus and retains all his authority as a theologian. He does not hold the authority of the office of the Bishop of Rome, anymore, but Pope Francis is an intellectually lazy oaf and so Benedict is still one of the main voices for doctrine.

@28. The last time Christianity was significant in China, it was one of the biggest threats to Chinese rule. It wasn't even Christianity, it was a weird branch of Chinese paganism which incorporated Jesus because he's a significant historical and spiritual figure. China's hatred of Christianity comes from this.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 10:52 AM  

Unknown wrote:Sorry - you have it backwards. The Chinese are forcing the group that is opposed to Francis to join the Chinese/Vatican sanctioned group. And again, your knowledge of Catholicism is quite poor. We have had evil popes in history (you can read up on it) and the Catholicism survived for 2000 years as as the only way to eternal salvation.

While Vox's knowledge of Catholicism is in all likelihood poor (what did you expect, he is not a believer and doesn't care) you give a bad testimony acknowledging an open heretic like Bergoglio as Pope. A 100 years ago Pancho would've been literally kicked out of any church due to his heresies while 400 years ago he would've been burned at the stake (and deservedly so). The only option for real Catholics is sedevacantism. If at this point you still haven't accepted that simple fact, i don't know what will bed necessary for you to open your eyes. Maybe Vox is right and even if Bergoglio and his gang of heretics start sacrificing children to Molloch in the Sistine Chapel people like will still say "he is just a bad pope".

Idiots.

Blogger JMcCarthy May 07, 2020 10:53 AM  

What did Pope Francis give up for Lent? Ten million Chinese catholics. Thus went a joke among the faithful a couple of years ago when Francis sold out to the Chinese govenment. See the statements of Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong for a more orthodox view.

Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 10:55 AM  

No, you cannot blame the Chinese at all. Despite the existence of many pious faithful within the ranks of their laity, the Roman bureaucracy is now obviously an international money-laundering, child-trafficking, and pedo-protection network. The root is theological, not due to some post- or pre-Vatican II infiltration by Commies, fags, and Masons. Yes, that happened, but it happened because Romanism has not been rooted in the One True Faith for over one thousand years. These things take time to play out. As Vox aptly quoted God: You shall know them by their fruits.

No one with intellectual integrity can read Abbe Guettee's "The Papacy" and remain a Papist. No one.

The idea that Rome's faggot priest problem "is disappearing" is laughable. They run your entire organization, they have control over virtually all your seminaries (which are bath-houses), and they control your Vatican Bank with their (((partners))). And if Pell is innocent, then you admit they just knocked down one of their greatest adversaries and Australia is open for business again.

I left Papism and do not consider it 'running away' but rather returning home to the One True Church, The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with this current Pope. It had much more do to with many popes and councils pre-Vatican II, pre-Vatican I, and for many centuries before then. Look into those, compare them to the first 1000 years of The Church, and you see that innovation and change are the hallmarks of Romanism. The traddies of today are wholesale liberals compared to the trad-Cats of yesteryear. That is not opinion but historical fact. Change and Innovation, Liberalism, is in baked into the cake of Romanism.

The Chinese are right to watch them like hawks and protect traditional Chinese culture and values, Chinese families and businesses, from Romanist infiltration. Their leadership has been part of the NWO movement for a long, long time.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 10:57 AM  

Paulito wrote:@12 so the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, is it? I recall the Messiah saying something different.

Please tell us where the Lord says "And I will grant you the power to be the heads of your own churches in my name, and you shall preach and interpret the book I give you". It seems I skipped that part in the bible.

Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 11:08 AM  

Enjcj wrote:Benedict XVI is still pope. There is a large segment of Catholics who still say so. Especially the ever vocal Ann Barnhardt

I wish I had never listened to Ann Barnhardt. She's spot-on about some things and I'm glad she's caught on to this corona holohoax, but I wish I had paid heed to Gary North's warning about her back in 2011. Say what you will about Gary North, but he's been around the block a few times, he's got some old-man wisdom in him, and he saw loopy and kooky and he called it.

Again, by your fruits ye shall know them. Does Ms. Barnhardt exude.... Peace? The Peace of Christ?

Once Benedict (who anathematized himself by kissing a Koran, or was it praying in a mosque?) passes, she'll be a sedevacantist. I pray she doesn't completely lose her mind once that happens. May God have Mercy on her soul. She means well.

Francis is your Pope. Vatican II is Roman Catholicism. As an ex-traddie myself, caught up in this whole fake-Catholic, true-Catholic battle, knowing all the trad-Cat arguments, thems the facts. It has taken a long time, but I see and understand why that is so. I take no delight in it, but it brings great clarity and freedom to understand it, mentally and spiritually. The Truth Will Set you Free.

Blogger Paulito May 07, 2020 11:33 AM  

@41 I searched for the words "head", "church", and "catholic" in the following statement, and failed to find them. Perhaps you can point out my error. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me"

Blogger SemiSpook37 May 07, 2020 11:42 AM  

There was a reason the Jesuits were suppressed, and this "agreement" with the CCP is direct proof of why that was necessary.

There's a saying amongst those that Jorge likes to call "rigid": Do the Red, Say the Black. That's referring to the literal writing on the pages of both the traditional and Pauline (Novus Ordo) missals. What's gotten a lot of folks in trouble over the past 50 years is that in the latter missal, there's been a lot more looseness in terms of innovation, so much so that it may as well invite the evil, if the intent is clear.

It's what literally scared my ass into finding the Traditional Mass, and why it vexes me that what worked for nearly two millenia needed to be thrown out after the massive cluster-f that was Vatican II.

My weekly obligation is not to have someone put a show on for me. It's for me to offer myself through the priest at the altar on my behalf by commemorating the sacrifice of Jesus at Cavalry. The geniuses in charge are making it that much more difficult for us in the pews to obtain this, and I suspect that Benedict XVI's "abdication" was more of a flush-out move than anything else. I can't see any other explanation for it at present.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 11:48 AM  

@42. Exactly. I see no point in Catholic Christians running from the Pope. It's more of an American attitude than anything else. America is a protestant nation. In protestantism, if you don't like something, you walk away from it. This makes total sense in American culture, and is hard to argue against. All Catholics own the Pope, even if his sins are his own. The sedevacantism movement is silly and not productive. People like Barnhardt are trying to weasel out of ownership of the Pope whenever he does something bad. You can't claim all the good of Catholicism and also run from the bad. You take on the full package.

Blogger Sam May 07, 2020 11:58 AM  

@41
The Old Testament is pretty clear about how universalism is bad. You can either have an organization of national churches (Orthodox) or independant national churches (protestants), but having a worldwide church organization just repeats babel. The Catholic Church didn't start that way (it was under the control of the Holy Roman Emperor) but once it got the taste of temporal power... well, we are here.

Blogger Emmett Fitz-Hume May 07, 2020 11:59 AM  


Doktor Jeep wrote:I didn't know H.R.Giger did sculpture.

It really is that ugly and disturbing.

Sargent.matrim wrote:If I knew nothing of this pope. That picture alone would convince me he had Satan's number on speed dial.

You ain't kiddin'. I'd heard about but never seen a picture before.

They do like to 'hide it in plain sight'.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 07, 2020 12:10 PM  

This morning, I asked myself why I believe in Christ and why I believe He founded the Catholic Church?

I was not looking for a plausible, intellectual, or reasonable-sounding answer. It was simply: What's the real reason that then enlists my intellect to give reasons for?

The real reason is a testimony. Experiencing Christ through the actions of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic sacraments has set me free the tyranny of sin.

Literally, that simple. Freed from one addiction after another, granted one grace after another, moving me toward loving God and neighbor and hey, even myself.

By the fruits ... well, I've seen them in my life.

My real reason is I've been healed. Pax Christi.

But yes, we have some pretty weird statues and corruption and somehow, the sacraments still shine through, because Christ.

Blogger Scuzzaman May 07, 2020 12:21 PM  

As a Protestant I’m only going to observe that the catholic church and the Catholic Church are unlikely to enjoy an absolute one to one correspondence, in my opinion. If you admit to having had evil popes you’ve already admitted to this.

The rest is hairsplitting over relative proportions - a fool’s game with no reliable evidence but a lot of confirmation bias.

Blogger Boaty Bear May 07, 2020 12:52 PM  

I believed the "where?" Is the Vatican.

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 12:58 PM  

"We have had evil popes in history (you can read up on it) and the Catholicism survived for 2000 years as as the only way to eternal salvation."

Now there's a self-contradictory statement.

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 1:05 PM  

" Nope, and they will continue to be disregarded because they don't have the absolute truth and never will."

If you are in possession of the absolute truth, then how is it, that you all simultaneously claim that some of your leaders are "anti-"leaders?

"Oh, don't listen to our current leader, because He's in league with the devil -- BUT ONLY WE have the ABSOLUTE TRVTH(TM)" does not compute.

Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 1:07 PM  

SemiSpook37 wrote:It's what literally scared my ass into finding the Traditional Mass, and why it vexes me that what worked for nearly two millenia needed to be thrown out after the massive cluster-f that was Vatican II.

Your Ordinary Form Mass ain't 2000 years old, not even close.

Innovation and Change - 812: The barbarian Charlemagne had an organ, a purely secular instrument which came out of Greek pa- ganism, installed in his chapel in Aachen.

Innovation and Change - 867: St Photius condemns the ‘novel’ practice of using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, which began among the Franks and spread to Rome in the middle of the eleventh century. This use of unleavened bread was also the beginning of depriving laypeople of the Blood of Christ.

Innovation and Change - 1014: The filioque is sung in Rome for the first time.

Innovation and Change - 1123: The First Lateran Council forbids clergy to be married. Beardlessness, which came from Roman pa- ganism and homosexuality, is also enforced as a sign of this celibacy.

Innovation and Change - 13th Century - babies are deprived of communion

Innovation and Change - after the 12th Century - the reversal of the way that Christians have always made the sign of the cross, even though Christ sits on the right of the Father, not on the left.

I appreciate your desire for Traditionalism, applaud it even, but dig a bit deeper and Rome's Ordinary Form Mass has been a vector for innovation and change. For a long, long time. Clown masses are just an outgrowth of that.


Blogger Greg from the Piedmont May 07, 2020 1:18 PM  

Tetro wrote:
I left Papism and do not consider it 'running away' but rather returning home to the One True Church, The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with this current Pope. It had much more do to with many popes and councils pre-Vatican II, pre-Vatican I, and for many centuries before then...Change and Innovation, Liberalism, is in baked into the cake of Romanism.


I looked up the Orthodox-Catholic Church of America to see what is is about, and in the FAQs, I found these questions and responses:

Do you ordain women to Holy Orders?
We do not believe that there is any valid reason to reject the calling of women to any office or service in the church. Ordination one form of living out the baptismal vows we all have taken, and thus we do not consider gender or marital status of candidates for Holy Orders.

Do you accept homosexually inclined persons?
We make no distinction among persons with respect to sexual or gender identity or orientation. We are not a specifically “gay church” but we have many LGBTI people among us in all capacities. We welcome people on the basis of love, not category. One of our proud historical roots is in the first congregation in the United States to meet the needs of gay men and lesbians who were rejected by their own faith traditions, organized in Atlanta in 1946.

Where do you stand on same-sex marriage?
We celebrate the mystery of matrimony without regard to the gender of the two persons joining in it.

Is this the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church you are referencing as a good example, or is there another?

Blogger Grooveware May 07, 2020 1:22 PM  

The Popes Audience Hall depicting christ rising from a crator caused by a nucular bomb...

Blogger Greg from the Piedmont May 07, 2020 1:40 PM  

There are many things regarding the faith I believe the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church is doctrinally correct on and Protestantism is not. The sins that have invaded the Catholic Church has also invaded Protestant denominations across the board, and while for Protestants to attack Catholics may be justified, scrutiny needs to be focused on their own houses as well. There are wolves in the flock and the hirelings have run away.

I am not being negative when I say that I believe that there is a falling away occurring. It wasn't for nothing that Jesus asked "...when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

Blogger Didas Kalos May 07, 2020 1:52 PM  

@J.M. If you ask stupid questions you will get no answers.

Blogger Stephen May 07, 2020 1:55 PM  

Two years ago, I was sent to the English-speaking seminary in Rome for mature students. There's only one, so you can easily identify it. I lasted only two months before quitting. I came home and told the Bishop I had not only quit seminary but had lost confidence in the Catholic Church entirely. I remain a follower of Christ and recognise there are many good Catholic men in the priesthood even. But what I encountered disgusted me. I'd been warned ahead of time, but I wanted to believe they weren't false or at least greatly exaggerated by a world hostile to Catholicism. But I was wrong. Weak, effeminate gamma males clustered around Pope Francis, trying to ingratiate themselves, virtue-signalling their disgust with Trump and praying for 'unity' that excludes anyone who actually believes in Catholic doctrine. Theology classes taught by a nun who followed Bart Ehrman's narrative of Christianity; no sign of Thomas Aquinas anywhere; it didn't matter if you believed Christ was merely a cynic or sage, but woe betide the seminarian who showed up to Mass with a wrinkle in his stole.
As you might guess from the emphasis on pageantry over doctrine, most of the men were clearly homosexual although it was kept mostly on the down low - it was more the case that they were a favoured clique, which us 'normies' were more likely to catch toilet duties for weeks in a row. However, a priest I played pool with, drank beer with and shared many conversations, who'd graduated and returned to the UK, was recently jailed for two years for trying to arrange to have sex with a 2 year old boy - he'd been speaking to an undercover cop on grinder...gawd, and he was actually one of the guys there I thought was reasonably sane. For me, Catholicism will always have the literary giants (Tolkien, Chesterton, Belloc, Waugh...) and many great saints. But what exists in Rome today is a disgusting cesspit. During these strange days, I seek out the 'Alt-Christianity' followers of Christians - the men with chests found across Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It does mean that finding a place to worship can be difficult. I'm lucky to live close to an Italian priest who is worthy of the title.

Blogger steb May 07, 2020 1:56 PM  

Listening to christians criticise the Church is what it would be like listening to a bunch of marines in 1945 slagging off Iwo Jima for being full of Japanese, and saying they'd be better off landing somewhere else. You're not wrong, you're just missing the bigger picture.

Blogger lynnjynh9315 May 07, 2020 2:00 PM  

At this point, anyone who swears allegiance to the so-called Pope Francis is pretty damn suspect in my opinion.

I wouldn't assume Catholic allegiance to Francis. But for sure, if you are Catholic and do not oppose the current anti-pope, you're either blind, stupid or evil. Pick one.

Blogger DeepThought May 07, 2020 2:08 PM  

I saw the picture and all I can say, is the Catholic Church is lost and need to die.

@Laramie Hirsch

Blogger The Masked Menace May 07, 2020 2:29 PM  

As Roman Catholics we will steadfastly remain and battle the evil one within the fortress. No quarter will be given.

Blogger :^) May 07, 2020 2:33 PM  

Uhhh what the hell is that picture!?

"I expect they'll be sacrificing infants to Satan on the cathedral altars before you papal apologists will begin to consider that you just might possibly have been wrong all along. And even then, you still wouldn't do anything more about it than you have about all the boy-rape by the priestly homoarchy."

Catholics and atheists operate alike with their dismissals and rationalizations of evil.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 2:34 PM  

Sam wrote:@41

The Old Testament is pretty clear about how universalism is bad. You can either have an organization of national churches (Orthodox) or independant national churches (protestants), but having a worldwide church organization just repeats babel. The Catholic Church didn't start that way (it was under the control of the Holy Roman Emperor) but once it got the taste of temporal power... well, we are here.


I think there must be a distinction between secular universalism (Babel tower and company) and the message of the Lord. If we follow your logic, Christ Himself was wrong, after all He Commanded his disciples to preach to the peoples of the world, not to the Jews of the world or something like that. If we were to follow your logic, the apostles, starting with Paul and Peter had no business disturbing the pagans and "Destroying their native beliefs". Please let us not confuse stupid churchianism and cuckery with the direct command of the Lord to found a Church and preach to all nations of the world.

And for all the beauty of the Orthodox rite and tradition (which in many aspects still has what the "catholic church" lost decades ago) Orthodox churches are barren and in many cases, just an arm of their respective states almost to the point of irrelevance.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 2:43 PM  

Paulito wrote:@41 I searched for the words "head", "church", and "catholic" in the following statement, and failed to find them. Perhaps you can point out my error. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me"

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it....


Also John 21 15-18 and other passages are helpful, but let's agree to disagree.

Blogger Taignobias May 07, 2020 3:33 PM  

I thank my God daily that total and perfect understanding is not a prerequisite to salvation. Even the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines have erred and been corrected, to say nothing of the understanding of individuals.

Many are the false prophets, the ministers of wickedness, the thieves who come not by the gate. Yet Christ preserves His sheep, and they know the sound of His voice.

May the LORD guard and protect all of his people, wherever they live and under whichever evils they suffer.

Blogger Nihil Dicit May 07, 2020 3:34 PM  

We have had evil popes in history (you can read up on it)

Who were the "good" popes? Not ones who were merely not demonstrably evil, but actively godly?

Blogger B May 07, 2020 3:38 PM  

Pope Francis sold out Chinese Catholics with a secret deal in hell brokered by disgraced, de-frocked cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Ask Cardinal Zen of Hong Cong!
The photo shows Bergoglio (aka Pope Francis) sitting in the Paul VI audience hall in the Vatican, in front of the "Statue of the Resurrection," which is suppoed to depict Jesus Christ "rising from the crater of a nuclear bomb" https://youtu.be/PcR85Ojhx6M
The Paul VI audience hall opened in 1971. The disgusting "statue" of the Resurrection is 20 meters wide. It is reviled by many faithful Catholics as, at best, unbelievably ugly and insulting to Jesus Christ, and at worst, demonic.
Is the pope Catholic? No. He's not even Christian.

Blogger B May 07, 2020 3:46 PM  

My bad on my previous post: the photo does NOT show Pope Francis sitting in front of the Resurrection statue. It is actually Benedict XVI. The Paul VI audience hall, however, is regularly used by Pope Francis for public events. It can sit 7,500-10,000 people.

Blogger Mary MacArthur May 07, 2020 3:50 PM  

Bergoglio supports the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, not the underground Catholics being persecuted.

Blogger Robert Browning May 07, 2020 3:50 PM  

Pope Francis assisted a group of transgender prostitutes who were struggling financially amid the coronavirus pandemic in Italy, according to an Italian newspaper.

Blogger eclecticmn May 07, 2020 4:00 PM  

@58. Stephen
Great post. I had no idea it was that bad, but I am not Catholic.

In his book The Party, McGregor wrote that the CCP would never allow a nationwide organization to form in China that was not the CCP or at least tightly controlled by the CCP. Some multi level marketing organization tried to form in China and was crushed. IMO that is good for several reasons.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 07, 2020 4:01 PM  

The photo looks as if David Icke was right after all regarding the reptilians.

Blogger eclecticmn May 07, 2020 4:04 PM  

Because of the top down organizational nature of the catholic church the CCP should not allow it. Protestants have no such structure and split apart when they do. Protestants meeting in their basements have no nationwide organization to speak of.

Blogger Krymneth May 07, 2020 4:39 PM  

J.M. wrote:That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church

And from this passage, I'm expected to infer:

1. That the status of "Rock" is not in fact given to Peter as stated, but to Peter and a line of successors, which was not seen fit to mention

2. That such successors are to be chosen by voting amongst leaders in the church and that is sufficient to pass down this unmentioned divine authority

3. That such successors are capable of speaking infalliably

4. That such successors are the sole way into the good graces of Jesus.

And most damningly, that despite the fact the Bible does go into how churches should be structured (deacons, deaconesses, elders), that it wasn't necessary to put any of this Catholic structure on a direct, clear foundation, but instead must be obliquely inferred from a verse very easy to interpret quite differently, fully in context.

To be honest, that's probably my biggest problem with the claims of Catholicism. What it says, if true, would be really important... so why isn't in the Bible? Truly important things shouldn't be left up to the church to discover centuries later, while people are going without them. Why would Jesus leave out so many critical teachings? To which I can only conclude: He wouldn't.

If Catholicism was meant to be the way the church worked, it seems like a couple of paragraphs could have been spared for describing the Pope's office, fundamental privileges and responsibilities, the sacraments and the additional powers ascribed to them by Catholics, and so on.

(Krymneth, what about the big Protestant denominations that also have structure well beyond what the Bible dictates? They hardly seem any better, do they? Exactly correct.)

Blogger Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi May 07, 2020 6:07 PM  

Nihil Dicit wrote:Who were the "good" popes? Not ones who were merely not demonstrably evil, but actively godly?

All the ones with the prefix of St. before their names.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 6:28 PM  

Didas Kalos wrote:@J.M. If you ask stupid questions you will get no answers.

How unexpected, I guess you specialize in braindead responses...

Tetro wrote:Once Benedict (who anathematized himself by kissing a Koran, or was it praying in a mosque?) passes, she'll be a sedevacantist. I pray she doesn't completely lose her mind once that happens. May God have Mercy on her soul. She means well.

Francis is your Pope. Vatican II is Roman Catholicism. As an ex-traddie myself, caught up in this whole fake-Catholic, true-Catholic battle, knowing all the trad-Cat arguments, thems the facts. It has taken a long time, but I see and understand why that is so. I take no delight in it, but it brings great clarity and freedom to understand it, mentally and spiritually. The Truth Will Set you Free.


@Tedros, Bradman et al: I'm sorry to say that your mindset is one of the main reasons the Catholic church is in such a dire state. you obey orders and follow, no matter how gruesome and horrible your "shepherds" are. The very fact that you conflate Bergoglio or Ratzinger (both public heretics) with "bad popes" of the past is proof of your deep ignorance. This is especially true when it's clear that no heretic is part of the body of Christ, hence no heretic is catholic, let alone pope, no matter how many insist on saying so. I'm afraid that at this point, Catholics will end up worshiping in forests and caves as a punishment for such idiocy and fecklessness in the next few decades.

Even you logic is faulty. If Ratzinger anathemized himself for kissing the Koran, how Bergoglio hasn't done the same for endorsing pagan worship in the Amazon "council", as well as communism in his own declarations? You position is increasingly hard to parody.

Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 6:37 PM  

Krymneth wrote:1. That the status of "Rock" is not in fact given to Peter as stated, but to Peter and a line of successors, which was not seen fit to mention

That 'The Rock' is not Peter's person but rather his statement of Faith, his declaration that he had just uttered, answering for ALL the Apostles, that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah, is what Blessed Augustine of Hippo and 90% of all the Church Fathers clearly attest to. Romanists: please do not respond to this with quote mines from the False Decretals and the Donation of Constantine. Yes, quote from those proven forgeries are still bandied about today. They did great damage to the entirety of the West.

That God establish the Levite priesthood and Jesus Himself is the High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (See: Hebrews) and that Jesus came not to change the Law but to fulfill it, and that He came to destroy the Old Temple and raise up the New Temple in 3 days, with a new priesthood... then it seems you are mistaken. That New Priesthood with the New Covenant in the New Temple and the Final Sacrifice began with the 12 Apostles, representing the 12 Tribes of Israel.

It seems that Jesus spoke in parables in order that those with spiritual sight would see, rather than seeing fit to mention every detail to those who would not listen anyway, for what are miracles to those who will not listen to the prophets? Anyone who can see can see that the priesthood was never abolished, but renewed in the 12 Apostles.


Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 6:38 PM  

Krymneth wrote:2. That such successors are to be chosen by voting amongst leaders in the church and that is sufficient to pass down this unmentioned divine authority

Who said anything about voting? God appoints, anoints, ordains, as the 12 Apostles did with The Seventy, down until today with apostolic succession within the Holy Orthodox Church. If you can't see this, you're not wanting to see it. Your spiritual eyes are blind. It is obvious.

Krymneth wrote:3. That such successors are capable of speaking infalliably

Who has claimed 'infallibility'? Rome, yes. But not any Orthodox. Not for our hierarchs or patriarchs, bishops, priests, or laity. But yes, infallibility for the Body of Christ, The Holy Orthodox Church, the ark of Salvation, guided by the Holy Spirit, whose head is Christ Himself. Our ecclesiology is different from Romanism. We run on collegiality, which is what even Benedict XVI admitted was the structure of the Church of the first 1000 years.

Krymneth wrote:4. That such successors are the sole way into the good graces of Jesus.

Yes, you are speaking of Romanism, and not Orthodoxy here.

Krymneth wrote:And most damningly, that despite the fact the Bible does go into how churches should be structured (deacons, deaconesses, elders)

The Greek is 'deacons, priests, and bishops.' Again, a priest class. Established by God, just as in the Old Testament.

Krymneth wrote:To be honest, that's probably my biggest problem with the claims of Catholicism. What it says, if true, would be really important... so why isn't in the Bible?

Spot on. A damning omission from the Holy Canon of Scripture and also from multitudinous volumes of writings from the Early Church. St. Irenaeus of Lyons says that one who does not submit to his bishop (aka, one's LOCAL bishop) is doing the work of the devil. This was written in the 2nd Cent. Direct teaching from St. John the Evangelist, through Polycarp, to Irenaeus. He does not say the "Roman Bishop."

Krymneth wrote:Why would Jesus leave out so many critical teachings? To which I can only conclude: He wouldn't.

Which is why He did not say, "You are Peter and on YOU I will build my Church."

The original Greek is clear. The name 'Peter' is a masculine word, the word 'rock' is feminine. Clearly not refering to Peter, but rather his declaration of Faith which he had just uttered to Jesus, speaking for the whole group of the Apostles. Shortly thereafter Peter would deny Christ, and show himself, his person, to be weak and fallible. Christ as Messiah is The Rock, the 12 Apostles the Foundation Stones. Any and all who confess the True Faith are rocks and stones in His Church.

Blogger Tetro May 07, 2020 6:39 PM  

@58 Thanks for the anecdote. Damning to Rome, to say the least. But all too predictable.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 07, 2020 7:02 PM  

54. Greg from the Piedmont

What you found was the OCCA, which is a schismatic group that broke off of a Syriac schismatic group in the 19th century which broke off from the united Orthodox Catholic Church of the first millenia a little over 1500 years ago. They are not nor have ever been Orthodox, Catholic of Eastern or Roman or Oriental or Coptic stripe, in their entire history. It was a den of heresy and LGBT nonsense, well not the T part back then, in the nineteenth century trying to ape Apostolic Christianity. If they were LGB back then, they are beyond hellish now.

For examples of actual canonical Orthodox Catholocism, look at the OCA, or Orthodox Church in America, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, or the Russian Orthodox Church. There are others too, thirteen in total, but with Orthodoxy growing in the Americas, the fourteenth will be fully recognized soon enough.

If you have SocialGalactic, you can message me there for more info.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 07, 2020 7:08 PM  

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [Petra] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus says that Peter didn't figure it out himself, but the Father revealed it to him. Weak Peter is not the Rock on which Jesus establishes His church; the Rock is the faith which comes by divine grace.

Peter, because of his faith, would eventually have authority, same as the rest of the Apostles. That authority died with him.

No denomination is Jesus's Holy, Universal Church.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 07, 2020 7:28 PM  

Who were the "good" popes? Not ones who were merely not demonstrably evil, but actively godly?

Most of the saint popes were Roman martyrs. There were only two in the past millennium: St. Pius V and St. Pius X.

And the idea that the Vatican II antipopes like the Communist John XXIII, the homosexual Paul VI who destroyed all the sacraments or the Koran-kisser JP2 are saints is absolutely execrable, especially if you consider who declared them such... which, by the way should be another clue that Francis cannot be a valid Pope, since canonizations by a valid Pope are infallible.

I wouldn't assume Catholic allegiance to Francis. But for sure, if you are Catholic and do not oppose the current anti-pope, you're either blind, stupid or evil. Pick one.

There's also the Jay Dyer-tards like Tetro who cling to Francis being a valid Pope so hard they become Eastern Orthodox.

Blogger Drop Bear May 07, 2020 8:04 PM  

I am a practicing Catholic, and have recently come back into the fold over the last couple of years. Although I am under no false pretenses here - any structure of man will be flawed, and over time will become more flawed until a new or revised structure takes it place. Man is fallen, and satan is constantly working towards corrupting man, and will be working especially hard in turning Christian structures to wickedness. So it stands to reason that the Catholic Church is also flawed.

However, the most important thing is to follow the truth in the bible and don't seek to ignore what's right in front of you that goes against the bible, regardless of whether it's Catholic or not. In that matter I think it's clear that whether you're Catholic or Protestant, if you're following the path that Jesus provides you're on the right path.

Blogger liberranter May 07, 2020 8:06 PM  

I expect they'll be sacrificing infants to Satan on the cathedral altars before you papal apologists will begin to consider that you just might possibly have been wrong all along.

Of course. They won't admit to error any more than Evangelitards will admit to being wrong about the Talmudics they pedestalize as Israelites at the expense of the Christian Gospel. Both groups have invested too much in the lies and deception for too long, to the point where an awakening to the truth and an admission of error would not only obliterate their credibility, but make them question the truth and integrity of their very lives.

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 8:32 PM  

"18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...."


And if you can't see that for the pun-based humor that it is, then I don't know what to tell you.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf May 07, 2020 8:34 PM  

That image!? Wow, it looks like the Pope is holding a meeting of demons with his master rising in the background. I don't know who thought that was an appropriate look, but it literally captured the essence of archetypal 'evil'.

(sorry if there's a double post)

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 8:56 PM  

"as the 12 Apostles did with The Seventy, down until today with apostolic succession within the Holy Orthodox Church"

Apostolic Succession.

When and Where does Christ even hint at any such thing?

"Oh, it exists! Trust us (who benefit from you believing it) because WE SAY SO!"

And you still don't understand why Martin Luther left the Roman Church in disgust.

Blogger J.M. May 07, 2020 9:01 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [Petra] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus says that Peter didn't figure it out himself, but the Father revealed it to him. Weak Peter is not the Rock on which Jesus establishes His church; the Rock is the faith which comes by divine grace.

Peter, because of his faith, would eventually have authority, same as the rest of the Apostles. That authority died with him.

No denomination is Jesus's Holy, Universal Church.



I didn't say he did figure it himself. Stop debating strawmen. Moreoever, you forgot this (by the way, the figure of a pope or leader can be found since the earliest days of Christianity, and despite the distance these were not indepedent or even enemy churches like what we find today in the Protestant world:


John21:15‐17 15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.


@81 That's the issue: THERE IS NO ORTHODOX CHURCH. There is the Greek Orthodox Church, The Serbian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. etc. The set-up has its advantages, but as I commented, those churches, while nationalist, are barren and mostly irrelevant to the point many are mere mouthpieces of their respective governments. Just look at how many russian orthodox clergy were informants of the Communist regimes. In many cases if their respective governments tell them to believe X dogma, they will comply, even if the rest of the Christendom and the Sacred Scripture disagree with it.

@Ominous Cowherd Christ speaks of HIS Church, HIS people, implying unity of purpose and beliefs, not of HIS Churches or HIS peoples. Since we don't believe the same things, one has to be wrong and headed to the oven and the other to heaven, As I told the other commenter, let's agree to disagree.

In what I think we can agree: Bergoglio is not even Christian and in all likelihood has the Devil on speeddial, being part of the Cabal as he is, another enemy of humanity.


Blogger Shane Bradman May 07, 2020 9:11 PM  

Robert, that is not something to criticise. They had no place to stay and could not afford to feed themselves. It's easy to help good men, but not to help sinners. Remember that some of the most renowned of Jesus' disciples were murderers, whores and thieves.

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 9:21 PM  

"They won't admit to error any more than Evangelitards will admit to being wrong about the Talmudics they pedestalize as Israelites at the expense of the Christian Gospel."

Definitely a problem. Was guilty of that myself for far too long.

Blogger SirHamster May 07, 2020 9:28 PM  

Sam wrote:The Old Testament is pretty clear about how universalism is bad. You can either have an organization of national churches (Orthodox) or independant national churches (protestants), but having a worldwide church organization just repeats babel.
The OT doesn't fit your attempted categorization.

The 10 tribes of Israel tried to have a "national church" by creating their own place of worship separate from Jersusalem. It didn't end well.

Blogger cyrus83 May 07, 2020 10:37 PM  

During the passion, the Gospel gives us a preview of ecclesiastical leadership - 1 traitor, 10 cowards, 1 faithful man. It is inarguable that papal leadership throughout history has often left a lot to be desired, likewise with many of the bishops. And while it may seem counter-intuitive, the demonic will always be lurking close to the church, and frequently mimicking Christian worship. Anti-Christ will end up deceiving most of the world because he's going to look almost like the real thing, not so obviously evil that even journalists might notice.

Francis has been a disaster, there is no way around that, and that also applies to these particular Chinese Catholics. Even Cardinal Zen has complained bitterly about what has been done to these Catholics who stayed loyal to the Holy See for years rather than join China's state-sanctioned Catholic Church, only to get the knife in the back from Francis and his minions in the Vatican.

Catholics may end up rejecting Francis or certain papal claimants, but the believing ones are never going to abandon the papacy or the Church in itself because none of the Protestant denominations are even pretending they have the real presence of Christ when offering a communion service.

Thomas Aquinas whether knowingly or not defined the word that next to the papacy is the core of the split between the sides - transubstantiation. Christians who believe in real presence generally are left with the choice between the Catholics or the Orthodox, splinter groups of each aside.

Blogger Storm Rhode May 07, 2020 10:41 PM  

The rank and file Catholics are Christians with a deeper history than the rank and file Baptists. The leadership take the ticket regardless of which slice of the pie you are looking at.

Blogger Storm Rhode May 07, 2020 11:35 PM  

Vox, do you have any insight or opinion about Mr. Mister's Kyrie Eleison hit back in the day? God have mercy seems an odd verse chorus verse chorus recipe. I know its OT but you have music expertise along with history and God knows what else.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare May 07, 2020 11:54 PM  

@Solon

Upside down crosses aren't demonic unless you're a Hollywood horror film director who knows absolutely nothing about Christ and his Church.

The apostle Peter (Saint Peter) was martyred on an inverted cross. As were others. It doesn't matter what orientation a cross is positioned in, it's still a holy and sacred symbol of our Lord Jesus Christ. Demons don't get to use it, upside-down or right side up.

But yeah, that photo is creepy as heck.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare May 08, 2020 12:02 AM  

I think the idea of the auditorium being shaped like it's in a serpent's head is supposed to reference Genesis 3:15 "He will will crush your head and you will strike his heel."

As in, the auditorium is "crushing" the serpent's head. Symbolically. Was trying to figure out a reasonable explanation for the weirdness, other than "John Paul II worshipped Satan" and that's what I came up with.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 08, 2020 12:04 AM  

"Who were the "good" popes? Not ones who were merely not demonstrably evil, but actively godly?"

Saint Pope Gregory the Great.

He was utterly holy, and he saved Rome from plague. I wrote about him.

http://forge-and-anvil.com/2018/10/01/ancient-rome-had-a-dragon/

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 3:05 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:There's also the Jay Dyer-tards like Tetro who cling to Francis being a valid Pope so hard they become Eastern Orthodox.

What part of "it had nothing to do with Francis" do you not understand? Are you retarded and cannot read? Or you just accusing everyone of lying?

It actually had much more to do with people like Ann Barnhardt frothing at the mouth and doing Olympic-worthy mental gymnastics to defend Rome's ridiculous system, which can be shown to be false in a thousand different ways.

Quite literally your 'infallible' popes have contradicted one another on, wait for it, yes, wait for it (drumroll).... Magisterial teaching. Wow. Shocker. That several infallible popes agreed with Ecumencial COuncils damning any addition to the Creed, only later to be changed by other 'infallible' popes, show Rome's eventual disobedience to the Holy Spirit and its declarations through those Councils.

Literally Leo III had The Creed written on tablets at St. Peter's tomb, without the Filioque, in order to 'defend the Orthodox Faith.'

Oh, but later another infallible pope decided the other guy's infallibility was not-so-infallible. Riiiiight. Clown-world tier stuff.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 3:23 AM  

Akulkis wrote:And you still don't understand why Martin Luther left the Roman Church in disgust.

I completely understand why Luther left the Roman sect. Why don't you understand the history of the first 1000 years of the Church? Or do you think Christianity started in the 1500s?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 08, 2020 6:27 AM  

Oh yes, the claim that Jesus gave all authority to Peter, that is only even possibly derivable from one gospel out of four and not even the necessary interpretation of that one.

You're welcome to be a Christian, but your man isn't the way, truth, and life.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 08, 2020 6:32 AM  

"Or do you think Christianity started in the 1500s?"

As compared to the guy who thinks it started in 1054.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 7:43 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:As compared to the guy who thinks it started in 1054.

You clearly aren't tracking. I'm Orthodox. Maybe you don't even know what that is. Many Americans do not. And it is want for knowledge that His People perish.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 08, 2020 8:08 AM  

To be clear, they don't think it started in the 1500s, but you could only even arrive at that strawman if you yourself considered by the same metric that it started in 1054.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 08, 2020 8:35 AM  

@89 J.M.

You made two claims, that there is no Orthodox Church, and that they are just mouthpieces for their respective governments that change dogma whenever the state demands it of them.

Saying there is no Orthodox Church shows a lack of church history. Go to any of the local canonical Orthodox churches, for they are in communion with one another, and that communion is the unity that is the Orthodox Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years. Your claim is equivalent to saying there is no Lutheran church, only local churches/congregations that call themselves Lutheran.

On your second claim, what dogma has been changed in any of them by request of their governing authorities that has stuck through time? Orthodoxy is united in theology and dogma, something even the Roman Catholic world can't currently claim. If the local national churches were changing dogma at the whims of each of their respective governments, then each of them would have been out of communion with each other long ago, and one would expect drastic dogmatic and theological differences among them compounding through history, yet this isn't the case at all.

Claiming that Orthodox clergy during the Communist era being nothing but informants ignores the fact that over 100,000 Russian clergy were martyred. Those informants you speak of were installed by Lenin and his successors after said mass killings. If anything this is a testament to the orthodoxy of Orthodoxy, for that regime fell, and the Russian Church returned in fullness to the Orthodoxy that the commies tried to persecute out of it. Now most Orthodox Christians see the Russian Church as it's bulwark. Even ROCOR, which was the part of the Russian Church that managed to stay out of Communist influence because of it being literally outside of Russia, returned to the Moscow Patriarchy in fullness in 2007.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 08, 2020 9:13 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Oh yes, the claim that Jesus gave all authority to Peter, that is only even possibly derivable from one gospel out of four and not even the necessary interpretation of that one.
Don't forget the traditions. The amazingly, consistently self serving traditions that shore up the power and wealth of the hierarchy that ``remembers'' them.
J.M. wrote:Since we don't believe the same things, one has to be wrong and headed to the oven and the other to heaven,
Or not. We can be certain that heaven will be full of people who were wrong about a great many things. We don't call it understanding, we call it salvation. This isn't saying it's all good, everyone gets there; this is saying nobody gets there on his own merits, nobody gets there except through Him.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 08, 2020 9:41 AM  

The Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the validity of the Catholic Church's priesthood (of which the Latin Rite is one part). They also acknowledge the validity of Catholic sacraments. That means the Catholic Church is a real church with real apostolic succession, according to the EO. They even acknowledge the Pope as the Bishop of Rome.

The Eastern Orthodox disagree with the Catholics on a variety of issues, all of which they feel very strongly about, and often involve differences at the conceptual level.

There is the issue of ecclesiology, specifically, primacy of the Bishop of Rome.


Nonetheless, at the end of the day, they acknowledge our sacraments, and we, theirs, and our priesthood, and we, theirs. Good enough for me. I love the Orthodox and one of my most treasured readings was Timothy Ware's book.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 11:13 AM  

BillHinDaytona wrote:The Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the validity of the Catholic Church's priesthood (of which the Latin Rite is one part). They also acknowledge the validity of Catholic sacraments.

This is completely false. Whether born of ignorance or malice, you are bearing false witness.

The Orthodox Church does not recognize any validity of the Roman priesthood nor its sacraments, for our ecclesiology is different from Rome's. Validity comes from not only historicity in apostolic lineage, but also from right belief and right worship. Any priest, prelate, bishop or even layperson who persists in any heterodox belief or even form of worship, ceases to be Orthodox and invalidates any Authority that may have been previously vested in them by God through His Church. The Roman prieshood has been outside of Orthodox Faith and worship for 1000 years. There is nothing valid in their priests or sacraments, whatsoever.

You invert the truth. It is actually Rome that accepts Orthodox sacraments as being valid but "illicit." Just more semantics and slipperiness from the rationalists and scholastics. We are direct and straightfoward: your sacraments have no validity nor Grace, your priests have no validity nor Authority.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 11:25 AM  

BillHinDaytona wrote:That means the Catholic Church is a real church with real apostolic succession, according to the EO. They even acknowledge the Pope as the Bishop of Rome.

Again, you bear false witness.

We use the terms 'church' and 'bishop' with regards to heterodox sects because it is often the easiest way to communicate whom we are speaking about. But formally we do not recognize them as true bishops or churches. They are not even true Christians, formally. Any Orthodox worth his salt knows and formally professes that there is no Church outside of the Holy Orthodox Church and that other Christian sects and confessions are not Christian in the full sense of the term. We do not teach that they are automatically condemned to hell as Romanists do, but we most certainly do not accept any other sect or confession as being part of the legitimate, 2000-year Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, The Holy Orthodox Church.

This does not mean we cannot applaud and respect, and pray for mercy for, those heterodox who are truly seeking Christ, struggling to follow Him, believe Him to be the Son of God and Messiah, and love His Name. We do believe that God saves some of them too. But that Salvation comes through His Church, which is The Body of Christ. They are brought back into His Body and into communion with His Eternal Church. It is through His Mercy that He might save them despite not being united to His Son through the One True Church. But it is not advisable to roll the dice and hope you get saved while being outside of Holy Orthodoxy. If you have been given knowledge and sight, God expects you to obey and follow the path He has made clear to you.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 08, 2020 11:54 AM  

https://www.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

Blogger Dan Karelian May 08, 2020 12:35 PM  

@82
The Universal Church is visible and one. You do not comprehend Church history.
if there is a separation between the heavenly church and an earthly church, as you assume here, which as a consequence of it's imperfect bond with the heavenly, disunites and mixes itself with unholiness, then clearly the heavenly church and the earthly are of different modes of willing. This is Nestorian and reductionist.
Protestantism decided to build a man-created church, with assumptions that lead to heresies refuted in the first millennium.


@83
There are many reason to reject Romanism, regardless of who the Pope is.
Fundamentally your dogmatic theology cannot coherently affirm the Trinity or the Chalcedonian confession of the Incarnation.
It is impossible when nature and person are not properly distinguished under Thomistic Simplicity.
Roman Catholic theology leads to modalism or tritheism, and ultimately to either atheism or pantheism, same coin regardless.


@89
Which anti-Scriptural dogma has any current Orthodox Church declared? The beliefs of individual clergymen do not change dogma.
it is possible that the Ukrainians will leave and maybe even the Greeks 20 years from now. But then they will just become schismatics, not Orthodox.
The Church survived many heretical Byzantine emperors and archbishops. It survived the loss of the Western Churches, centuries of Islam, Peter the Great Devil and Communism, all because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Furthermore it is called The Orthodox Catholic Church. Universal and one. The ecclesiology is different from Rome and consistent with the first millennium, but it is certainly not divided like the Romans are with the Uniates.

Blogger Akulkis May 08, 2020 1:35 PM  

"I completely understand why Luther left the Roman sect. Why don't you understand the history of the first 1000 years of the Church? Or do you think Christianity started in the 1500s?"

Are you daft?

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 2:22 PM  

Oh HillyBilly from Daytona. A post on a wepage full of the personal opinions of one man does not Orthodox Teachning make!

Very rich that a Romanist, with his volumes of Canon Law and millenia of Papal Bulls and mental gymnastics and legalism, thinks citing one webpage with personal opinions from a highly liberalized and nigh-heretical appendage of the Orthodox Church proves him correct.

BillHinDaytona wrote:https://www.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

"I apologize that time does not permit me to write on these matters as thoroughly as required"

"a complete analysis of these questions would fill volumes. But I do hope that the above offers some clarification and, if not, please feel free to write back."

I would write the dude back, he's full of nonsense.

More quotes from you hallowed, unimpeachable 'source'...

"Within the OCA Roman Catholic clergy generally are received into the Orthodox Church through “vesting”; that is, they are not ordained anew."

Which is abjectly ridiculous, but it is often the decision of the local bishop, on a case by case. Virtually all our saints and canons would disagree with this practice and condemn it. Again, the exception does not make the rule.

"While there are some Orthodox Christians today who would not follow this practice, there is evidence that this was in fact the practice in Russia several centuries ago. " What a weak argument. He sites ONE area several centuries ago within the 2000-year global history of the Church. Wow, what convincing stuff.

"One must also keep in mind that the practice of the Orthodox Church on this issue has been subject to change from time to time and place to place, often depending on situations appropriate to the setting." Exactly. He's not fully explaining that such situations are exceptions. They are not the rule. I explained the rule above.

"Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ;" This is weaselly, slippery stuff, which unfortunately quite common in the OCA and its priests and laity. "Many" would be all liberal Orthodox who ignore Church Canon, the saints, and the consistent 1000-years of teaching on this issues, and misunderstand (or do not WANT to accede to) the notion and practice of 'ekonomia'. Again, these 'many' are either poorly catechised, totally ignorant, or bad actors with ecumenists desires. Ecumenism is a heresy and has been declared so through the ages.

Next.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 2:41 PM  

"others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is “with grace” or “devoid of grace.”

No one. No one except weaselly-mouthed or just plain ignorant Orthodox can ever or would ever argue that Papist sacraments are 'with grace.' This is such a weaselly, slippery dishonest blog post. It has zero to do with 2000 years of Church Teaching. I could post 1000 quotes to the contrary for every thing this guy is pimping in this article.

That you would even posit this as substantive or authoritative is laughable.

"Some Orthodox would say that Roman Catholic priests do possess grace;" 'Some' as in virtually ZERO. Only those who reject the Church's teaching on the matter. A completely and utterly consistent and obvious teaching.

"And I have encountered still others who would say that, upon conversion to Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit “heals all that is infirm,” a phrase found in the prayers of ordination and other sacramental prayers of the Orthodox Church. A thorough examination of this question would also require a preliminary discussion on the meaning of “grace,” as the Orthodox definition of grace is quite distinct from “grace” as defined in Roman Catholic circles." Note the desperate attempt to create all sorts of grey areas and... slipperiness. This is written by a sophist and weasel who is ashamed of Holy Orthodoxy and trying to ingratiate himself and the Church to the world. The exact OPPOSITE of the meaning and intent of Orthodoxy. He speaks like a liberal, trying ot add doubts to the meaning of words, not add clarity. Who is the author of confusion?

"Concerning sacramental absolution: Your question here is highly theoretical..." Same comment as I wrote above. No, it si not 'highly theoretical.' He is quite literally trying to avoid the obvious and direct answer given by the Church, its saints, and its Holy Canon for the past 1000 years regarding Papism, et. al.

You associate yourself with this kind of sophistry? This kind of weasel? That says much about thee.

"Again, a thorough discussion of this would necessarily involve a survey of the different understanding of Confession held by Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. For example, does one confess to the priest, who personally has the “power” to offer absolution and forgiveness, or does one confess to Christ in the presence of the priest, with the priest proclaiming God’s forgiveness at the conclusion." More of the same. Equivocation. It's easy and clear: no, you can't. Romanist priest have zero authority and their sacraments have no Grace. Period.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 2:41 PM  


"Orthodox Christianity in general would view certain aspects of Roman Catholic teaching as heretical." Why all the modifiers? This guy could write a direct statement if it meant his mother's life. Uh, um, uh, in general, would, uh, maybe, kind of, uh, certain aspects, uh.

"in part because controversy has risen over the “sister church” or “two lung” theory."

This is such a joke I don't even know where to start. Two-lung theory?!?! This is a WHOLLY Roman Catholic theory posited by one of Rome's popes!! This has NOTHING to do with Orthodoxy at all. It's like saying Christians are dealing with the controvery over the "kaffur" theory of Muslims. Huh?!? There is not controversy, it is just plain not true. This guy writes like he's Roman, not Orthodox.

"While there are some Orthodox who would perhaps ascribe to these notions, it is my understanding that Orthodoxy is the Church, not half or part of it." Any "Orthodox" ascribing to this is rejecting the teaching of the Church and thereby no longer Orthodox. This is a fundamental teaching of Orthodoxy.

"my understanding"?!?! What a weaselly faggot. It is the teaching of the Church, not your 'understanding.' It is loud, clear, and 2000 years old.

Thanks for posting such trash. It discredits not only your arguments but your intellect as well.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 08, 2020 3:12 PM  

"You clearly aren't tracking. I'm Orthodox."

I'll be plain. You responded to Akulkis by firing a strawman at him about believing that the true church started in the fifteen hundreds, therabout being the separation of the Protestants from the church of Rome. Coincidentally the Orthodox could be argued to also have split from the church of Rome in 1054. Yes, I know you probably think of it the other way around. Guess how the denominations that claim Luther as a forbearer think of the fifteen hundreds?

His point was that Jesus didn't institute any such thing as apostolic succession, men did by tacking on traditions. I suppose I should have only stated that your strawman was irrelevant, however I'm impatient enough to have wanted a bit of fun along with it in the case of it falling on deaf ears.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 08, 2020 4:22 PM  

@116
Church tradition is not man-made. One of the many dialectical tensions assumed by protestants is that between Scripture and Tradition. Orthodoxy rejects such dialectics.
Apostolic succession is based on the Old Testament priesthood and is triadic in form: Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

Quoting Scripture to a protestant is often useless because their paradigm allows them to pick and mix whatever interpretation they want to suit their particular needs, Hence the never ending splintering.

However Apostolic succession is, of course based on Scripture: Acts 15:24, Acts 16:4, 2 Corinthians 2:17, Eph. 2:20, Acts 20:28, John 17:18
In history the formal articulation of the doctrine can be traced back to at least as far back as to St. Iraneus: http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2014/6/30/apostolic-succession-in-the-orthodox-church.html

"Orthodox teachings today are the same as that of the first Apostles, though their mode of expression has adapted over the centuries to deal with heresies, changes in culture and so forth. This form of the doctrine was first formulated by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Saint Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the Apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something not what was known to be Apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ."

"In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christians Churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of Apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."

The Testimony of the Early Church

"Through countryside and city [the Apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier...Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed their ministry". (First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 AD 80)"

"'The Apostles founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after the other, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves Apostolic, as being the offspring of Apostolic Churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church founded by the Apostles, from which the all [spring] in this way, all are primitive, and all are Apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 A.D. 200)."

Luther took his invisible Church view from studying Gnostics and the Kabbalah, which was called studying "Hebrew" at the time.
All protestantism is in that way connected to Gnostic and therefore Neoplatonic thought/heresy.

Blogger Tetro May 08, 2020 5:05 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:You responded to Akulkis by firing a strawman at him

It's not a strawman, it's a tongue-in-cheek statement. Yet, depending on who you're talking to and their level of awareness of pre-Schism Church history, it can be closer to truth than you think.

Most protestant sects now ascribe to this 'gap' or 'lost church' theory of history, that the true and unadulterated faith was adulterated or lost completely around 300-400 AD. And found later by... whomever their founder was. With Mormon's some people got on a boat and sailed to South America and then the truth was found by that horny dude in New York. With the Watchmen Nee crowd the 'true faith' was lost until some dude in China discovered it all by reading the Bible and sussed it all out by himself and 'the Spirit' while sitting in prison. Or some such nonsense.

In this sense, there actually are several millions of so-called 'Christians' who believe that Christianity survived for 300 years or so, was lost, and re-discovered. As if God made a mistake and chose the wrong era to come and share the Gospel, to put His Light on the tabletop for all to see, only to have it get snuffed out for 1500 years until Elder Jim Bob in Missouri discovered it again. It is much like how many evangelicals and prots will speak of The Bible in divine terms, as if it had an eternal existence outside of the created and temporal world, and was already pre-written and just kind of hovering there with all its created pages and words, and just came down from the sky and plopped in our laps. With both types when you start getting into accepted historical facts, events, timelines, decisions being made by real people, ancient writings, extant churches and ecclesial structures, etc., their brains short-circuit.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 08, 2020 5:10 PM  

All protestantism is in that way connected to Gnostic and therefore Neoplatonic thought/heresy.
And here I was thinking we could be civil and spare you the tar.
But here you go saying something so stupid that it merits the tar.
The never ending "we're the real church" nonsense needs to stop. It makes you all look like petulant children incapable of looking past the nonsense revisionist history you've fooled yourself into believing is true.

Blogger Janus May 08, 2020 6:31 PM  

Tetro wrote:They are not even true Christians, formally. Any Orthodox worth his salt knows and formally professes that there is no Church outside of the Holy Orthodox Church and that other Christian sects and confessions are not Christian in the full sense of the term.

Remember everyone, the only way to the Father is through the Special brand of bread Tetro is selling.

Get it while its hot!

Blogger VFM #7634 May 08, 2020 7:31 PM  

What part of "it had nothing to do with Francis" do you not understand? Are you retarded and cannot read? Or you just accusing everyone of lying?

It actually had much more to do with people like Ann Barnhardt frothing at the mouth and doing Olympic-worthy mental gymnastics to defend Rome's ridiculous system, which can be shown to be false in a thousand different ways.


Yes, considering Benedict still the Pope is also ridiculous, because he's also a Vatican II heretic like Francis, only sneakier.

Quite literally your 'infallible' popes have contradicted one another on, wait for it, yes, wait for it (drumroll).... Magisterial teaching. Wow. Shocker. That several infallible popes agreed with Ecumencial COuncils damning any addition to the Creed, only later to be changed by other 'infallible' popes, show Rome's eventual disobedience to the Holy Spirit and its declarations through those Councils.

Literally Leo III had The Creed written on tablets at St. Peter's tomb, without the Filioque, in order to 'defend the Orthodox Faith.'

Oh, but later another infallible pope decided the other guy's infallibility was not-so-infallible. Riiiiight. Clown-world tier stuff.


Leo III actually approved the Filioque, but at the time, didn't consider it an infallible dogma. Later on the Church would recognize it as infallible. No contradiction.

I guarantee you that you won't find a single real contradiction. Everything boils down to:

1) Cases like you cited, where something that wasn't clearly defined before but commonly accepted was clearly defined later and declared dogma; or,

2) Actual contradiction, but between the pre-Vatican II Popes and the fake non-Catholic Vatican II antipopes.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 08, 2020 11:58 PM  

"It's not a strawman, it's a tongue-in-cheek statement."

It's both as well as useless.

"Most protestant sects now ascribe to this 'gap' or 'lost church' theory of history, that the true and unadulterated faith was adulterated or lost completely around 300-400 AD."

That's untrue. I don't know where you got the idea from. I'm sure there are probably some teaching or claiming that, but "most" is just not true, considering I've never once heard of such while going through several of the most populous denominations over the course of my life so far.

Oh, and Mormons aren't protestant according to absolutely anyone but themselves, perhaps the unitarian universalist cult, and apparently you. If that's your example, I feel well founded in saying you have no idea what you're talking about, and are instead talking about various cults.

"In this sense, there actually are several millions of so-called 'Christians' who believe that Christianity survived for 300 years or so, was lost, and re-discovered."

Oh several million? Yeah that's probably right, however the mismatch of scale you're displaying is absurd in calling those "most", while nearly everyone else would call them "none at all" with a few of the scholarly saying "so few that aren't outright cultists that there's not even an agreed upon name for them".

...After looking back over your comments again, what comes into focus is that you yourself are in the process of buying into a cult, whether the sect or denomination you claim to belong to is as well, I don't know, but for you the indicators are there. This shines light on your focus on other cults. It's like prisoners all beating the pedophile or rapist in order to show how they're not THAT bad. They're not wrong, but it's not saying much.

"Church tradition is not man-made."

Dan, this is the one reply of mine that you're going to get. What you're talking about is manmade with spurious claims otherwise, and you have had every chance to realize this because we've been over all of it repeatedly before. Yet here you are pretending otherwise. Again.

Acts 15:24: Those referred to who went and troubled, lied that they were sent by the apostles and elders. Context, Dan.

16:4: The messengers did as told, and you interpret that as everyone being required to behave in the same way. Context, Dan.

2 Cor 2:17 is about blamelessly spreading the word without pay rather than what you wish to think. Literacy, Dan.

Eph 2:20 is closer to what you want, but again, the apostles, along with the prophets and ultimately Jesus himself. Nothing about succession, rather about building atop. Succession is descent. This can't be much more clear.

Acts 20:28 is a point against yourself. Appointed by the Holy Spirit and none other.

John 17:18, as Eph 2:20 except about His disciples instead, and again no mention of the tradition of succession that you claim was not produced by men.

I urge you to resist reading the scripture as what you want it to be rather than what it actually says, Dan.

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 3:29 AM  

Janus wrote:Remember everyone, the only way to the Father is through the Special brand of bread Tetro is selling.

Don't take it from me, take from it from the Aspostles and the Fathers. How about Irenaeus who knew St. John the Evangelist? So, St. John the Evangelist is wrong and you're right? Okaaaayyyyy.....

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 3:37 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:I guarantee you that you won't find a single real contradiction.

And thusly you ensconce yourself in your echo chamber. YOu can find 1000 examples. Go read Abbe Guette's "The Papacy" and you'll be on the road to being set free from the mental gymnasitcs and sophistry and lies. As one scholar put it, there are "layers and layers of deception' in the Roman quote mines which supposedly support the Petrine Doctrine. You deny what's right in front of your faces. What part of writing the entire Creed 'without the Filioque' on the TOMB of St. Peter do you not understand?

What will miracles do for those who refuse the prophets?

Paul de Ballester, Michael Whelton, Gabriel Bunge, Abbe Guettee, and on and on, all did their homework and left Papism for Orthodoxy. They all did great work showing the contradictions and hypocrisies.

Of course, Abbe Guettee's book is banned by your Popes. I wonder why. So, you read it and you're automatically anathematized! So you have to stick with the papally-approved propaganda, goyim. Shut up and bow to authority, eat your flat wafer, goyim. No blood of Christ for you, you're not priests, hoi polloi. Usury is ok now, goyim. Faggots run the entire church but they still give valid sacraments and you need to stay loyal to mother church, stupid sheeple. And on and on. It's incredible.

Uh, but, uh muh keyz. Uh, but, uh, there are no contradictions. I gosh-darn done guarantee it! There are thousands of contradictions. You haven't read them, researched them, or you just deny them and follow you Roman programming that's been fed to the unwitting masses of the West for centuries.

You probably still quote the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals.

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 3:45 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Later on the Church would recognize it as infallible. No contradiction.

You clearly don't understand your own criteria for what is 'infallible' or not. A papally-accepted Ecumenical Council is INFALLIBLE teaching, by any trad standards of what is or is not 'Magisterial.' So, several of your popes agreed that NO word should be added or subtracted to the Creed, only and Ecumenical Council had the authority to add to the Creed at the second council. Both councils clearly state that if anyone who does so is anathema. Your infallible popes accepted the canons of these councils and thusly they became infallible doctrine by the traddies of trad standards.

Then. Your popes. Changed. Changed. It.

Killshot. It's over. Dumb illiterate Franks who didn't understand the language of the Church and its theological intricacies, nor the meaning of 'procession', took over Rome, demanded use and acceptance of the heretical and disobedient addition to the Creed, and then started invading all the Orthodox nations around them to, and I quote one of the popes at the times, "Bring them into the Roman system."

Invasion of Orthodox Sicily, Orthodox England, Orthodox Ireland, and on and on. Papaly banners flying whilst massacring people who, according to Roman historical revisionism, ALWAYS recognized Peter as da man and the Pope as the Church just like EVERYONE from Day One. So, we must kill them and burtally invade them in order to remind them of what they always held to be true, right? Absurd.

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 3:48 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:2) Actual contradiction, but between the pre-Vatican II Popes and the fake non-Catholic Vatican II antipopes.

(smashing head into wall) The historical ignorance is astounding.

Here's another great argument from Romanists: "He didn't mention submission to the Roman bishop because he didn't NEED to, everyone just KNEW it!! No mention in the entire Bible, in the confessions and writings of 100s of the Church Fathers? It is their SILENCE on the matter that PROVES it is true!"

What nonsense.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 09, 2020 10:43 AM  

@Tetro

Take it from someone descended from a few individuals involved at the third council of Toledo that added the filioque for the first time in the West. Throwing facts at people who still have spiritual scales on their eyes isn't going to achieve anything. I had a road to Damascus moment five and a half years ago where God nearly killed me so that I could see with my spirit for the first time. After that, I saw everything that had always been in front of me. Sperging won't get the point across and doesn't do the church of the first millennium any favors.

In my experience, especially so for Sedevecantists and Baptists, if you want them to see what happened before the 50's and 60's, it best to pray for them individually. And sparring, physical sparring in a martial art works too. For some reason how well you keep your prayer rule crosses over into physical combat, even though I'm not a good fighter.

Only reason I commented on this thread was because @Greg from Piedmont was doing some searching and somehow the first thing he found was a heretical group that broke off of a heretical group that broke off of a schismatic group that broke off the actual Church in the fifth century because they didn't accept that there was only one Jesus Christ well before the Great Schism. Apparently we needing more Jesus meant there had to be more than one to them. I hope I helped him find some actual Orthodoxy.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 09, 2020 11:00 AM  

@122
You make my point. The protestant reads whatever interpretation suits his/her demands. It is in form, exactly what Arius did back in Roman times, and what higher critics and Muslims do today to prove the inconsistency of Scripture.
There is no reading of the Scriptures from a "neutral" or purely "objective" paradigm, that would be hopelessly naive. Only in the Church and what the Church has received, can you have certitude that it is the Holy Spirit guiding the interpretation to lead one to a coherent understanding of the Scriptures.

Was it also a man-made tradition how the canon of Scripture was compiled, since there was no definitive canon for hundreds of years?
It was man-made tradition when the protestants decided to cut certain Scriptures that had been accepted for centuries then. Where in the Scripture does it tell to cut these out?

It is through the holy sacrament of Ordination and cheirotonia as witnessed in the Book of Acts, that the spiritual succession is passed.
Through this process the Holy Spirit protects the Church against false teachers from the outside, who claim to have come to understand revelation in a new light.
The burgeoning number of denominations in the world can be accounted for in large measure because of the rejection of Apostolic succession.

I urge you to resist reading the Scripture as long as you continue to treat it as an idol.
What I want the Scripture to say is irrelevant, projecting protestant. It is the Patristic understanding and what the Church as a whole has received that matters.

Blogger Janus May 09, 2020 12:15 PM  

Tetro wrote:Don't take it from me, take from it from the Aspostles and the Fathers. How about Irenaeus who knew St. John the Evangelist? So, St. John the Evangelist is wrong and you're right? Okaaaayyyyy.....

I'm sorry, I apologize Tetros, you've convinced me.

I'll buy your Special bread from your Special Bakers right after I go chop up my PP a bit.

Who should I see about getting my free copy of 'Judaizing for Dumbies'?

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 12:38 PM  

@ Jose and Dan

Thanks gentlemen. Points taken.

I am learning to flee from quarrelsomeness. As we are commanded by our Lord.

Godspeed.

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 12:39 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:For some reason how well you keep your prayer rule crosses over into physical combat, even though I'm not a good fighter.

That's a good insight, thanks.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 09, 2020 12:46 PM  

Only in the Church and what the Church has received, can you have certitude that it is the Holy Spirit guiding the interpretation to lead one to a coherent understanding of the Scriptures.
If you're of Christ, the spirit can guide you to the truth of the scriptures.
One of the things Luther and Nelson were 100% correct about , was putting the Bible in the hands of commoners.
The notion that only """True Enlightened Holy Church""" can handle the truth is so absurd and contrary to God's word, it's why 500 years later, we still argue.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 09, 2020 2:46 PM  

"You make my point. The protestant reads whatever interpretation suits his/her demands. It is in form, exactly what Arius did back in Roman times, and what higher critics and Muslims do today to prove the inconsistency of Scripture.
There is no reading of the Scriptures from a "neutral" or purely "objective" paradigm"


Found the lying, hypocritical, arrogant and ignorant stain.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 09, 2020 2:51 PM  

@132
You're completely missing the point. The issue is about epistemic certitude.

For the average layman, the guidance through the Spirit into Scripture will happen in the liturgy. That is the historical context for the Bible in the first place.
Still there is no dialectic introduced here between private study and public study. You should do both and in your own vernacular, as the Orthodox Church has historically done. Glagolithic wouldn't exist otherwise.
Through repentance and metanoia, any man created in the image of God can 'handle' the Truth. The true Church however is the only place where the fullness of the faith is maintained. That is to say the catholicity of it.

One thing among many that Luther & friends were 100% incorrect about was their Nestorian Christology, regardless of whether they were aware of the conclusions that their theology would lead to.
Not to mention that virtually all the protestant sects accept the Neoplatonic father-son co-cause doctrine when questioned further, even in the cases were the filioque clause is officially dropped.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 09, 2020 3:05 PM  

"The apostolic succession is true because it's how the succession interprets the scriptures and the succession, and only the succession can properly interpret scripture and God's will."

~Dan Karelian.

The Holy Spirit is our interpreter, not a set of men who proclaim themselves the only ones able to read scripture or know the will of God inn circular arguments to their own supposed autority. The veil is torn, all can know, no special priesthood is needed.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 09, 2020 6:08 PM  

Dan, you Catholic boys and your vernacular definitely don't sound pharisicial at all.
The sheer arrogance and narcissism makes me wonder how we continue to put up with you.
No wonder Maryland kicked you all out when they got the chance long ago.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 09, 2020 6:16 PM  

@133
Why waste time responding with nothing substantiative? Especially when you break your own word.
Your lack of understanding, particularly when concerning paradigmatic differences, does not equate to somebody else lying. It only reveals the ignorance you so project.

The accusation of hypocrisy demonstrates this.
Yes, Orthodoxy is objectively true when understood within the paradigm and the revelation, which it stems from. But since such circularity is not considered 'objective' in western classical foundationalist philosophy, I further claim that there is no such western conception of objectivity that stems from a self-evident maxim, that isn't theory laden with a myriad of unproven transcendental categories.
Though Pascal is correct in pointing out that if the world had not fallen, there would be nothing else so self-evident as the presence of God, but alas such is not the state of the cosmos yet.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 09, 2020 6:22 PM  

"The issue is about epistemic certitude."

Self certitude in your case. Circular argument.

Blogger Tetro May 09, 2020 7:55 PM  

Beautifully written, Dan. And spot-on.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 09, 2020 8:05 PM  

Your lack of understanding, particularly when concerning paradigmatic differences, does not equate to somebody else lying. It only reveals the ignorance you so project.
Many words, nothing said.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 09, 2020 9:23 PM  

@136
Straw man. Read the previous comments.

@135
Straw man. The Holy Spirit is our intepreter given to the Church, as evidenced in the accepted synods. Individual bishops in the succession can and have proclaimed heretical interpretations. The Holy Spirit set in Pentecost and His promise to the Church is the basis for certitude. Yes, ultimately circular and also coherent.
What you don't understand is that all world views depend on some ultimate authority to justify their epistemic claims and just claiming it to be God doesn't make it a properly basic belief. This claim is obviously theory laden as well.

I will ask you since protestants can affirm so many contradictory faiths.
What role if any do priests and attendance in church services even have in your view?
On what basis can you know that you have the right canon?
Is yours a non-denominational pick and mix based on personal exegesis, or a systematically defined theology like Calvinism?
Do you confess the Trinity of God? Do confess the Chalcedonian or some other Christology.
What grounds the epistemic certitude in your beliefs?
How can you justify the knowledge that the Holy Spirit and not some demonic spirit posing as Him has guided you to understand the Scriptures correctly?
By their fruits? This only moves the issue back a step and does not give justification to certitude in stating what defines correct understanding of holiness itself.
In which way is your particular angle on protestantism in any way more coherent or consistent?

Blogger Dan Karelian May 09, 2020 9:32 PM  

@140
More than you said and in response to "nothing said". You want to keep going or make an argument on the issues?

Blogger VFM #7634 May 10, 2020 10:35 AM  

Of course, Abbe Guettee's book is banned by your Popes. I wonder why.

@124 Tetro

Maybe because it's full of bullshit and straight-up lies? Just maybe? Well, it's definitely true that you've sucked it down completely.

(smashing head into wall) The historical ignorance is astounding.

Here's another great argument from Romanists: "He didn't mention submission to the Roman bishop because he didn't NEED to, everyone just KNEW it!! No mention in the entire Bible, in the confessions and writings of 100s of the Church Fathers? It is their SILENCE on the matter that PROVES it is true!"

What nonsense.


@126 Tetro

Basically, yes. There's no condemnation or anathematization of women priests either, because it was always assumed to be so ridiculous that no sane person would ever propose it.

And England and Ireland were Orthodox now? Good grief.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 10, 2020 11:23 AM  

@143
What patristic authority prior to 1054 do you think acted as if the Roman catholic ecclesiology was normative? Augustine? Check the councils he attended.

Ireland and England were Orthodox until their respective Norman invasions.

Appealing to the doubly apostolic 'Glory of Old Rome' and the 'Place of Honor' in no way necessitates Petrine supremacy, nor equates to exclusive authority.
Appealing to Rome or any other see was valid only so long as Rome or Antioch etc. remained orthodox. Likewise communion with Rome was only necessary so long as the Roman patriarchy confessed orthodox faith. This however veers into the epistemic differences between the EO and RC paradigms, which is a whole other issue.

St. Athanasius the Pope of Alexandria certainly condemned all manner of heresies and declared his faith on his own without the need for approval from the Pope of Rome, whom he corrected in arguing for the Apocalypse of John to be brought in the canon.
Not to mention that his theology is completely different from the post-schism Thomistic system of Rome.

Pope Honorius I would not have been excommunicated in the sixth council in the way he was, had he been part of the Vatican I system of papal monarchy.

No pope ever called for an ecumenical council, the emperor did. Confirming the decisions of a council does not mean the person confirming them dictated the result in the first place.
Judgement was from the church participating in the council as a whole, not just Rome and overtime the councils are received and accepted by the churches, because the faithful know the faith. Again there is an epistemic difference.

St. Paul corrects errors of the Roman church and warns them and St. Peter from being cut out of the body of Christ. Again not the Vatican I paradigm.

Pope St. Gregory the Great writes in his letters rebuking that his is the sole jurisdiction over all other churches and calls it the claim of Antichrist. That claim is now Roman catholic dogma.

The pre-Nicene Synods were conciliary and decentralized, see the point on appealing above. All of the documents pertaining to the issue that are claiming otherwise are admitted forgeries.

The papal system didn't really begin to develop until The Donation of Pepin and Charlemagne desired to be declared the emperor of Rome. Theologically the split can be traced at least back to St. Augustine and his neoplatonic filioque teaching, but politically you don't see Rome assert itself systematically above others until the 9th century.

Blogger Tetro May 10, 2020 12:01 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:There's no condemnation or anathematization of women priests either

Not sure what Bible you read, but here's your clear condemnation of female priests: 1 Corinthians 14.34.

Let's also mention male-only Levite priesthood throughout the Old Testament, male-only priests in the New Testament, 12 male Apostles given priestly authority, Jesus Christ as the High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek, and 2000 years of Holy Tradition and clear teaching on the matter from the Orthodox Church, Fathers, Saints, etc. Those are all positive, visible, spoken, and written pieces of evidence speaking to the same true, consistent teaching. If you think that amounts to 'silence,' I'm am really not sure what else to say to that.

The logical fallacy of an 'argument from silence' would be claiming St. Patrick obviously believed in universal submission to the Roman bishop as necessary for salvation whilst not once mentioning the Roman bishop or even the city of Rome itself in his very lengthy Confessions. Or that he actually believed the Filioque even though he most definitely never said the Filioque. Because, uh, well this 'silence' is proof of a positive belief in what he is not found to be saying. Not a strong line of argumentation, to say the least. I suppose Muhammad also agreed that every Christian was supposed to submit to the Roman bishop, because he never mentioned it. I guess Buddha believed that too, cause he never spoke of it.

Blogger Tetro May 10, 2020 12:06 PM  

If you think God will condemn you to hellfire for merely reading a book, even if that book does not shake your faith in any way, even if you are reading it specifically to strengthen your faith, to better understand and respond to serious criticisms or challenges to your faith which you genuinely hold to be The Truth... then you and I do not worship the same god.

God does not punish those who truly seek Him, or seek to defend Him and His Truth.

That same kind of logic could be applied to any number of books and texts, yet as far as I know Roman Catholics can read the Koran and other religious texts which could just as easily threaten their faith. Yet, those books are not banned. And many Romanists have certainly lost their faith by reading them. So, what's so special and threatening about Abbe Guette and his research from Rome's own ancient documents that could have upset the Jesuits and their popes so much? It's a question I implore you to ask and seek answers to.

Godspeed, best to you.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 12:23 PM  

Salvation is through Jesus. Interpretation and intercession are through the Holy Spirit. Any man who tells me that either of these are only possible through their men is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a liar, an accuser.

This cannot be more simple, your sophistic attempts cannot obscure it, just as they have failed before.

Anyone who tries to equate reliance on God rather than man with nestorian or arian heresy must equate their chosen men with God to do so. You're not God. Your human leaders aren't God. You have no claim other than what is reliant solely on your own claims. You don't get to gatekeep salvation or interpretation. Get out, you wicked deceiver, go to your father and burn with him.

Blogger Tetro May 10, 2020 1:30 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Any man who tells me that either of these are only possible through their men

We're not saying this. We're saying that when you 'feel' or think that your interpretation is from the Holy Spirit, or if you feel or think Luther, Watchman Nee, or Calvin's interpretations are from the Holy Spirit, one must, as Scripture itself attests to... be careful and humble to test said interpretations against that which was taught 'by word and epistle' from the Apostles themselves, who were annointed by Christ to spread the Gospel and call out those preaching false gospels.

One does that by testing that interpretation against 2000 years worth of saints, elders, Church Fathers, liturgies, hymnology, Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition. If your, or Luther's, or Calvin's, or Watchman Nee's, or does not line up with the consistent teaching of this 2000-year Church, then you can be sure it's wrong. And not of the Holy Spirit.

Feelings, even feelings of 'conviction' are not standards of Truth. Holy Scripture warns us that the devil can come as an angel of light (giving us very good feelings), that we should not trust our hearts and minds which are easily deceived, and that we should always be looking to our forefathers and elders for guidance and proper teaching. This gives us certitude. This allows us to reject lies and delusions from demons and recognize when the Holy Spirit is present in us, because it will be affirmed by and supported by the same Holy Spirit moving through his saints and people in the 2000-year old Holy Orthodox Church, whose teachings and interpretations are those of the Apostles, whose head and High Priest is Jesus Christ.

Luther did not look to his forefathers for guidance. Otherwise he would have read the Church Fathers, would have seen where he was wrong and where he was right, and seen the continuity of the voice of the Spirit in His Church. In humility and patience he would have checked his ideas, thoughts, and feelings against them. Doing so is the epitome of humility, fear of God, patience. Luther was very much convinced of his own authority, even going so far as to cut out entire books from Holy Scripture, which he had no Authority to do.

You can say the same about all the Reformers. About all the popes after the Great Schism.

Your forefathers in the Faith are the Apostles and their successors. Their successors were not Arians, Nestorians, or Gnostics also claiming to be 'Christian' or priests. No Orthodox priest living today has any authority to change what the Apostles passed down to us from Jesus. No one is 'relying on man' but rather the teachings of Christ Himself, historically (through time and space) passed down through men, through the writings, word-of-mouth, and actions of men in history, from the time of Jesus up to now. Any Orthodox priest who decides to teach a different interpretation than that which Jesus and His Apostles gave to us, is no longer a true priest or man of Christ and His Church.

It's not sophistry, it's very logical. Your version is not 'simple' but rather simplistic and oversimplified. It is gnostic.

I write this without any ill will or negative energy, I hope that comes through in my words. But, time for me to move on from this thread.

Godspeed. Christ the King!

Blogger Dan Karelian May 10, 2020 2:14 PM  

@147
Now you are just babbling on, repeating yourself without addressing any points or questions.

1."Interpretation and intercession are through the Holy Spirit"
Yes, now justify how you can know that it is Him that is working through your interpretation and intercession.
Under the noetic effects of sin, how can you have epistemic certitude that your interpretation is ever correct?

You keep posing as if my position requires the 'only priests' clause, like a Roman Catholic. You fail to deal with or perhaps even conceive of the larger issue. Straw man again.

2."This cannot be more simple, your sophistic attempts cannot obscure it, just as they have failed before."
Useless rhetoric when you can't even address the issues I'm presenting. Your lack of willingness to understand does not make these issues any simpler than they are.
Questioning your presuppositions does not equate to obscuring.

3."Anyone who tries to equate reliance on God rather than man with nestorian or arian heresy must equate their chosen men with God to do so."
First, That's a total non sequitur. Second, you demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of either heresy, what nature, will and person are. Arius did not equate the man Jesus with God. I certainly do.

4."You have no claim other than what is reliant solely on your own claims."
Projection. See points 1 and 2.

5."You don't get to gatekeep salvation or interpretation."
Again we are not Roman Catholics. Salvation is not a one time ticket through 'faith only', which itself is a type of work. No, salvation is a lifelong process to regain what was lost in the fall, theosis.

You keep obsessing over priests as if the very concept of it has traumatized you and put your mind in an impenetrable loop.
I suggest you confront what looks like agony, and pray about it. Either way I hope that you will have your mental faculties in order if you choose to respond again.

Blogger James Lovebirch May 10, 2020 3:46 PM  

It's a fair question. Given the thousands of contradicting systems, how does a protestant know that he's not being influenced by evil in the formulation of his beliefs? Do you claim you have no pride or other weaknesses the devil could use against you?

So it's natural to claim, "well your institution is no more reliable than my personal judgement!" In the case of Romanism, I think most of us are willing to accept that statement based on what's happened lately. Why should we accept it about the Russian Orthodox Church though? Has anyone found any demonic art there?

Do you really believe you should go it alone if an uncucked, historical church exists, or are you being prideful?

To the person criticizing someone else for equating mormonism to protestantism, please stop thinking so superficially and notice the parallel. Isolated genius centuries removed from Jesus figures out the real true system of belief that Jesus failed to communicate to his historical church. That's what we mean; mormonism has the same spirit as protestantism.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 5:26 PM  

"We're not saying this. We're saying that when you 'feel' or think that your interpretation is from the Holy Spirit, or if you feel or think Luther, Watchman Nee, or Calvin's interpretations are from the Holy Spirit, one must, as Scripture itself attests to... be careful and humble to test said interpretations against that which was taught 'by word and epistle' from the Apostles themselves, who were annointed by Christ to spread the Gospel and call out those preaching false gospels."

You just said it again. According to you we're automatically wrong if your chosen men disagree with us. Those actually anointed are no longer on Earth and your claims of succession have no support beyond the claims of the supposed successors. It is sophistry, and the "logic" is circular at best.

"Now you are just babbling on, repeating yourself without addressing any points or questions."

You don't have any points or questions, just circular claims.

"Yes, now justify how you can know that it is Him that is working through your interpretation and intercession."

Primarily by testing the spirits. This is common to both our accepted scriptures even if were to I accept your incorrect characterization of me as protestant. Asking your arbitrarily selected men is nowhere on the list except according to your arbitrarily selected men.

"You keep posing as if my position requires the 'only priests' clause, like a Roman Catholic."

Because it does. You're saying it's not possible to know which the Holy Spirit is except through your men. It's a single remove leading to the same result. Hence sophism.

"Useless rhetoric when you can't even address the issues I'm presenting."

There's no lack of willingness, just you lying and me calling you on it, over and over again. I haven't been rhetorical at all, you're circular and vainglorious, and too stupid and/or dishonest to even see it. Hence liar, hypocrite, arrogant, wicked deceiver.

"First, That's a total non sequitur" (Response to "Anyone who tries to equate reliance on God rather than man with nestorian or arian heresy must equate their chosen men with God to do so.")

You: "if there is a separation between the heavenly church and an earthly church, as you assume here, which as a consequence of it's imperfect bond with the heavenly, disunites and mixes itself with unholiness, then clearly the heavenly church and the earthly are of different modes of willing. This is Nestorian and reductionist."

There it is, liar again. And your first statement was also wrong. You assume he separates the heavenly church and the earthly church not because he separates from God, or from Jesus' delineation of what the Church is, but solely from the claims of your men. Circular.

"You have no claim other than what is reliant solely on your own claims."
Projection. See points 1 and 2."


Which are exactly what I said they were.

"5."

So you are claiming the right to gatekeep interpretation. That's why I mentioned both.

"You keep obsessing over priests"

A rose by any other name is still a block between me and God that doesn't exist in reality.

The only thing agonizing me is your pathological dishonesty.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 5:31 PM  

"One does that by testing that interpretation against 2000 years worth of saints, elders, Church Fathers, liturgies, hymnology, Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition."

Of that, only the scripture and the saints are without doubt other than the proceeds of Earthly men with Earthly concerns. The Scriptures themselves contradict your claim here by stating what is necessary and mentioning none of this at all. The saints are determined by God, not men, and I expect his list to differ from any of ours, and the saints are not necessary for this, again according to the Scripture.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 5:42 PM  

Even the Scripture that you understand we hold in common is silent in nothing, yet your sophisms and extrapolations contradict it. You accuse those who you do not hold to be of you even while Jesus claims them, and wonder in turn why they reject you, why your church cannot be whole. You have split it asunder by assuming the right to stand between God and his children. Who would lead, must serve, there's your answer straight from the Christ.

Even then, there are ways that the Church is meant to be one, and ways that it is meant to be at least several.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 5:48 PM  

"Your version is not 'simple' but rather simplistic and oversimplified. It is gnostic."

Says the man dependent on man's interpretation and knowledge of thousands of years of traditions under at least six different names by your own statements. If you think it's dependent on that much knowledge, you ought to have another think about what you call gnostic.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 6:17 PM  

"Why should we accept it about the Russian Orthodox Church though? Has anyone found any demonic art there?"

Unfortunately yes. I don't know if it's in the main, but there's definitely a heaping helping of globohomo in some of the particulars, as I found out the hard way. This obviously isn't enough to condemn, but it's enough to stop one from easy acceptance.

We can see it also above with the insistence to trust men by men who would be better served by the bare minimum of letting God bring people, than by the accusation of everyone who isn't them.

As for the influence of evil, all men are potentially susceptible, not just protestants.

Why do you assume I'm going it alone? That would indeed be foolish. I will not however recommend my situation to others until I have a great deal of certitude that it is good.

"To the person criticizing someone else for equating mormonism to protestantism, please stop thinking so superficially and notice the parallel. Isolated genius centuries removed from Jesus figures out the real true system of belief that Jesus failed to communicate to his historical church. That's what we mean; mormonism has the same spirit as protestantism."

You lose me when I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. The only parallel is rejection of people who claim to be the true church, this,"Isolated", "figures out the real true system of belief that Jesus failed to communicate", and "his historical church." are where I know you're full of it.

You guys played a major role if not the primary cause of Luther being by any definition isolated.

As for setting aside some or all of the apocrypha, while I like the doctrine of Lex orandi, Lex credendi, it is debatably a bandwagon fallacy dressed up in distributed divine guidance. A lot of people liking things, even if Christians, doesn't necessarily make them good or true. If you're aware of anything else Luther rejected that isn't agreed even by yours now to have been wrong, please do tell.

As for "his historical church", Jesus defined the church, and it isn't just those under the name of Catholic or Orthodx. "Historical" is no more than overemphasizing tradition again. Also, this point of yours is reliant upon men not altering, fudging, or "interpreting" what Jesus communicated. The RCs definitely did at least two of those things.

Mormonism and protestantism don't have the same spirit unless you make the retarded assumption that all spirits that aren't whatever the Orthodox or RC have are the same spirit.

Finally, you guys keep assuming incorrectly that I'm protestant. Axe to grind?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 10, 2020 6:36 PM  

After checking about the canon squabble, "And so it is that the so called Protestant canon is actually the accepted canon of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation."

Yeah, that figures. Probably different denominations of protestants either maintain and read those books or ignore their existence at this point. Your list of things that Luther himself rejected is therefore very similar to that rejected by the RCC itself before Vat II. Unfortunately a person who can say "this is invalid" and draw followers is not the same as one who can say "but all the rest is valid" and keep them. Luther, like Pelagius as far as I can tell, gets a lot of flack he had nothing to do with, but rather came from those who claimed to be their followers.

This is a large part of why I'm not protestant either. Unfortunately a lot of wickedness hides under the label, much like Catholic, and as I am now painfully aware, Orthodox. I don't need any of those names for myself or even for communion.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 10, 2020 10:19 PM  

@151
I asked you several questions before. Now you claim you're not a even a protestant. I asked about that. What identity accurately describes your position?
On what basis can you know that you have the right canon?
Do you confess the Trinity of God? Do you confess the Chalcedonian or some other Christology?
What is the fundamental non-circular properly basic belief(s) for your whole paradigm?

My position is openly circular at the paradigmatic level. All paradigms are ultimately, when the analysis is about proper justification of epistemic certitude. I have stated that repeatedly. That's not dishonest.
"Primarily by testing the spirits." So you're going to appeal to your own interpretation of the Scripture to prove that you can have certitude in your understanding of said Scripture. I rest my case.
"Asking your arbitrarily selected men is nowhere on the list" Wrong. It is based in Scripture. We can properly justify our exegesis. You have yet to do the same.

"You're saying it's not possible to know which the Holy Spirit is except through your men."
None of those 'men' are individually infallible. Certitude comes from what has been accepted by the Church as a whole, through the Holy Spirit. The Church is more than the clergy.

"You assume he separates the heavenly church and the earthly church not because he separates from God, or from Jesus' delineation of what the Church is,"
We have a coherent and a consistent understanding of what Jesus' Church delineation is, based on Scripture and Church tradition from His time.
You just assume that your exegesis leads to "Those actually anointed are no longer on Earth" when I'm questioning such presuppositions and you have yet to answer.

"There it is, liar again."
Let me reiterate: You are intellectually unequipped to deal with Nestorianism, because you do not understand what nature, will and person are and how these relate amongst each other.
I can't take your accusations seriously if you can't even deal with the concepts. I am also not a monophysite, which is what your accusation implies even if you've never heard of the term. You are stuck in dialectics.

"So you are claiming the right to gatekeep interpretation. That's why I mentioned both."
No that's not what gatekeeping interpretation is. You can say that the certitude of it is behind the "gates" of the Church and it's worldview, but any God seeking soul can arrive at correct understanding.
There is a difference between interpretation itself and how you can justify epistemic certitude underlying any particular interpretation.

"A rose by any other name is still a block between me and God"
Another dialectic that doesn't exist in the Orthodox Church.

@153
The Church is one in faith and many in the nations.
"Who would lead, must serve,"
There you just assume your exegesis is correct, when the question is how can you justify your epistemic certitude without appealing to another exegesis.

@154
You are of man yourself. Our claim is that the will of man and will of God can work in synergia to receive true doctrine. But as a doctrine itself it derives from a larger paradigm that makes any particular doctrine within it coherent with each other.

Fundamentally the issue is in paradigmatic differences. I can justify mine. You have yet to justify or even articulate yours.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 11, 2020 12:22 AM  

"Salvation is through Jesus. Interpretation and intercession are through the Holy Spirit. Any man who tells me that either of these are only possible through their men is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a liar, an accuser."

Yes. And yes. But shouldn't there ought to be a history after all this time of what the Holy Spirit has said? There should be a body of doctrine. Right? We should be able to agree on it?

Blogger James Lovebirch May 11, 2020 1:58 AM  

@155

"Unfortunately yes. I don't know if it's in the main, but there's definitely a heaping helping of globohomo in some of the particulars, as I found out the hard way. This obviously isn't enough to condemn, but it's enough to stop one from easy acceptance."

Would you be in a position to share more info on this part? I know of a lot of people within Orthodoxy who have cucked beliefs, but I've also been able to appreciate the open discussion, debate and "quarantining" of those people I've observed too. Almost like an immune response in the body of Christ.

Blogger Tetro May 11, 2020 4:15 AM  

@Dan

Dan Karelian wrote:However Apostolic succession is, of course based on Scripture: Acts 15:24, Acts 16:4, 2 Corinthians 2:17, Eph. 2:20, Acts 20:28, John 17:18

Great verses, I did not know about these, thanks.

Blogger Tetro May 11, 2020 4:38 AM  

Azure, I'm not posting this to engage you. I understand your position, hear it loud and clear and will not attempt any further persuasion, nor care to. This is not directed toward you, I am only sharing this for Dan, Lovebirch, et. al. They will find it interesting, as I do.

Dan's scriptural references inspired me to grab my copy of The Didache, or "The Teachings of the Twelves Apostles," or "The Teaching of Our Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles."

This text is believed to have been written anywhere from 75-90 AD. This is before the Bible itself was compiled.

I quote from Chapter XI: "Now whoever cometh and teacheth you all these things before spoken, receive him; but if the teacher himself turn aside and teach another teaching, so as to overthrow this, do not hear him; but if he teach so as to promote righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord."

"But in regard to the apostles and prophets, according to the ordinance of the Gospel, so do ye. And every apostle who cometh to you, let him be received as the Lord...."

Blogger Tetro May 11, 2020 4:48 AM  

The Didache, The Teachings of the Twelvs Apostles, The Teaching of Our Lord Through the Twelve Apostles, 75-90AD, Chapter XIV:

"But on the Lord's day do ye assemble and break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure."

Chapter XV

"Now appoint yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not avaricious, and upright and proved; for they, too, render you the service of the prophets and teachers."

And a nice little warning at the end... Chapter XVI:

"... but be ready; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But ye shall come together often, and seek the things which befit your souls; for the whole time of your faith thus far will not profit you, if ye do not become perfect in the last time."

Blogger Tetro May 11, 2020 6:07 AM  

BillHinDaytona wrote:But shouldn't there ought to be a history after all this time of what the Holy Spirit has said? There should be a body of doctrine. Right? We should be able to agree on it?

Yes. There is a history, it exists. There is a body of doctrine, it exists. No need to reinvent the wheel.

2000 years of the Holy Spirit saying the same things, giving the same interpretations, the same teachings, same general forms of worship, same theology, from Jesus Himself (god-man) through the Apostles themselves (men) and those they gave teaching authority to (men), who gave it to others (men), who wrote about it, preached it, lived it, thereby reaffirming the Holy Spirit's voice on these matters, on down until today. For 2000 years.

It exists, it's there, it's real.

Which would hold more water in a court of law, or in the mind of any rational person? 2000 years of evidence piled up, with historical links that run all the way back to the Person of Jesus Christ Himself? Or Watchman Nee's claim that while in prison in China in the 1970s that he finally found the lost 'truth' and tested all his own thoughts, feelings, and ideas against 'the spirits' and those spirits told him that he found the 'lost' and 'corrupted' truth? And that if 2000 years worth of historical documents which resonate and concur with practices and teachings still alive today in an extant Church disagree with Watchman Nee's prison spirits, then, well, that Church and all its historical documents and its teachings are wrong? Cause Watchman Nee's spirits said so?

Now, what if Watchman Nee's spirits disagree with Azure's spirits? Or the horny Mormon guy's spirits? Or Jerry Falwell's? Or Calvin's? Or Catherine of Siena's? Or yours? Or The Colonel's spirits, who clearly called him to make and spread Kentucky fried chicken to the world?

What would an impartial investigator do in such a situation? Take everyone's word? No one's? Or start weighing the evidence? My point is clear.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 11, 2020 9:37 AM  

@Tetros

Colonel Sanders definitely was divinely inspired to spread Kentucky fried chicken to all four corners of the earth. Now someone only needs to take fried chicken and put it in a taco.

Blogger Tetro May 11, 2020 11:07 AM  

Jose Miguel wrote:Colonel Sanders definitely was divinely inspired to spread Kentucky fried chicken to all four corners of the earth.

Indeed! He has done the work of God. That is my personal interpretation. We are of one mind on this matter. Let us break cornbread muffins.

Jose Miguel wrote:Now someone only needs to take fried chicken and put it in a taco.

Veritably a succulent entrée... to sin! A vision cloaked in such tempting savoriness that it could only be sprung from the pit of hell itself. The Southerner and pure-bred Gringo in me recoils both with disgust and with the fear of God at such a notion. German Pietists and English Puritans would all unite in agreement at such ungodly adulterations. Fowl indeed. 'Do not test thy God,' comes to mind. May God have mercy on your soul and save you from your Latin syncretistic machinations!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 11, 2020 5:23 PM  

"I asked you several questions before. Now you claim you're not a even a protestant. I asked about that."

Why should I bother to answer loaded lies like this:

"It was man-made tradition when the protestants decided to cut certain Scriptures that had been accepted for centuries then. Where in the Scripture does it tell to cut these out?"

They didn't, they took the accepted RCC canon at the time.

"Why waste time responding with nothing substantiative?"

That would be you, responding with nothing but intentionally out of context Scriptural quotes and circular reasoning.

"What role if any do priests and attendance in church services even have in your view?
On what basis can you know that you have the right canon?
Is yours a non-denominational pick and mix based on personal exegesis, or a systematically defined theology like Calvinism?
Do you confess the Trinity of God? Do confess the Chalcedonian or some other Christology.
What grounds the epistemic certitude in your beliefs?
How can you justify the knowledge that the Holy Spirit and not some demonic spirit posing as Him has guided you to understand the Scriptures correctly?
By their fruits? This only moves the issue back a step and does not give justification to certitude in stating what defines correct understanding of holiness itself.
In which way is your particular angle on protestantism in any way more coherent or consistent?"


Priests? None that was given by Jesus or Scripture.

Canon? Ask the RCC. You don't know what you're talking about there.

It's not just a pick and mix. Systematic based again first as closely to the Scripture as above and to the Holy Spirit as I can hear. I leave blanks where I don't know or can't, as I ought, unlike you. I reject those like you because of your obvious lies. If you don't want to be so rejected, cut back on your claims.

I neither know nor need to whether God is triune. For my part I point out that Revelation refers to at least seven spirits of God, whether or not these are parts of God or lesser beings sent in the name of God, I don't know.

Epistemology? Jesus is the Truth, we see through a glass darkly never knowing anything except what God makes revealed to us. Objective truth is necessary for even relations of things to exist. Your own epistemology is interrupted by a fundamental circularity, and you confess it so, yet you have the gall to ask "What is the fundamental non-circular properly basic belief(s) for your whole paradigm?"

"My position is openly circular at the paradigmatic level. All paradigms are ultimately, when the analysis is about proper justification of epistemic certitude. I have stated that repeatedly. That's not dishonest."

It is dishonest when you claim that your paradigm is the only possibly correct paradigm by way of solely self-referential claims and demand more than that of your opponent, as you always do.

As for knowing the Holy Spirit apart from evil spirits, clearly I read my Scripture and you do not, as this is laid out. I've stated this repeatedly, there is nothing subjective about the scripture I'm referring to, nothing to interpret. Prove you know what I'm talking about or shut it.

None of those 'men' are individually infallible. Certitude comes from what has been accepted by the Church as a whole, through the Holy Spirit. The Church is more than the clergy.

Yet you also claim the right to say what the Church is and is not although Jesus defined it repeatedly and your definition violates his, at the same time supporting your definition by circular claims and your claims being a bandwagon fallacy.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 11, 2020 5:23 PM  

"We have a coherent and a consistent understanding of what Jesus' Church delineation is, based on Scripture and Church tradition from His time."

No you don't, or you'd have stated it by now in a form other than circular based again on your own claims to authority rather than Jesus' words.

"You just assume that your exegesis leads to "Those actually anointed are no longer on Earth" when I'm questioning such presuppositions and you have yet to answer."

They're all no longer alive in the flesh unless I accept your apostolic succession based on your circular claims. You need to pony up better than that before you get to require anything of me.

"Let me reiterate: You are intellectually unequipped to deal with Nestorianism, because you do not understand what nature, will and person are and how these relate amongst each other."

Let me reiterate, you still have yet to even correctly support any such thing, yet alone provide good evidence, yet you claim so continually like the liar you are. You posit us as such again based on no more than your circular claims to being the proper and entire church between heaven and earth.

"There is a difference between interpretation itself and how you can justify epistemic certitude underlying any particular interpretation."

"I'm going to obfuscate behind another remove, even though I said you were wrong earlier, now I'm going to say that you can't know that you're right even though I'm in the same boat."

"No that's not what gatekeeping interpretation is."

"You can't know if you're right or not and only we can." Q.E.D: Gatekeeping, liar.

"Another dialectic that doesn't exist in the Orthodox Church."

This can only be so if your above-stated views deviate from those of the Orthodox Church, as I have shown. You are claiming that only your men can with certainty bridge the gap. Quod erat demonstrandum, liar.

I didn't say anything about judging spirits by fruits, see above. You yourself derive holiness only through your men who claim themselves chosen, appointed, anointed, and yes I can say this because you still don't know what I'm talking about as far as the Scripture telling how to test spirits.

"In which way is your particular angle on protestantism in any way more coherent or consistent?"

I don't consider it wholly evil like people such as yourself who continually speak without knowledge or even the understanding of how knowledge might be gained. Luther had excellent points, and considering them, would have held his silence had not the RCC been so corrupted. I won't pass judgement on whether or not there was "enough" corruption for Luther to need to do what he did, but it can be seen that his actions eventually resulted in the repair of much of the corruption within what called itself the RCC.

However, as with any disruption to an established power structure, a ton of ne'er-do-wells who just wanted to do as they wised attached themselves to the "revolution". Henry VIII is often mentioned as one of them, yet he was not representative of all protestants nor was he accepted by all of them, and neither were many if not all of those like him. Destruction or divorce of established power structures is always messy and detrimental in some ways, the question is whether or not what it ultimately caused it better or worse.

That is what I can say with certitude and I will say no more on it.

"You are of man yourself."

I am part of man and part a child of God. You yourself claim not only that, but the right to say that others cannot know "with certitude" whether they are or not. and that you can.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 11, 2020 6:12 PM  

"Yes. And yes. But shouldn't there ought to be a history after all this time of what the Holy Spirit has said?"

Sure, but that is propagated by men, who unfortunately are liars where God is not. I like tradition, don't get me wrong, but some traditions are evil.

Conveniently we're also told how to catch out false prophets.

"There should be a body of doctrine. Right? We should be able to agree on it?"

There's the core issue. We have one primary commandment and one secondary, absolutely all other righteous law, doctrine, and practice extrapolable from them. Unfortunately even the ongoing confusion of languages from the Tower of Babel or Satan's emulation of it precludes agreement on more complex things among large numbers of people before human capriciousness need even stick its head out the door looking to play.

To try to bring all the churches into unity on one goal much beyond the simple "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." is a fool's errand and likely in the spirit of Babylon the whore who makes the nations drunk with the wine of her adulteries. Some cannot be returned to the same communion without unacceptable compromise. We're not perfect, we do all we can, and the Lord sorts out his own.

"Would you be in a position to share more info on this part? I know of a lot of people within Orthodoxy who have cucked beliefs,"

That's about the long and short of it. A few Russian and Greek Orthodox around the SA Texas area that I can't remember the names of at this point. Strong and in your face "immigration", "refugee", and "diversity" programs to the point that I walked in the door and almost heel turned without checking to be sure it was what it looked like.

"be careful and humble to test said interpretations against that which was taught 'by word and epistle' from the Apostles themselves, who were annointed by Christ to spread the Gospel and call out those preaching false gospels."

To which status you have nothing other than your own claims. I do the best I can and thank Him for rectifying the rest. Part of doing the best I can is calling out straw men and lies.

"Great verses, I did not know about these, thanks."

I hold that he read what he wanted far beyond what is written, and recommend checking each yourself.

"2000 years of the Holy Spirit saying the same things, giving the same interpretations, the same teachings, same general forms of worship, same theology, from Jesus Himself (god-man) through the Apostles themselves (men) and those they gave teaching authority to (men), who gave it to others (men), who wrote about it, preached it, lived it, thereby reaffirming the Holy Spirit's voice on these matters, on down until today. For 2000 years."

This is true, until you say "those they gave teaching authority to". It can be seen clearly that there are both those who claim such authority who had never received it, and those who may have received such authority yet undoubtedly have now lost it if they ever had it. It is also likely that there are those who should have received such authority, or did, yet are not said by men to have received it.

"Which would hold more water in a court of law, or in the mind of any rational person? 2000 years of evidence piled up, with historical links that run all the way back to the Person of Jesus Christ Himself?"

By all means the latter, however someone's assertion that the latter supports their position is not the support of the latter for their position.

Also, what is the fascination with Watchman Nee? He's been brought up incessantly and I don't know why.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 11, 2020 10:09 PM  

@166
"responding with nothing but intentionally out of context Scriptural quotes"
Just another assumption of how to interpret the context on your part.

"Priests"
Really, you can't find any priestly authority in the Scripture?

"Canon?"
You're avoiding the question. Since you don't claim to be under the traditions of either protestants or the RCs, on what basis can you know that you have the right canon?
Why should the Revelation to John be in the canon and not out of it like Enoch, and as it was indeed for centuries? On what basis can you know that it is even inspired as opposed to the various other Revelations?
The problem is that you can't properly justify what the Scriptures are or if the Holy Spirit is ever present for you to hear.
You ought to leave everything blank if you were to realize what you can't know under your presuppositions.

"Epistemology?"
The Orthodox Faith is an ontological relationship between man and God, and it serves as a necessary condition for any possibility of coherent knowledge at all.

"Jesus is the Truth, we see through a glass darkly never knowing anything except what God makes revealed to us."
That's avoiding the question again. You still haven't justified how your interpretation of revelation can be known to be correct.
All you have done is appeal to your interpretation of Scripture in order to prove you being correct in your interpretation of Scripture.


"As for knowing the Holy Spirit apart from evil spirits, clearly I read my Scripture and you do not,"
Nothing to interpret? Are you really so philosophically naive as to think that you as a fallible subject are not subject to presuppositions when reading Scripture?
I'm not questioning what you read and what you didn't. You're just assuming that you're interpretation of Scripture is correct about testing the Spirit, upon which all of your interpretation and therefore your epistemic grounding depends on. You don't see the Irony? No you probably don't.

Any clever and educated atheist will run laps around you for being so philosophically inept as to claim "nothing to interpret".

"Jesus defined it repeatedly and your definition violates his,"
It only violates your personal interpretation of Scripture. It is difficult for you to abstract the issue to the paradigm level.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 11, 2020 10:09 PM  

@167
"No you don't"
Whatever Scripture I can and have quoted is automatically filtered through your own paradigmatic authority to declare the exegesis wrong. Hence I question your paradigm as a whole.

"Let me reiterate, you still have yet to even correctly support any such thing,"
Well on that basis neither have you demonstrated me being wrong earlier. You just assume you have by quoting me. But you clearly have no idea what I mean by will in a Theological context.
It's not my duty to hold your hand when you haven't bothered to do your homework.

"Gatekeeping"
Outside of the Church and it's world view you cannot give a coherent account for any knowledge at all. You can land on correct exegesis but you can't fundamentally give a coherent justification for it.
The "remove" is the distinction required to comprehend why I'm not in the same boat as you.

"This can only be so if your above-stated views deviate from those of the Orthodox Church."
If by 'men' you only mean the clergy, then no you're wrong. If by 'men' you mean the faithful as a whole, then yes.
The Church is more than the clergy.

"I don't consider it wholly evil like people such as yourself"
I never said protestantism was wholly evil.

"I am part of man and part a child of God."
I strongly doubt that we share the same claim as children of God - in meaning - as you.

"You yourself claim not only that, but the right to say that others cannot know "with certitude" whether they are or not."
Others cannot give a coherent account for any knowledge at all, because of their presuppositions as I have demonstrated with your world view.

Blogger James Lovebirch May 12, 2020 12:03 AM  

Azure, the inconsistency I think others are trying to show you is that you are dismissing the orthodox succession on the basis that they are just men while tacitly holding up your own judgement even though you also are just a man. If you were being truly consistent within your paradigm, you would acknowledge that you are in the same state of epistemic depravity (in no position to know anything with certainty) that you accuse us of being in, and the debate would be over.

Certainly I think there are a million valid reasons to reject the succession of the Romanists. I believe it is easy to prove they strayed from the beliefs of the first Christians. I don't think that is so easy with the Orthodox. And if ALL successions of teachers who were taught by God in the flesh have fallen away, if God does not safeguard his teachings on Earth in perpetuity, there is no reason to believe you in isolation with no connection to Jesus could possibly be in a better position to know anything than us. You'd have to posit you are more free from sin or superior to everyone else in some way like that for that to begin to make sense.

This is what we mean by justification. We are taught by the teachers who were taught by God in the flesh. Our God providentially does not fail to preserve his teachings in toto, and he also does not choose the wrong time to come to Earth to impart those teachings (that is, a time when man is so wicked he would universally discard the teachings; this is how our free will can be preserved). At the same time, we believe that no single man is infallible and many have fallen away. Our faith is not placed in man, it is placed in God.

While our paradigm is equally circular to all other paradigms, it is coherent and can be proved transcendentally, by the impossibility of the contrary. If God does not reveal himself to us and also safeguard his revelation on Earth, no epistemically justified knowledge of God is possible. Humanity would be up a creek.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 12, 2020 12:45 AM  

@Azure Amaranthe

A Greek church being so isn't surprising, they is currently a war raging for the soul of their church. A Russian one, that would be quite a surprise if Globohomo made its way into a congregation, their bishops are known for being the strictest, if not too strict if that could be a thing.

I'm in Central Texas, if you'd ever want to talk in real life, let me know. I do have the same name on social galactic. Real life is the place to talk about such things, not our host's comment sections.

Blogger James Lovebirch May 12, 2020 5:28 AM  

Azure, let me give a different example of what I mean by epistemic justification.

If we have a jar of red and white jellybeans, I ask you how many of each kind are in there. You say 12 red, 10 white. I say you're right and ask how do you know that? You say it was a lucky guess. You were right, but you weren't justified in claiming that was really knowledge. If you said you counted, that would be adequate epistemic justification in this case

I mentioned in order for us to know of God, he must reveal himself to us and his revelation must be preserved through time. I doubt I would argue with you on how we would account for him revealing himself. That would be the events of the Old Testament and then the incarnation.

Where I think your paradigm breaks down is what happened in the 2000 years after the incarnation. How did true knowledge of God pass down from Jesus through time to you? I outlined my account of this process which in my opinion is coherent and historically supported.

You can quibble with me on the history or accuse me of altering the original teachings, but if my account is true, it is an adequate epistemic justification for any statement about God or Christianity I would make as long as such a statement accords with the teachings preserved in that process. It is the authority I make claims on.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 12, 2020 8:45 AM  

Fascinating thread.

I chimed in, but I am the only Catholic on the thread ... current, post-Vatican II Catholic.

My spiritual journey really began with AA (which is a general belief in God and you can define as you like, which both served as an entrance way to a spiritual life but I couldn't stop calling BS on the idea that I got to define God).

I passed through an intense phase of Hindu meditation and then Buddhism (a total of 3 years), in which I encountered many profound spiritual experiences.

In the interests of open-mindedness, I gave charismatic Christianity a fair hearing and went to "experience" it. Hard to explain what happened next, but it was like something blew the cap off my mind, body, and soul.

I discovered, the hard way, that there is a spiritual war going on, and what I believe I experienced was a personal demon who had been specifically assigned to deceive me throughout my life and then carry me to hell--and that everything had been going according to this demon's plan until I stumbled onto this Christian group.

The Christian prayers and specifically a commitment I started to make to have faith in Christ simply blew the lid off the whole deception.

Following this, I was in a wilderness for years. I did not become Protestant because I did not know what grounds I had for interpreting Scripture -- there was a hermeneutical problem, being that I do not know Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew ... and it would take my whole life to figure out what the Scriptures say, which seemed to me to be missing the point about what Jesus said. Plus, Jesus founded a Church; He didn't write a book.

That left Catholic and Orthodox. (The Anglicans are hopeless.) The initial choice I made was practical. Orthodox churches tend to be few and far between in the U.S.; they tend to be heavily ethnic. As both churches acknowledge each other's priesthood and sacraments (regardless of what Trello says), I stuck with the Catholic Church.

I became Catholic and love God, practice the rosary and chaplet of divine mercy, and other devotions, including adoration, which has helped me have faith in Christ.

During RCIA, I received a grace--not just a moment of illumination, but like someone flipped a switch--that set me free from pornography addiction. Literally, lifelong problem snuffed out. This was not the only moment of grace ... there have been thousands.

You can interpret these things as you wish. Perhaps I am still deceived. To make my best epistemological take, I look to the tradition of the church ... as well as to what I have known through my own experience. Where they align, I must be on to something.

But I what I believe is that while we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. So my Protestant friends experience the Holy Spirit, absolutely no doubt, and of course the Orthodox, being a true church according to my Catholic faith, have the Holy Spirit and sacramental grace. I am prepared for the idea that many are saved, or few are saved. I have no idea.

What I do know if we will be judged on our love and on our faith--not a theology test (which does not permit us the luxury of saying orthodoxy is not important, only that we can have a division of labor about such things). God bless those who have dived into the details of Christology of the 1st first ecumenical councils ... that's not quite my charism, if I have one.

That's enough. I have to go to work.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 14, 2020 8:56 AM  

"Azure, the inconsistency I think others are trying to show you is that you are dismissing the orthodox succession on the basis that they are just men while tacitly holding up your own judgement even though you also are just a man."

Stop pulling shit out of your ass or accepting shit pulled out of Dan's ass. I've neither said nor implied the above anywhere, nor is it logically the necessary extrapolation of what I have said.

I'm holding the Holy Spirit, as tested to determine veracity according to the Scriptures, up as sufficient. That is all. The straw men keep flying at me about it being my judgement because they can't accept that their men are not mentioned in Scripture as necessary for this purpose. They have to frame it as "it's just your judgement and our men are better" because they themselves are dependent on precisely nothing more than the judgement of men plus bandwagon fallacy/appeal to tradition fallacy/circular reasoning of claims.

This is my second to last statement in this topic, there being nothing of further value in teaching, correcting, or training possible here.

My last is that Dan not only still lacks a basic grasp of logic, but is constitutionally incapable of acquiring one due to his investment.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 15, 2020 2:21 PM  

I'm late in adding this to this post, but as I said, the RCC is in the midst of a civil war. And some of the primary weapons involve art--how each side portrays Christ.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts