*Setting aside the Ottomans' claim to be the inheritors of the Eastern Roman imperial tradition via defeat of the last Roman emperor, which would not have been respected by Christians in the West in any case
Both the Roman Catholic Church Councils of Lyon (the second Council of Lyon) and Florence had Eastern Orthodox bishops in attendance and both had the support of the Byzantine Emperors. What do the Eastern Orthodox, whether clergy or laity, think generally about those councils? Not necessarily in terms of their validity but in terms of the validity of what they teach and with regards to the Orthodox who participated? Are the Orthodox who accepted them seen as heretical?
Divorce
Duggar’s: stay with your Spouse no matter what the circumstances. Your spouse comes before your children.
My upbringing: seek counseling when Marital problems arise. Divorce when your spouse is abusive, cheating, a pedophile, etc.
Hairstyles
Duggar’s: only long hair for women, ugly teased curls.
My upbringing: whatever hairstyle I f*cking wanted. Short, long, bang, pixie, my hair, my decision. I wasn’t allowed to dye it until I was 14 but that was Bc my parents wanted to protect it and keep it healthy.
Modesty
Duggar’s: no skin visible whatsoever, put those evil collarbones away.
My upbringing: nothing cheeky, no cleavage, no otherwise anything is acceptable.
Dating
Duggar’s: ...don’t get me started
My upbringing: I date whoever I want, whenever I want. My parents only want to meet the person so they know who to look for in case of an emergency.
Hello my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. My question is truly an earnest one and I am here in good faith.
The entirety of my experience thus far is based solely on personal internet conversation or observance, as I've so far only had the pleasure of meeting a singular Orthodox Christian which was, funnily enough, at a talk given by a Catholic priest at a seminary.
Of course you lot view the Roman Catholic church as the schismatic one and we feel the opposite. That said, there seems to be a lot of unresolved anger that those in the Orthodoxy hold against us that we don't share.
Firstly, you are permitted, as per our reckoning, to receive communion in a Roman church, but this and the inverse is strictly forbade in Orthodoxy.
There also seems to be a general consensus that the Catholic church is infiltrated by evil and heresy and as such, I've seen many Orthodox believers say that the schism will never heal, that referring to one another as [fallen away] brothers in Christ is disingenuous and wrong, that the Pope is a heretic, amongst other things.
Let me summate. My question is this: why is there a seemingly one sided disdain for the other half between our two churches?
I had asked a similar question before in the Anglican sub-Reddit and now I’m curious what common threads the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches have in terms of Worship and Mass service?
Are their churches that place emphasis on “Anglo-Catholicism” or their roots in the RCC who are live-streaming?
On an unrelated note, in addition to St. Thomas’s Choral Evensong service, what are some other churches that have an excellent evensong service who are live-streaming that I should look into?
When people think about John Paul II, they associate him with just conservatism in the Roman Catholic Church. And that is, partly true. I say partly because he did not fit into the Western liberal/conservative boxes during his tenure as a religious leader. So here are some facts about Pope John Paul II that might surprise people when it comes to his record.
(i)He strongly denounced the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
- During his dying days when President Bush was preparing for the Iraq War John Paul and the Vatican were some of the loudest opponents of it. His opposition was so prominent that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. He opposition also lead to a strange situation where Osama Bin Laden actually told Al Qaeda operatives not target Catholic Churches when they engaged in their terrorist activities because John Paul's anti war stance was noted.
(ii)He was a strong supporter of the Anti Apartheid struggle
- At a time when other conservative leaders in the West had supported the South African government for geopolitical reasons because of the Cold War, John Paul II supported the anti apartheid forces and actually participated in the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. This opposition was noted by Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela who praised his anti apartheid stances and developed a close friendship with him.
(iii)He strongly opposed the American embargo against Cuba
- You would think that John Paul, the ardent anti communist from Poland, would be for U.S sanctions on Cuba which is a communist state. Actually no. He strongly denounced it, and most sanctions, seeing them as harmful to people in the developing world. He even was able to convince President Bill Clinton to ease the Cuban Embargo in 1998 so that Cuba could get important medical assistance during a Hurricane and also help with their economic situation.
- In turn, because of John Paul's diplomacy, he played a major role in changing Fidel Castro's mind on religion. Initially after the Cuban revolution religion was banned for political reasons. After meeting John Paul in 1992 freedom of religion was guaranteed on the island in 1992. Castro also developed surprisingly a close affinity with John Paul and actually mourned his death in 2005. Despite them having radically different ideologies.
(iv)He played a major role in helping end the genocide in East Timor
- East Timor was under an American backed Indonesian occupation of its island from 1975 to 1999 which resulted in the m
I'm a Reformed Christian who's engaged to an ex-Reformed Roman Catholic. When we started dating we were on the same page theologically but now we can't find any common ground on key doctrines, such as justification and salvation. I have a strong feeling that our marriage won't fare well if we are unable to settle our differences. What makes matters worse is that I have been unable to find spiritual counsel from my own pastor. Reformed Christians who have Catholic spouses, how do you deal with such doctrinal differences? How do you arrange your children's spiritual formation?
I had asked a question regarding the Personal Ordinariate in /r/AskAPriest but only my question regarding the term "Anglo-Catholicism" was answered.
How did former Pope Benedict XVI and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams work together for the benefit of the Personal Ordinariate itself?
How is the liturgy different and what is "borrowed" if I can use that word from the BCP?
What about the influence of the "Oxford Movement" / St. John Henry Newman on the PO as a whole?
This last question is unrelated but are their PO churches and/or Cathedrals with an all male boys choir similar to The Choir Of Kings College Cambridge?
What is typical for Eastern Catholics when visiting a Roman Catholic parish, whether a one off or maybe a regular thing (e.g. weekday Divine Liturgy is not offered locally but weekday Roman mass is)? "Do as the Romans do" while in a Roman parish, e.g. crossing from left to right, kneel before entering the pew, kneel/sit/stand when they kneel/sit/stand, etc.? Say the filioque in the Creed?
Calvin's Institutes IV.15.16-17
- Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to
)