The Roman Orthodox

Amateur philosopher, lawyer, teacher of ancient wisdom. All tweets are in my own personal capacity and not in my professional role as an attorney.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@MethodMinistry You can, because the West had essentially abandoned the original Christian experience about 400 years before.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@redeemed_zoomer Bad take.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@USATrackAIPAC I'm not sure you read my actual reply...

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

Again, both of those passages just indicate the fulfillment of the saying of Christ that the Father "will send" the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, in the name of the Son.

There is no debate, really. The Vatican views the issue as essentially moot and part of the divide between Eastern and Western "expressions" of Christianity. The Orthodox state that the Pope had no authority to change the Creed. To decide between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, western Catholic apologetics really isn't going to help you.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

(A) Science doesn't require belief, other than of one's own senses. Science is an action and an area of study. (B) The Scriptures are not so clear on this topic that alternative hermeneutics can't accommodate scientific theories and conclusions. We also don't have to assume that we can know everything about the interaction between the physical world and the spiritual world.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

So, if all of the Biblical quotations that you give are temporal, in what sense do they reveal an eternal procession? Also, if confession of the "filioque" in the Creed is not necessary to the unity of the Church, why would we include it in the same? Even the Catholic Church sees it as optional.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

Something that tends to happen to us in such processes is that we start to exclude sources that disagree with us. I think you would find that more academic Orthodox scholarship and Catholic scholarship tend to converge on some similar conclusions about the early Church: its conciliarity, the growth of papal claims as the West became more isolated (which makes sense, if you think about it), and the relatively recent de-Latinization of the East (including the Orthodox) from the 19th century onward. What none of it is consistent with, however, is a Vatican 1 conception of the Papacy. So, it strikes me that you can either be a liberal Catholic, and therefore out of step with the apologists, or Orthodox.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@bannedpastor God's word is not limited to the Bible. Also, he said "conditioned" which is different in meaning from "based on."

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@redeemed_zoomer I have met and known many this way. To put it in their line of reasoning, they believe that the Catholic Church is a fully internally logical system. They don't want to trade it for an illogical system if they discover that what they believe is materially untrue.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@templarsareback @redeemed_zoomer Not.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@BaptistBen316 It can be a religious title, as here, but this is not a restriction on religious titles. It is a restriction on pride, stated expensively to prove the point that the only point of any of these jobs is to put people in contact with God and not to aggrandize oneself.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@DavidAn1611 @sanderson1611 They also worshipped in the temple. And, they pretty quickly adapted their spaces to Christian worship, as the archeological record demonstrates.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

Jesus never states that he is referring to a religious title. He just says "Call no man father upon earth..." Sure, Jesus's words would make sense in isolation: call no man, whatsoever, father. But with the rest of the Bible, they must be read as hyperbolic or expressive language. His point is that God is to be preferred to any human relationship. Considering what he was asking his followers to give up, that is fair. And Elisha is actually a really good example, because he both referred to others as father as a religious matter and was referred to as such. In fact "father" is not really a religious title; it is a term of affection. In my own communion the official title of a Priest is just "Priest" or "Presbyteros." "Father" is a term of affection that can also, at times be applied to people who are not priests but are ones spiritual elders or guides.

You are trying to read Jesus's words in contradiction to the rest of the Bible or, as the video you shared, attempting to undermine the rest of the Bible to fit your man-made doctrines.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@BaptistBen316 No. Who does Paul call father in Romans 4? And Elisha in 2 Kings 2? Also, provide the citation where Jesus specifies ordination.

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@BaptistBen316 So, if Paul calls someone "father" in Scripture, that part of Scripture represents his sin? Also, is this prescription only applicable to people in the New Testament, or did it apply to people in the Old Testament?

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@renewingprotest So, the Catholic Church is the delivery man for God's word? How do you know you got all of it?

[The Roman Orthodox @Roman_Orthodox]

@rickbrennanjr For how many centuries were Christians "sacerdotalists"?