ℙ𝕣𝕠𝕥 ℍ𝕒𝕥𝕖
post.reposted:
ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
31.03.202508:21
26.03.202511:08
“We Orthos aren’t heretic like the Latins”
Orthos: “The prophet Mohammed is an apostle. He is a man of God, who worked for the Kingdom of God and created Islam, a religion to which belong one billion people....Our God is the Father of all men, even of the Moslems and Buddhists. I believe that God loves the Moslems and the Buddhists...When I speak against Islam or Buddhism, then I am not found in agreement with God....My God is the God of other men also. He is not only God for the Orthodox. This is my position.”
PATRIARCH PARTHENIOS OF ALEXANDRIA
(Orthodoxos Typos, Issue Number 854, Athens, Greece;
statement made in May, 1982)
Orthos: “The prophet Mohammed is an apostle. He is a man of God, who worked for the Kingdom of God and created Islam, a religion to which belong one billion people....Our God is the Father of all men, even of the Moslems and Buddhists. I believe that God loves the Moslems and the Buddhists...When I speak against Islam or Buddhism, then I am not found in agreement with God....My God is the God of other men also. He is not only God for the Orthodox. This is my position.”
PATRIARCH PARTHENIOS OF ALEXANDRIA
(Orthodoxos Typos, Issue Number 854, Athens, Greece;
statement made in May, 1982)
08.04.202517:13
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
07.04.202514:27
Ladies and Gentlemen.... I am Proud to present to you the Latest Polemical Argument against the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics.
The Argument against the Kourbania Animal Sacrifice to the saints that the Greek Schismatics perform
The Argument against the Kourbania Animal Sacrifice to the saints that the Greek Schismatics perform
31.03.202508:21
HOW TO RESPOND TO PROTESTANTS WHEN THEY SAY "CALL NO MAN FATHER ?"
Protestants Attack us When we call priests "father" . They will point to Matthew 23:9, where Jesus says, "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
However, this directive is not meant tobe taken literally in all contexts. Jesus Often used Hyperbole , and this is one of those many Instances. “Hyperbole,” For those who don't know “is an intentional exaggeration for emphasis or effect. Jesus often used it in the Gospels. In fact even in The same Gospel of Matthew in 18:21-22...
■》In the Bible, the term "father" is used in various ways, including spiritual and respectful contexts. For instance, Joseph is described as a "father to Pharaoh" (Genesis 45:8), and Elisha calls Elijah "my father" (2 Kings 2:12). In the New Testament, Stephen refers to "our father Abraham" (Acts 7:2), and Paul speaks of "our father Isaac" (Romans 9:10). Thus, calling priests "father" is a sign of respect and spiritual fatherhood, not a contradiction of Jesus' teaching.
■》Incidentally, both Old and New Testaments associate priesthood with fatherhood (cf. Judges 17:10, 18:19, and 1 Corinthians 4:15), but in this case, Jesus’ command is not violated.
■》Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Protestants Attack us When we call priests "father" . They will point to Matthew 23:9, where Jesus says, "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
However, this directive is not meant tobe taken literally in all contexts. Jesus Often used Hyperbole , and this is one of those many Instances. “Hyperbole,” For those who don't know “is an intentional exaggeration for emphasis or effect. Jesus often used it in the Gospels. In fact even in The same Gospel of Matthew in 18:21-22...
He didn’t mean that we should only forgive our brother 539 times when he told us to forgive others seven times 77 times as in Matthew 18:21-22.” SUCH WOULD MEAN WE ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE WHO KEEP COUNT OF EVERY PARDONED SIN .😁
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for OTHERWISE ALL CHRISTIANS WOULD BE BLIND AMPUTEES ! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15).
■》In the Bible, the term "father" is used in various ways, including spiritual and respectful contexts. For instance, Joseph is described as a "father to Pharaoh" (Genesis 45:8), and Elisha calls Elijah "my father" (2 Kings 2:12). In the New Testament, Stephen refers to "our father Abraham" (Acts 7:2), and Paul speaks of "our father Isaac" (Romans 9:10). Thus, calling priests "father" is a sign of respect and spiritual fatherhood, not a contradiction of Jesus' teaching.
■》Incidentally, both Old and New Testaments associate priesthood with fatherhood (cf. Judges 17:10, 18:19, and 1 Corinthians 4:15), but in this case, Jesus’ command is not violated.
■》Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
27.03.202513:59
God is a *knowable mystery. We will never exhaust* His essence-but we will *truly behold and know it* in heaven. Even in this life, we know Him really, though imperfectly
××××××××××××××××××××
*Orthodox (Palamite) Theology:
### ‼️ Key Points: 👇👇
★1). *No one-NOT EVEN IN HEAVEN-can ever know or see God's Essence.*
★2). All interaction with God is through His energies, not His essence.
★3). Deification (*theosis*) is union with the *uncreated energies, but not with the essence* of God.
★4). This is used to preserve God's *transcendence and unknowability, but it risks positing metaphysical division* within God.
★★RESULT ‼️:
God remains forever hidden in His essence, even for the saints in glory. The beatific vision, as understood in Catholicism, is denied. Saints experience the light of Tabor, not the essence of God.
×××××××××××××××××××××××××
××××××××××××××××××××
*Orthodox (Palamite) Theology:
God's Essence Is Absolutely Unknowable-Now and Forever*
Following *St. Gregory Palamas* (14th c.), Eastern Orthodoxy developed a *real distinction* between:
- God's *essence* (*ousia*) utterly and eternally *unknowable*
- God's *energies* (*energeiai*) - *uncreated operations* by which God manifests Himself to creation
### ‼️ Key Points: 👇👇
★1). *No one-NOT EVEN IN HEAVEN-can ever know or see God's Essence.*
★2). All interaction with God is through His energies, not His essence.
★3). Deification (*theosis*) is union with the *uncreated energies, but not with the essence* of God.
★4). This is used to preserve God's *transcendence and unknowability, but it risks positing metaphysical division* within God.
★★RESULT ‼️:
God remains forever hidden in His essence, even for the saints in glory. The beatific vision, as understood in Catholicism, is denied. Saints experience the light of Tabor, not the essence of God.
×××××××××××××××××××××××××
26.03.202508:01
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
20.03.202508:10
St Basil himself says that the creed of Constantinople 381 added to the nicene creed and even was open to additions about the incarnation.
Well well well, I guess the consensus of fathers support the addition of the Filioque after all
Well well well, I guess the consensus of fathers support the addition of the Filioque after all
08.04.202517:11
Random prots who don't know anything are Just resurfacing the Ancient heresies which our Holy Mother church had In the Past multiple times Refuted . We will refute them again .
29.03.202515:24
Most Sane Protestant "Pastor"
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
27.03.202513:59
Why This Matters:
- Catholicism teaches a God who is *intimately knowable, even in His mystery-who lifts us into direct communion* with His very Being.
-whereas The Orthodox Palamite view *locks God away* behind an eternal metaphysical veil. Theosis becomes interaction with what God does, but not union with who God is.
That's not the God of Moses, who said "I AM"*, or of Christ, who said *"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
> + "This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." - John 17:3
> *"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; THEN I SHALL KNOW FULLY, even as I am fully known."*
> - *1 Corinthians 13:12 (RSV-CE)*
### + What This Implies:
"Now... dimly": In this life, our knowledge of God is limited, mediated by faith, symbols, and grace.
"Then... face to face": In glory, we will behold God directly, not merely His effects or energies.
- *"I shall know fully": Paul isn't saying he'll become omniscient, but that his knowledge of God Himself* will be complete in its mode, appropriate to a creature united to God by grace.
This verse *flatly contradicts the Palamite idea that God's essence is forever unknowable even in eternity. Paul speaks of *a future state* where the veil is removed and the soul sees God Himself-face to face.
> As St. John says: *"We shall see Him as He is."* *1 John 3:2*
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
25.03.202517:21
Our divine Redeemer has established only one visible Church in this world. That Church is the one indivisible, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The individuals, which make up the Universal Church should be one in faith, in the sacraments and governance. She shines in the world as the Kingdom of God unified in faith and in the sacraments and consequently as the One Spouse of Jesus Christ. In order to be unified with this Church neither you nor I, who are the children of Oriental Churches, need reject our ecclesial traditions, liturgy and our spiritual patrimony. The foundation stone of the Church, namely Peter and the architect of the Church Paul have their resting place in Rome. Holy Father Pope represents these apostles as the founding Fathers of the Church of Christ. So for you and me and for our Churches, it is necessary to remain in communion with the Church of Rome
~Venerable Mar Ivanios
(Metropolitan of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church ) in full Communion with Rome 🇻🇦
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
20.03.202508:10
Firstly , Constantinople 1 Wouldn't be an Ecumenical council unless a Pope Validated and RATIFIED IT as a Council .It would have been a Mere Synod without Papal ratification
So what gave the Orthodox easterners the right to Add the the Latter half of the Creed to the existing Nicene Creed.
(Because the Creed we recite today is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed) .
If an Orthodox considers adding one word to the Creed to be "another creed," then wouldn't removing large chunks of the original Nicene Creed also qualify as "another creed"? If an Orthodox were to retort, "But the filioque clause is heretical, so it corrupts the Creed," then the Orthodox condemn themselves for being in communion with the Western Church, which taught the filioque. As Orthodox author Edward Siecienski notes, "by the late sixth century the filioque achieved a level of acceptance in the West bordering on unanimity,.
The Numerous Church fathers accepted the Filioque as well... the Orthodox have No reason to Reject it
So what gave the Orthodox easterners the right to Add the the Latter half of the Creed to the existing Nicene Creed.
(Because the Creed we recite today is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed) .
If an Orthodox considers adding one word to the Creed to be "another creed," then wouldn't removing large chunks of the original Nicene Creed also qualify as "another creed"? If an Orthodox were to retort, "But the filioque clause is heretical, so it corrupts the Creed," then the Orthodox condemn themselves for being in communion with the Western Church, which taught the filioque. As Orthodox author Edward Siecienski notes, "by the late sixth century the filioque achieved a level of acceptance in the West bordering on unanimity,.
The Numerous Church fathers accepted the Filioque as well... the Orthodox have No reason to Reject it
08.04.202517:11
Ammo for arguments against prots
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
05.04.202510:07
🔸Where’s praying to saints in the Bible? Sirach 48:4-11, 2 Maccabees 15:12-15, Tobit 12:12
🔸Where’s indulgences in the Bible? 2 Maccabees 12:42
🔸Where’s purgatory in the Bible? 2 Maccabees 12:45
🔸Where's the immaculate conception in the Bible? Wisdom 1:4
🔸Where’s free will in the Bible? Sirach 15:11-20
🔸Where’s indulgences in the Bible? 2 Maccabees 12:42
🔸Where’s purgatory in the Bible? 2 Maccabees 12:45
🔸Where's the immaculate conception in the Bible? Wisdom 1:4
🔸Where’s free will in the Bible? Sirach 15:11-20
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
28.03.202504:02
The Hail Mary is actually Biblical😁.
The entire teachings of the church has foundation in scripture.
The entire teachings of the church has foundation in scripture.
post.reposted:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
27.03.202513:59
WHY THE CATHOLIC POSITION IS CORRECT ❤️ and why the EASTERN ORTHODOX are wrong
*What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches:*
> *St. Thomas Aquinas (ST I, q. 12, a.1):*
> "We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not; and how other beings stand in relation to Him."
YET in a.12, he also affirms:
> "By grace, we do know God Himself, though not perfectly."
So:
- *We don't comprehend* God (that's total grasp).
- *But we can know* real truths about Him-even aspects of His essence (e.g., that He is Being Itself, Truth Itself, Goodness Itself).
××××××××××××××××××××××××
> *Denzinger 1000 (Council of Vienne):*
> "The soul truly sees the divine essence."
(Though not in this life, except through extraordinary mystical grace.)
××××××××××××××××××××××××××
> *CCC 43:*
> "Even when He reveals Himself, God remains a mystery beyond words: 'If you understood Him, it would not be God."
But also:
> *CCC 36:*
> "God... can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason."
> *CCC 299:*
> "God created everything according to His wisdom. Hence creation reflects His truth and goodness... and is destined for His glory."
These are statements about *God's essence* being *partially knowable**, since we know that God *is Wisdom, Truth, Goodness, etc.
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
●》So what's the issue with Palamite theology? 👇
*Catholic Teaching: We Can Truly Know God's Essence, Though Not Comprehensively*
The Catholic Church holds to *divine simplicity**:
*Key Points:*
★). *God's essence is real and knowable-though never fully comprehensible.*
- We can know that God is and what He is*, by **analogy* and *grace* (not univocally, and not exhaustively).
- By grace (especially in the *beatific vision), the soul is elevated* to see God's *essence directly* (cf. *ST I, q.12*).
★2). *Revealed names of God (Wisdom, Love, Truth, Justice)* reflect His essence, not just operations or effects.
★3). *Grace is a real created participation in the divine nature* (2 Peter 1:4), giving us true knowledge of God, even now.
★4). *The beatific vision* is the direct vision of God's essence, as defined at:
- *Council of Florence (Denz. 693)*
- *Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):*
> "They see the divine essence with an intuitive and face-to-face vision, without the mediation of any creature..."
Result:👇👇
*What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches:*
1). *God's essence is not *comprehensible** But it is *knowable analogically and TRULY.*
> *St. Thomas Aquinas (ST I, q. 12, a.1):*
> "We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not; and how other beings stand in relation to Him."
YET in a.12, he also affirms:
> "By grace, we do know God Himself, though not perfectly."
So:
- *We don't comprehend* God (that's total grasp).
- *But we can know* real truths about Him-even aspects of His essence (e.g., that He is Being Itself, Truth Itself, Goodness Itself).
××××××××××××××××××××××××
2). *We know God's essence by participation* Sanctifying grace gives us a *created participation in the *divine nature* (2 Peter 1:4). That includes the *intellective vision* of God in heaven (*beatific vision*) and *true supernatural knowledge* of God now.
> *Denzinger 1000 (Council of Vienne):*
> "The soul truly sees the divine essence."
(Though not in this life, except through extraordinary mystical grace.)
××××××××××××××××××××××××××
3). *The Catechism affirms both mystery and real knowledge*
> *CCC 43:*
> "Even when He reveals Himself, God remains a mystery beyond words: 'If you understood Him, it would not be God."
But also:
> *CCC 36:*
> "God... can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason."
> *CCC 299:*
> "God created everything according to His wisdom. Hence creation reflects His truth and goodness... and is destined for His glory."
These are statements about *God's essence* being *partially knowable**, since we know that God *is Wisdom, Truth, Goodness, etc.
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
●》So what's the issue with Palamite theology? 👇
Eastern Orthodoxy (esp. via *Gregory Palamas) asserts a real distinction* between: God's *essence* (utterly unknowable) - God's *energies* (uncreated but knowable)
Catholicism agrees with the *mystery, but rejects a real metaphysical distinction* within God-since that would violate divine simplicity.
Instead, Catholic theology sees these as *virtual* or *rational distinctions* based on how creatures *experience God, not divisions *in God Himself. The Catholic Church teaches that while we cannot fully comprehend God's essence, we do know real truths about it-especially that He is *Being itself*, *Goodness itself*, *Wisdom itself*. These aren't created intermediaries or mere effects-they are who God is, and we can know this truly, albeit imperfectly. To say otherwise is to make God utterly unknowable, which collapses into agnosticism or apophatic despair**-which the Fathers *never taught*.
NOW here's a *clear, forceful contrast* between the *Catholic* and *Eastern Orthodox* positions regarding God's Essence, what we can know about Him, and the implications for theology and spirituality:
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
*Catholic Teaching: We Can Truly Know God's Essence, Though Not Comprehensively*
The Catholic Church holds to *divine simplicity**:
God is not composed of parts, energies, or attributes added onto an essence-**He is* His essence (e.g., *Deus est Ipsum Esse Subsistens*, "God is Being Itself").
*Key Points:*
★). *God's essence is real and knowable-though never fully comprehensible.*
- We can know that God is and what He is*, by **analogy* and *grace* (not univocally, and not exhaustively).
- By grace (especially in the *beatific vision), the soul is elevated* to see God's *essence directly* (cf. *ST I, q.12*).
★2). *Revealed names of God (Wisdom, Love, Truth, Justice)* reflect His essence, not just operations or effects.
★3). *Grace is a real created participation in the divine nature* (2 Peter 1:4), giving us true knowledge of God, even now.
★4). *The beatific vision* is the direct vision of God's essence, as defined at:
- *Council of Florence (Denz. 693)*
- *Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):*
> "They see the divine essence with an intuitive and face-to-face vision, without the mediation of any creature..."
Result:👇👇
20.03.202505:19
Pagans will always LOSE
Показано 1 - 24 из 59
Войдите, чтобы разблокировать больше функциональности.