What is one substantial ideological difference between orthodox christianity and catholicism beyond architecture...

Aside from customs/cultural history? Very little difference, mostly relating to the pope's authority and a couple of barely noticeable theological points. Hardcore is a terrible way of looking at it, even aside from prizing "hardcore" over actual devotion, you can find holy people even in some of the craziest sects around.
Catholics only diddle kids more than any other religious group if you take mainstream media at face value. They do less than protestant ministers or schoolteachers. It's a scandal, yes, but not in any way unique. (Yes, the administrative hiding of it is as universal as abuse in general)
More of that difference is down to the individuals or groups looked at, maybe some minor cultural points. Catholics would not reject the examples you mentioned, nor would the Orthodox reject Catholic ascetics or martyrs. Presenting it as some kind of spectrum from barely-practicing to Catholic to Orthodox is mistaken.

>Related, Orthodoxy was never tied to one political entity, or at least not nearly as much.
The Eastern 'Roman' Empire or Byzantium as it was later called would like a word with you. You know, the empire that lost everything but to some McOrthodox apologist like to pretend it isn't nearly as a big as deal as it actually is to anyone on the outside.

What he means to say and what you're ignoring is that Rome was never conquered by Muslims and Rome or the Vatican City is not still Catholic but it's own sovereign entity while the Bishop of Constantinople has to be citizen of Turkey and cant even pray in Hagia Sophia was converted into a Mosque and now a museum.

From what I can see through my pleb eyes is that, for one, is that the Virgin Mary doesn't like to appear to them and some Orthodox claim some of the Marian apparitions to be some kind of 'romanist', 'frankish', and other westernphobic terms that only became semi-popular in their circles a mere few years ago.

Attached: 1556263268202.jpg (818x1024, 52K)

The Orthos have had a few Marian apparitions. There was one in Egypt in the 1960s that was seen by a lot of people. But you're right that the Orthodox Church does not seem to have done anything substantial with their Marian apparitions. Meanwhile, every Catholic on Earth knows about Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and Our Lady of Lourdes. I feel like this is an aspect of the differing approaches to Mary between the two Churches. Catholics adore Mary in a way Orthodox do not, so they accept the Virgin's intrusions into the world in a way the Orthodox do not.

Attached: 5925449.jpg (568x935, 108K)

between regular catholicism and orthodoxy, there is no difference except orthodox dont recognize popes authority
in traditional catholicism theres a shitton of differences
traditional catholicism is the most hardcore
then orthodoxy
regular catholicism is dogshit
>why the Pope speaks from the mouth of a serpent with a hellish statue behind him
im not sure either, modern architecture is hideous and satanic
>Also why do Catholics diddle kids so much
its a common misconception, we diddle kids at the same rate as other religions, we just try to cover it up way more than others

yes, they dont have the same level of marian devotion, even in their liturgy and religious practices mary is way more absent
also they are more iconoclastic

>Orthodox would be more likely to just endure even the worst of tortures before budging as much as a word in their faith.
this is why i was more drawn to Christianity in general but I dont know much about Orthodoxy. The legend of Kitezh is Russian so i assume it has to do with Orthodoxy and it is my favorite myth ever.

make a general thread for all your godbothering fucknuttery

you guys know that there is such a thing as eastern catholic?
sadly they have wrecked themselves with delatinization

also my favorite movie is Martyrs which is about the same thing, when she stops fighting back and tells her dead friend that she misses her and they start that soft music is my favorite thing in any movie ever. might actually watch martyrs right now though it always makes me highly emotional.

Well for starters the Orthodox Church believes in Christ, while the Catholic Church has substituted Christ for the AntiChrist

Attached: 018C03E8-AFE2-4BBB-A1A9-388B814D4511.jpg (720x544, 38K)

dude hypostasies lmaoooo

ITT: protestants shit on catholicism and praise orthodoxy thinking the grass is greener on the other side.

>would of have been
HOLY CHRIST!

Orthodox priests can marry and fug girls
Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate but usually are homos, and most pedos are homo as well

>Terry Davis
The temple OS programmer?

> you don't like us the best, youre larping!

>even in their liturgy and religious practices mary is way more absent
I've been to both, and there are way more prayers to Mary in the Orthodox Liturgy than in the Catholic liturgy.
The Catholic theology surrounding Mary is way deeper though.

How do orthodox view protestantism?

Weirdly; on the one hand they are schismatics of schismatics, so they are the enemy of my enemy in a way. We are glad they see problems in the Catholic Church, most importantly the Papacy, but we think that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water in rejecting tradition.
Protestants are a diverse bunch so a straightforward answer isn't appropriate. The Church of England for example was almost in communion with the orthodox Church after years of dialogue, but that went out the window when the Church of England decided to embrace liberalism and evangelicalism.

What about american versions like mormonism?

Orthodox bishops have to be celibate and come from a celibate tradition like a monetary; you think Orthodox bishops are homos and pedos because they chose to be celibate? Nah.... But i'd like to see you McOrthodox say that to your own authorities.

This is the difference

Attached: 1565632833301.jpg (2048x1229, 449K)

They would probably think they're as equally retarded as the Catholics do.

Filioque.
And the "status of the Pope". For Orthodox people, the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals. For Catholics, the Bishop of Rome is the leader of Christianity.
That said, I have seen Orthodox people strongly discourage Catholics of decentralizing, given modern Catholic culture.

What exactly does it mean to be first among equals? It's not necessarily true that Catholics believe the pope is the leader of Christianity. We would say the Magesterium is what leads Christianity. They're the ones who elect the pope who is the "first among equals" in the Magesterium.

>chomo weirdo
what does chomo mean in zoomer speak?

Same as Catholics do
Heresy, except it's heresey upon heresey
Yes. RIP
What
Chomo = prison slang for chimo, been around forever

chomo is prison speak for child molester

Im not even orthodox.
Obviously bishopric is the next level and requires much more responsibility and spiritual power than mere priesthood.
Catholic priests are fucking homos and you know it.

It means that all the Patriarchs are equal, the voice of Rome doesn't matter more than the voice of Moscow in a theological debate for example.
What it does confer is that in a meeting of the patriarchs the First among the equals signs the documents first, has the first say in a discussion, has the first chair etc.
The First among equals is the first in honor amongst those of equal honor.
What is currently debated is whether The First among Equals can involve himself in the jurisdiction of another patriarch or not, and if he can, to what extent he can. The dispute between Moscow and Constantinople is built around this issue.

We don't even perceive of them as Protestant, to us Mormons are a separate religion.

Lol, litteral retard. I was even going to answer to post 1.
Impolite sage. 0/10. Unworthy on mention.

Female pastors, speaking in tongues and polygamy

>mere priesthood.
Funny because all bishops are priest at their core and still function as priest but as you say at a higher level. Still doesn't change the fact that you think celibacy leads to homosexuality and pedophilia and yet I don't see you calling Orthodox bishops homos and such.
You just have a bias against Catholicism and you know it.

>inb4 lame-ass and unconvincing response from epic 4chinner.

Latin is easier, but Greek is a better language. Discuss.

I was raised Catholic and I always thought those weird American cults as being their own thing.

Not him, but at least in Brazil, a family making the weird/gay kid (if the behaviour was observed early enough) become a priest/nun was relativaly common up to some 30~40 years ago.

Got any resources to learning ancient Greek and Latin?

youtube.com/watch?v=7HNr43ObrFk

Orthodox Priests can’t get married. But, married men can become Orthodox Priests. Generally, Bishops are chosen from amongst certain celibate, monastic orders.

Is there a specific part of Christendom which demands hereditary oligarchy, and outright denigrates both the Platonist concept of true aristocracy (rule by the most able, as opposed to rule by heritage) and the modern outcome of democratic government (Kantian(?) Capitalist democracy, as well as Marxian, and Anarchic, concepts of democracy)? Aside from that, did Christ ever claim that he was the final prophet? If not, what is the argument against Islam?

textkit.com in English
If you're Spanish by any chance I have some books I can share

there is no difference

>catholics
whys that?

I’m looking for a more spiritual branch of Christianity. Is orthodox more spiritual and if so which type of orthodox is best? Personally believe the papacy has been compromised and I am not a fan of how progressive Catholicism is

Gnostics?

What the fuck are you even asking?

discord.gg/zvhahty

Absolute divine simplysiti Vs essence energy distinction in God.
It's a big point and all chatolic bullshit dogma comes form it.
And the most obvious one pope Vs no pope

Here comes the Jay Dyer drones. You guys confuse insults and forceful speaking with truth and you make Orthodoxy look bad. There is nothing in the Orthodox faith which necessitates a reaction of Thomistic divine simplicity.

The problem is the strawmanned conception of what 'absolute simplicity' entails, but that God has no parts of any sort (i.e. simple) either physical or metaphysical and enters into no composition is dogma. This is what is meant by 'absolute', in that God enters into no composition whatsoever - if He did, it would be absurd, since composites require a conjoining cause and there's nothing prior to God in the order of causation. But, as said above, being altogether simple does not undermine the real distinction between consubstantial Persons. When you have a composition between diverse principles like 'essence' and 'energy' then you have a problem with composition and this conception will fail once one asks 'who assembled this composite?' but not between consubstantial Persons, since they are not distinct in what they are, since both (considering, say, Father and Son) just are the One God, the Divine Essence, and not something other than this. Once this misconception/strawman about what 'absolutely simple' means in that it does not rule out all real distinctions whatsoever, only those which cause composition, there's not much more to say.

Furthermore, 'absolute simplicity' does not mean that the divine names and attributes are all synonyms, since names which signify under diverse aspects are not synonyms even if they (imperfectly) signify the same Divine Essence. You need both (1) signification of the same and (2) not-diverse aspects to be a 'synonym'. But many people online do not have the patience to make these subtle distinctions or read Aquinas carefully. This also not a 'merely mental/logical' distinction because this all has a foundation in the richness of the Divine Essence and its containing all perfections unitedly and super-abundantly that the finite mind can never exhaustively comprehend.

Why don't you accept the essence energy distinction, it's not hard why do you try to spin it as somting super complex we don't understand.

I literally just told you why.

>When you have a composition between diverse principles like 'essence' and 'energy' then you have a problem with composition and this conception will fail once one asks 'who assembled this composite?'

I prefer Sanskrit.

Really dude, if this is too complicated and you don't really understand it then maybe you should remain agnostic and not take a position until you've actually worked it out. Jay dyer is a bad philosopher and cunt. He is not the sort of person you want take things on authority.

Orthodox are quasi-Jewish filthy ruskies

I'm about 75% fluent in Spanish, I'll take em if you got em.

The diddling kids thing is a meme, when you take into account the size of the church relative to diddling incidents, then compare that to other large organizations, the church has basically the same amount as any other large organization, if not slightly less.
Yeah, that shit's fucked, but it ain't as bad as the media paints it to be.

On the serpent shit, that's fucking weird. They should burn that shit down. Christian architecture should be the very opposite of that.
I blame the kikes.

Don't Eastern Catholics venerate Palamas and believe in his theology? If so then the Essence Energies distinction is tacitly accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
If that is the case then the distinction between the Essence and Energy isn't really as Church Dividing as Dyer would make out. Sure it's not particularly compatible with Thomism, but to the Roman Catholic Church it seems to be accepted as a valid viewpoint.

Catholics would accept it in a sense because the distinction doesn't truly undermine the divine simplicity of Thomas Aquinas for the same reason it isn't a contradiction to say that God is 1 but also 3. The distinction would undermine the strawman version of divine simplicity that Jay Dyer think is Thomistic and that's what annoys me about him so much. He doesn't know what he's talking about yet he has his McOrthodox drones constantly running their mouth and aping him.

The difference is that Orthodoxy is national, exclusionary, non-proselytizing and you're not invited

Why do you take this dumb position that composition have to have someone who composed it. It's really dum considering you have the trinity. Stop sucking Aristotles dick.

Catholics: trotskyism
orthodox: stalinism