Topic: The Catholic church is so decentralized and lax, it's no different than protestantism.
Anonymous A started this discussion 21 hours ago #132,895
There are parishes that take part in pride parades, and there are convents of nuns that openly say it's transphobic to not affirm someone's gender identity. About 2/3 of Catholic say they support same sex marriage, and half say gender transition should be up to the parents.
It's meaningless that a central leader issues doctrine if many of the people just ignore it.
Wearing traditional clothes and embracing every fad that passes through the world is just LARPing.
It's meaningless that a central leader issues doctrine if many of the people just ignore it.
Wearing traditional clothes and embracing every fad that passes through the world is just LARPing.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 21 hours ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,417,713
Protestantism is called Protestantism because Protestants protest Catholicism. Catholicism and Protestantism are fundamentally incompatible with each other, and no Protestant or Catholic worth their salt would ever say that they’re the same.
Anonymous B double-posted this 21 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,715
The word Catholic means universal. Catholics believe that there is only one church founded by Jesus and that every other church is false created by humans instead of by God. Catholics will never accept any other church as legitimate and accept Protestantism.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 21 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,716
Honestly, when I studied the history of Europe, the Catholic Church from my point of view is absolutely the original Christian church more so than any other.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 21 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,717
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 21 hours ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,718
@1,417,715 (B)
How is it "universal" when a parish or convent decides to toss out doctrine and make their own truth?
That's moral relativism, not theological universalism.
How is it "universal" when a parish or convent decides to toss out doctrine and make their own truth?
That's moral relativism, not theological universalism.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 20 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,719
@previous (A)
It’s universal because no other church was founded by Jesus Christ and the bishop of Rome has primacy as the prince of the church inheritor of a position that goes back to the apostle St. Peter who was the first pope.
It’s universal because no other church was founded by Jesus Christ and the bishop of Rome has primacy as the prince of the church inheritor of a position that goes back to the apostle St. Peter who was the first pope.
Anonymous D double-posted this 20 hours ago, 53 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,720
@1,417,717 (C)
If the Anglican and Catholic Churches were exactly the same, why did the Irish fight the British for hundreds of years?
If the Anglican and Catholic Churches were exactly the same, why did the Irish fight the British for hundreds of years?
Anonymous D triple-posted this 20 hours ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,721
If the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church were the same, what was the Spanish armada all about? Did Spain try and land on the beaches of Ireland to liberate the Irish Catholics so they could revolt against the British and restore Catholicism in England because they were bored?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 20 hours ago, 20 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,724
We need to stop conservatism by becoming cafeteria Catholics!
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 16 hours ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,746
@1,417,721 (D)
Different people in power in both churches, but that doesn't mean their doctrine and traditions are very different.
Different people in power in both churches, but that doesn't mean their doctrine and traditions are very different.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 16 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,748
@previous (F)
The pope is an elected absolute monarch while the British monarchy is hereditary. At face value it might seem similar, because the Anglican Church was originally just a branch of the Catholic Church that broke off, but there’s a really huge difference in Protestant and Catholic culture.
The pope is an elected absolute monarch while the British monarchy is hereditary. At face value it might seem similar, because the Anglican Church was originally just a branch of the Catholic Church that broke off, but there’s a really huge difference in Protestant and Catholic culture.
Anonymous G double-posted this 16 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,750
The United States is mostly Protestant because it was colonized by British settlers originally (even though most white Americans are not British). A lot of American cultural values good and bad come from a Protestant worldview. So for example, looking up to wealthy people and looking down on poor people is a very Protestant idea. Generally, the Catholic belief was that poverty is a virtue and that it is difficult to become wealthy without being sinful, so it is more likely that the poor go to heaven than the rich do, and we should be charitable and humble and help the poor. Protestants believe that individuals should interpret the Bible themselves so they came up with an alternative idea that you’re predestined to go to heaven or hell from birth, and everything is predetermined so you can view your wealth as a sign you’re going to heaven. Catholics don’t believe that it’s predetermined whether you go to heaven or hell. I could go on about various things, but I wouldn’t say Catholicism is similar.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 16 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,751
The Catholic Church also has a different take on masculinity. Like, it’s a dumb stereotype but black Protestants buy into it for some reason. But you know that whole stereotype of "black men are bad fathers?" Well there’s this irony where Catholicism is very patriarchal in that women can’t become priests, and in terms of views on abortion it’s patriarchal. But it’s also less patriarchal in that Catholics venerate Mary to an extent that Protestants don’t. Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and was essentially a perfect person in the same way that Jesus was perfect only she wasn’t literally God. So Protestants have this idea that the father is the most important person in a child’s life, more so than the mother, so if a child, especially a boy lacks a father, it will throw their life in shambles. But that idea isn’t like a thing in Catholicism.
Anonymous F replied with this 16 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,752
@1,417,748 (G)
I didn't say the leaders were similar, I specifically said "different leaders" with similar doctrine and traditions.
I didn't say the leaders were similar, I specifically said "different leaders" with similar doctrine and traditions.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,753
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,754
Also purgatory is different. Catholics don’t believe that anyone has to go to hell even if they’re not Christian, they can choose to accept the forgiveness of Christ in the afterlife.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 15 hours ago, 24 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,757
Orthodoxy is probably the most similar type of Christianity to Catholicism. Although there are still some deep fundamental differences. Orthodox Christians still venerate saints from before the great schism, but they don’t declare new saints but the Catholic Church does. Then obviously Orthodox Christian’s tend to be more culturally conservative, but that’s just because they’re Eastern European mostly.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous G quadruple-posted this 15 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,758
Like if you wanted to find Catholics that support gay marriage, you might have to try a few times, but that would ultimately be pretty easy to find a handful of them. If you wanted to find some pro gay Orthodox people, that’s not going to be so easy.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 hours ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,764
Catholics aren't real Christians because they worship the pope, who is just a man.
The Bishop of Rome broke away from the rest of the church, which made the protestant reformation necessary.
Orthodox and Protestant still worship Jesus, but Romanism replaces Jesus with idols and a pantheon of saints.
The Bishop of Rome broke away from the rest of the church, which made the protestant reformation necessary.
Orthodox and Protestant still worship Jesus, but Romanism replaces Jesus with idols and a pantheon of saints.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,766
Anonymous H double-posted this 14 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,768
St. Petersburg Russia is named after St. Peter. The church in the Vatican is literally called St. Peter’s basilica. The Russians literally named a city after the first pope. Orthodox Christians don’t believe in saints has gotta be the funniest misrepresentation of Christian history I’ve heard in a while. lol
Anonymous F replied with this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,769
@1,417,766 (H)
Ask an Orthodox or Protestant Christian then.
Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome breaking away as legitimate, there were 4 other bishops of equal rank who all stayed in the same church. 1 in 5 declaring himself above the rest is not valid.
Protestants can also tell you about what the Roman Catholics were doing that necessitated a reformation.
In my experience the average orthodox is better equipped to explain the history, but if you go to a protestant church the pastor will tell you the Roman Church was corrupt.
Ask an Orthodox or Protestant Christian then.
Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome breaking away as legitimate, there were 4 other bishops of equal rank who all stayed in the same church. 1 in 5 declaring himself above the rest is not valid.
Protestants can also tell you about what the Roman Catholics were doing that necessitated a reformation.
In my experience the average orthodox is better equipped to explain the history, but if you go to a protestant church the pastor will tell you the Roman Church was corrupt.
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,770
@1,417,768 (H)
Russian Orthodoxy recognizes St. Peter, but they do not accept the idea that one Bishop headquartered in Rome is supreme above the other patriarchs.
I don't know where you are getting your information, but ask a Russian Orthodox yourself if you have the chance.
Russian Orthodoxy recognizes St. Peter, but they do not accept the idea that one Bishop headquartered in Rome is supreme above the other patriarchs.
I don't know where you are getting your information, but ask a Russian Orthodox yourself if you have the chance.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 hours ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,771
@1,417,769 (F)
This is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were both the Catholic Church before the great schism. St. Peter was the first pope who established the primacy of Rome. The Orthodox Church broke away not the other way around, that doesn’t make any sense.
This is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were both the Catholic Church before the great schism. St. Peter was the first pope who established the primacy of Rome. The Orthodox Church broke away not the other way around, that doesn’t make any sense.
Anonymous H double-posted this 14 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,772
Anonymous H triple-posted this 14 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,773
The head of the church has always been in Rome since St. Peter, he’s literally the guy who’s the reason why the Roman Catholic Church is in Rome. This idea your proposing sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 14 hours ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,774
If you actually look into it, Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church and he is also the founder of the Orthodox Churches. You can really think of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as two halves of the same original Christian church. They’re both correct that they were founded by Jesus, but St. Peter went to Rome, and that’s where he established the papacy, and there has been a continuous line of succession since then. The Roman Empire also split in half (unrelated), but we call the half of the Roman Empire that had the city of Rome in it the Roman Empire and we call the other half the Byzantine Empire. So I respect Orthodoxy, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a bit like saying the Byzantine Empire is the original Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire broke off. It’s like, idk, I just don’t think it works that way, personally.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 hours ago, 20 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,776
From a quick google search I found the term "Catholic" was first used around 100 AD, the term "Orthodox" originated around 300 AD, and the great schism happened in 1054 AD. So they were using both terms to describe the same church, but Catholic is the older term.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,777
Which kinda makes sense, both terms have sorta similar meanings. Catholic is "universal belief" Orthodox is "correct belief." It sounds like two ways to say the same thing really.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 13 hours ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,778
@1,417,774 (H)
> but it’s a bit like saying the Byzantine Empire is the original Roman Empire
I get why you might think that, but it really was the Roman Empire still! There's still a direct line of succession from all of the Eastern Emperors back to the first Emperor, Augustus. There was never a hard rupture with the West like there was with the Great Schism, neither East nor West ever actually broke off.
The Byzantine Empire did become very different over time, sure. But it's more like how one country changed over time, versus a secessionist state splitting off into its own thing.
> but it’s a bit like saying the Byzantine Empire is the original Roman Empire
I get why you might think that, but it really was the Roman Empire still! There's still a direct line of succession from all of the Eastern Emperors back to the first Emperor, Augustus. There was never a hard rupture with the West like there was with the Great Schism, neither East nor West ever actually broke off.
The Byzantine Empire did become very different over time, sure. But it's more like how one country changed over time, versus a secessionist state splitting off into its own thing.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,779
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
I disagree with that, the original capital of Rome was Rome. The only made a second capital because the empire became too difficult to manage. The Western Roman Empire was the Roman Empire and it fell when Rome fell. There’s a reason why we don’t call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire.
I disagree with that, the original capital of Rome was Rome. The only made a second capital because the empire became too difficult to manage. The Western Roman Empire was the Roman Empire and it fell when Rome fell. There’s a reason why we don’t call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,780
For example, when people talk about the fall of Rome, everybody understands that they’re not talking about the fall of Constantinople.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,781
@1,417,771 (H)
> This is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were both the Catholic Church before the great schism.
That was implied by what I wrote, so why are you acting like I said otherwise?
You seem to have no reading comprehension.
> This is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were both the Catholic Church before the great schism.
That was implied by what I wrote, so why are you acting like I said otherwise?
You seem to have no reading comprehension.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 22 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,782
They also spoke Greek not Latin, but the Greeks are Greek. They’re not Roman, they were under Roman control, but I wouldn’t call the the same really.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,783
@1,417,781 (F)
I have reading comprehension. I also have logic. It can’t be the case that the Catholic Church was the original Christian Church and the Catholic Church broke off from the Orthodox Church. It’s not possible to break off from something that wasn’t there. My statement was contradicting yours not agreeing with it.
I have reading comprehension. I also have logic. It can’t be the case that the Catholic Church was the original Christian Church and the Catholic Church broke off from the Orthodox Church. It’s not possible to break off from something that wasn’t there. My statement was contradicting yours not agreeing with it.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,784
@previous (K)
There was one church, with 5 equal patriarchs, and one patriarch broke off to form a separate church.
The names Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic were coined to differentiate the two. Which is why I just said the Bishop of Rome split off from "the church".
Once again, the thing you are arguing against here isn't something I actually said, it's something you made up in your head and then attributed to me because you can't handle being wrong.
If you are pathologically using the strawman technique, reflect on why that is and change.
There was one church, with 5 equal patriarchs, and one patriarch broke off to form a separate church.
The names Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic were coined to differentiate the two. Which is why I just said the Bishop of Rome split off from "the church".
Once again, the thing you are arguing against here isn't something I actually said, it's something you made up in your head and then attributed to me because you can't handle being wrong.
If you are pathologically using the strawman technique, reflect on why that is and change.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,785
@previous (F)
You say I’m arguing against something you didn’t actually say and then you just said what I said you said.
You say I’m arguing against something you didn’t actually say and then you just said what I said you said.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,787
@1,417,764 (F)
Let’s start with this, everything you said here is incorrect:
> Catholics aren't real Christians because they worship the pope, who is just a man.
We don’t worship the pope.
> The Bishop of Rome broke away from the rest of the church, which made the protestant reformation necessary.
The Protestant reformation was in the 1600s. The great schism was in 1054. These are two unrelated events.
> Orthodox and Protestant still worship Jesus, but Romanism replaces Jesus with idols and a pantheon of saints.
Orthodox Christians also venerate saints from before the great schism.
Let’s start with this, everything you said here is incorrect:
> Catholics aren't real Christians because they worship the pope, who is just a man.
We don’t worship the pope.
> The Bishop of Rome broke away from the rest of the church, which made the protestant reformation necessary.
The Protestant reformation was in the 1600s. The great schism was in 1054. These are two unrelated events.
> Orthodox and Protestant still worship Jesus, but Romanism replaces Jesus with idols and a pantheon of saints.
Orthodox Christians also venerate saints from before the great schism.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,788
@1,417,785 (K)
No, I never said the Orthodox Church by that name preceeded the great schism, the term refers to a specific organization, and a specific time period that started with the great schism.
I called it "the church" to refer to the early church.
I obviously implied the Orthodox faction had legitimacy compared to the Roman faction, but I never said the church prior to the great schism was called "Orthodox". You made that up, and you could quote me saying it if I really did.
Quoting me as saying the Orthodox church had legitimacy is not the same thing as me saying it was called that before the schism.
Since you're back to strawman arguments, either quote me or I'm done.
No, I never said the Orthodox Church by that name preceeded the great schism, the term refers to a specific organization, and a specific time period that started with the great schism.
I called it "the church" to refer to the early church.
I obviously implied the Orthodox faction had legitimacy compared to the Roman faction, but I never said the church prior to the great schism was called "Orthodox". You made that up, and you could quote me saying it if I really did.
Quoting me as saying the Orthodox church had legitimacy is not the same thing as me saying it was called that before the schism.
Since you're back to strawman arguments, either quote me or I'm done.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 21 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,789
I’m also just going to put it this way: half of all Christians on Earth are Catholic. Catholicism is by far the largest domination of Christianity. If you cut a slice off of a pie, and that slice is smaller than the pie, did you remove the slice from the pie or the pie from the slice?
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 57 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,790
@1,417,788 (F)
You’re clearly a Protestant because you’ve made incorrect statements about what the beliefs of Orthodox Christians are.
You’re clearly a Protestant because you’ve made incorrect statements about what the beliefs of Orthodox Christians are.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,792
If you were actually orthodox, you would know that Catholic and Orthodox Christians both venerate saints. We don’t worship them. That’s Protestant anti Catholic dogma, an Orthodox Christian would have complaints about the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but they would phrase it completely differently.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 32 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,793
@1,417,789 (K)
Funny, because you would actually want to use the population of the time if that's how you were measuring it.
There were more Christians in the east than the west at the time, so by the standard you just came up with the Orthodox church would be the legitimate one lol
Funny, because you would actually want to use the population of the time if that's how you were measuring it.
There were more Christians in the east than the west at the time, so by the standard you just came up with the Orthodox church would be the legitimate one lol
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 55 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,794
@previous (F)
Why would God make the Catholic Church the most successful church if it wasn’t the church he founded?
Why would God make the Catholic Church the most successful church if it wasn’t the church he founded?
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,795
@previous (K)
You literally just said:
> If you cut a slice off of a pie, and that slice is smaller than the pie, did you remove the slice from the pie or the pie from the slice?
By either patriarchs leading the church, or population at the time, the Roman catholic church was smaller.
By your own standard you explained a moment ago, it was the Roman Catholic church that broke away from the main church.
Also, since you pretended I said the early church was called the Orthodox church, and I never said that, I'm done. You can't engage with my actual arguments, so you lie about what I said (strawmanning) and that's just not worth putting up with.
I'm sure we'll argue about something else later, and if you can focus on getting actual quotes to respond to you can avoid repeating this. But you do it every time, so I'm not holding my breath. Bye!
You literally just said:
> If you cut a slice off of a pie, and that slice is smaller than the pie, did you remove the slice from the pie or the pie from the slice?
By either patriarchs leading the church, or population at the time, the Roman catholic church was smaller.
By your own standard you explained a moment ago, it was the Roman Catholic church that broke away from the main church.
Also, since you pretended I said the early church was called the Orthodox church, and I never said that, I'm done. You can't engage with my actual arguments, so you lie about what I said (strawmanning) and that's just not worth putting up with.
I'm sure we'll argue about something else later, and if you can focus on getting actual quotes to respond to you can avoid repeating this. But you do it every time, so I'm not holding my breath. Bye!
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,796
@previous (F)
The Catholic Church couldn’t have broken off from the Orthodox Church if there was no Orthodox Church and Protestantism is equally as incompatible with Orthodoxy as it is with Catholicism. It’s clear you’re just playing games with phrasing and have no actual point here because you don’t know what you’re even talking about.
The Catholic Church couldn’t have broken off from the Orthodox Church if there was no Orthodox Church and Protestantism is equally as incompatible with Orthodoxy as it is with Catholicism. It’s clear you’re just playing games with phrasing and have no actual point here because you don’t know what you’re even talking about.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,797
I believe that the Catholic Church is the same church that Jesus founded, and I believe that there has been a continuous line of succession since St. Peter who was the first pope. The primacy of Rome is what defines the Catholic Church and that has existed since St. Peter who was alive while Jesus was alive, so there is no room for any church before the Catholic Church. The orthodox churches were just a part of the Catholic Church, and they had some disagreements so they went their own way. But the primacy of Rome always existed.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,798
@1,417,796 (K)
> The Catholic Church couldn’t have broken off from the Orthodox Church if there was no Orthodox Church
Literally the exact same strawman we just covered.
> The Catholic Church couldn’t have broken off from the Orthodox Church if there was no Orthodox Church
Literally the exact same strawman we just covered.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,799
@previous (F)
You said the Catholic Church broke off from something. Judaism preceded Catholicism, there was no Christian church before the Catholic Church. It’s logically impossible for what you’re saying to be true if you accept what I just said as true.
You said the Catholic Church broke off from something. Judaism preceded Catholicism, there was no Christian church before the Catholic Church. It’s logically impossible for what you’re saying to be true if you accept what I just said as true.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,800
@previous (K)
And I never said that the thing it broke off from was called the Orthodox Church before the great schism.
I called it "the church", and "the early church", and specifically said "Orthodox Church" was a term for after the great schism and no matter how many times I made that clear you continue to repeat the same strawman.
If we were to continue this conversation (and we're not), you would need to either quote me where I said it was called that or just drop it after you got called out for strawmanning the exact same thing multiple times.
Be less retarded, goodbye.
And I never said that the thing it broke off from was called the Orthodox Church before the great schism.
I called it "the church", and "the early church", and specifically said "Orthodox Church" was a term for after the great schism and no matter how many times I made that clear you continue to repeat the same strawman.
If we were to continue this conversation (and we're not), you would need to either quote me where I said it was called that or just drop it after you got called out for strawmanning the exact same thing multiple times.
Be less retarded, goodbye.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,801
Anonymous F replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,802
@previous (K)> If you cut a slice off of a pie, and that slice is smaller than the pie, did you remove the slice from the pie or the pie from the slice?
Anonymous K replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,803
@previous (F)
The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of Christianity. There are 1.4 billion Catholics and only 800 million Protestants.
The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of Christianity. There are 1.4 billion Catholics and only 800 million Protestants.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,804
Between pope Leo XIV and a random guy on the internet who posts AI generated monkey memes, I think I’ll stick with pope Leo XIV when it comes to the whole religion thing.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,806
@1,417,803 (K)
We've already been over this.
Here was my response: @1,417,793 (F)
Do you think it comes off as smart and prepared when you're tactic is to just repeat lines that have already been debunked?
If you had more to add, and could actually respond to the post I just linked you would have just said what your rebuttal was. But instead you just restarted that exact same line from the beginning, which is just a way of wasting time to avoid the fact that you can't respond to it.
We've already been over this.
Here was my response: @1,417,793 (F)
Do you think it comes off as smart and prepared when you're tactic is to just repeat lines that have already been debunked?
If you had more to add, and could actually respond to the post I just linked you would have just said what your rebuttal was. But instead you just restarted that exact same line from the beginning, which is just a way of wasting time to avoid the fact that you can't respond to it.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 12 hours ago, 34 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,808
@1,417,779 (K)
Sure, yeah, the whole East-West split was a management thing, they needed two Emperors to cover everything. But you need to get out of the mindset of modern capitals a bit- well before Constantine founded Constantinople, already the Tetrarchy before him didn't have any of its four Emperors based in Rome, and a bit before them even you had Emperors who weren't in Rome much and had to govern from the field while they ran away firefighting. Rome WAS important, but it had been getting less important and wasn't crucial to the Empire's self-identity. The Western Emperors, too, had actually moved to Ravenna before their half fell.
> There’s a reason why we don’t call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire.
That reason is that a historian, who wrote after the Eastern Romans had gone, called them that and the name stuck.
If we look to the Eastern Romans themselves, and I think that's the most important thing to do, they never stop calling themselves Romans, all throughout their history. There's this wonderful book, written in part by a scribe who fled the capture of Constantinople ij 1453, where a history is traced from the last Eastern Roman Emperor all the way back to Augustus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutinensis_gr._122
@1,417,782 (K)
> They also spoke Greek not Latin, but the Greeks are Greek. They’re not Roman, they were under Roman control, but I wouldn’t call the the same really.
If that were the case, if they were an occupied people, then they would've gone back to their Hellenistic roots, in your premise that they were under hostile occupation. But they... Don't do that. They keep around Roman law, they keep distinctly Roman institutions like a Senate, they even actually keep Latin inscriptions on their currency for hundreds of years afterwards. There's no split, the East was Romanised when the Romans conquered it, then it went on to become the most successful half of the Roman Empire and just kept on being the Roman Empire until it was conquered by the Ottomans.
Sure, yeah, the whole East-West split was a management thing, they needed two Emperors to cover everything. But you need to get out of the mindset of modern capitals a bit- well before Constantine founded Constantinople, already the Tetrarchy before him didn't have any of its four Emperors based in Rome, and a bit before them even you had Emperors who weren't in Rome much and had to govern from the field while they ran away firefighting. Rome WAS important, but it had been getting less important and wasn't crucial to the Empire's self-identity. The Western Emperors, too, had actually moved to Ravenna before their half fell.
> There’s a reason why we don’t call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire.
That reason is that a historian, who wrote after the Eastern Romans had gone, called them that and the name stuck.
If we look to the Eastern Romans themselves, and I think that's the most important thing to do, they never stop calling themselves Romans, all throughout their history. There's this wonderful book, written in part by a scribe who fled the capture of Constantinople ij 1453, where a history is traced from the last Eastern Roman Emperor all the way back to Augustus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutinensis_gr._122
@1,417,782 (K)
> They also spoke Greek not Latin, but the Greeks are Greek. They’re not Roman, they were under Roman control, but I wouldn’t call the the same really.
If that were the case, if they were an occupied people, then they would've gone back to their Hellenistic roots, in your premise that they were under hostile occupation. But they... Don't do that. They keep around Roman law, they keep distinctly Roman institutions like a Senate, they even actually keep Latin inscriptions on their currency for hundreds of years afterwards. There's no split, the East was Romanised when the Romans conquered it, then it went on to become the most successful half of the Roman Empire and just kept on being the Roman Empire until it was conquered by the Ottomans.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,809
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
If you visit Bucharest the locals could tell you that Rome has continuity to the present day.
If you visit Bucharest the locals could tell you that Rome has continuity to the present day.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 12 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,811
@previous (F)
Sure, but as far as I know, it's a situation like Italy or Spain where they see themselves as descendants of the Romans and not direct successors or as Romans themselves.
I've looked around a bit before to see how long the Roman identity stuck around after Constantinople fell. And I didn't see anything about Romanians especially saying they were still the Romans.
Sure, but as far as I know, it's a situation like Italy or Spain where they see themselves as descendants of the Romans and not direct successors or as Romans themselves.
I've looked around a bit before to see how long the Roman identity stuck around after Constantinople fell. And I didn't see anything about Romanians especially saying they were still the Romans.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 10 hours ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,816
@1,417,779 (K)
They were both Roman and the idea of a "fall" isn't really accurate either, it's a notion from 1800s historians which didn't really reflect reality, it was more of a gradual loss of central authority and a transition into successor states.
They were both Roman and the idea of a "fall" isn't really accurate either, it's a notion from 1800s historians which didn't really reflect reality, it was more of a gradual loss of central authority and a transition into successor states.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 8 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,844
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> it was more of a gradual loss of central authority and a transition into successor states.
If the central government ceases to exist, that’s the fall of a state. You could use the same argument to say the Soviet Union never fell.
> it was more of a gradual loss of central authority and a transition into successor states.
If the central government ceases to exist, that’s the fall of a state. You could use the same argument to say the Soviet Union never fell.
Anonymous M double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,845
@1,417,808 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Just because they called themselves Romans doesn’t mean they were. They had a different religion, a different language, and a different capital. They were a different society.
Just because they called themselves Romans doesn’t mean they were. They had a different religion, a different language, and a different capital. They were a different society.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,846
@1,417,844 (M)
The Soviet Union ended with their satellite states having revolutions and a coup by the army, nothing of the kind happened in Rome.
Also "the fall of Rome" is a specific story by Gibbon and it was a tale of invading barbarians overthrowing the empire which it didn't happen like that.
The Soviet Union ended with their satellite states having revolutions and a coup by the army, nothing of the kind happened in Rome.
Also "the fall of Rome" is a specific story by Gibbon and it was a tale of invading barbarians overthrowing the empire which it didn't happen like that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,847
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> The Soviet Union ended with their satellite states having revolutions and a coup by the army, nothing of the kind happened in Rome.
Are you sure about that?
> The Soviet Union ended with their satellite states having revolutions and a coup by the army, nothing of the kind happened in Rome.
Are you sure about that?
Anonymous M double-posted this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,848
It really sounds like you’re exaggerating how violent the fall of the Soviet Union was and downplaying how violent the fall of the Western Roman Empire was.
Anonymous M triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,849
I don’t really think that the collapse of the Roman state would have been peaceful given that the Roman state often didn’t have peaceful transitions of power. During the third century crisis from 235 AD to 284 AD, there were somewhere between 20 and 30 emperors over just a 49 year period. Which means each emperor on average only lasted a couple years or so before being killed by the next wannabe emperor. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I just find that really hard to believe that the fall of the Western Roman Empire was less violent than the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don’t really buy that.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 1 hour ago, 24 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,417,852
@1,417,845 (M)
> They had a different religion
No they didn't, the Roman Empire was thoroughly Christianised well before the East was on its own. It became the state religion in 380.
> a different language
The Eastern half always spoke Greek predominantly, this was the case even when it was all united. That was never gonna change.
> a different capital
Again, this was not that important, the Romans did not think of capitals in that way. By this logic, the Western Roman Empire also stops being the Roman Empire when Honorius moves the Imperial Court there in 402, or even earlier when Diocletian sets up the Tetrarchy and all four Emperors have their own capital city.
This is basically like looking at Washington's America and modern American and saying they must be different countries because they're so different. They are very different, sure, but modern America still uses laws and a government system that were made back then (albeit with some tweaks), and there's an unbroken chain of Presidents going from Washington to Trump. I'm not sure you can call a country that uses the same laws, government office, and national identity as their forebearers as anything other than just that same country. I'm not sure of any case where what you're suggesting would be the case.
> They had a different religion
No they didn't, the Roman Empire was thoroughly Christianised well before the East was on its own. It became the state religion in 380.
> a different language
The Eastern half always spoke Greek predominantly, this was the case even when it was all united. That was never gonna change.
> a different capital
Again, this was not that important, the Romans did not think of capitals in that way. By this logic, the Western Roman Empire also stops being the Roman Empire when Honorius moves the Imperial Court there in 402, or even earlier when Diocletian sets up the Tetrarchy and all four Emperors have their own capital city.
This is basically like looking at Washington's America and modern American and saying they must be different countries because they're so different. They are very different, sure, but modern America still uses laws and a government system that were made back then (albeit with some tweaks), and there's an unbroken chain of Presidents going from Washington to Trump. I'm not sure you can call a country that uses the same laws, government office, and national identity as their forebearers as anything other than just that same country. I'm not sure of any case where what you're suggesting would be the case.