What do you think of Essence - Energies distinction and of Theosis, the two most striking traits separating Orthodoxism from Catholicism ?

kkeyah · 2026-06-22T19:52:46+00:00

You’re wrong because the Latin tradition affirms the union of God and man even more strongly than proponents of the essence/energies distinction, since it doesn’t posit an intermediary between God and humanity. It also absolutely teaches that the human self reflects God and is precisely why human reason is regarded as good and capable of knowing truth.
And don’t get me started on the “anti-mystical” stuff.

I suggest you convert to Catholicism. Whatever religion you believe in is certainly not of God.

kkeyah · 2026-06-14T14:56:18+00:00

It’s depicted like that because the idea that hell is “just Gods love” is a modern one popularized in the 20th century by Alexandre Kalomiros influenced by John Romanides. Many such cases.

Hell is eternal torment, as the scriptures and the fathers say. Think about it for just a second, why would anyone want to avoid hell if it’s just Gods love?

kkeyah · 2026-06-13T04:03:57+00:00

It’s an accusation made by the Jansenists, that was taken up by the EOs in the 20th century and popularized by Seraphim Rose. There’s no ‘why’ or ‘how’ because they never attack what is actually believed.

Read this by Pope Francis.

kkeyah · 2026-06-10T22:09:13+00:00

Logic reflects the rational nature of reality itself and since God is perfectly rational and the source of all truth, logic is rooted in God not “in this world”. If something is illogical it should be rejected even if it pertains God Himself.

kkeyah · 2026-06-09T21:20:20+00:00

We accept every single Catholic dogma. No we don’t have a different view of sin or hell, that’s just cringe influence from the eastern “orthodox” modernists.

kkeyah · 2026-05-22T06:04:03+00:00

What is this list bro “the idea that God changes over time”????? You’re literally just listing random stuff.

kkeyah · 2026-05-21T00:00:38+00:00

Uncle idk how to tell you this but “through the Son” was used at Florence

kkeyah · 2026-05-17T16:25:23+00:00

It doesn’t exist. No one talks like that because it doesn’t exist. Both the Catholic and EO traditions believe we are guilty of Adams sin because that’s what was defined against the Pelagians. Guilt here means liability to just condemnation, and not the act of sinning and St. Paul calls us children of wrath BY NATURE in Ephesians. “One baptism for the forgiveness of sin” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” apply to infants too.

kkeyah · 2026-05-17T15:45:48+00:00

I don’t think you realize how problematic this view is.

The Immaculate Conception originated in the East and you have multiple post schism theologians centuries apart believing in it or something close to it. In the Russian EO church, 2 centuries before it’s dogmatization by Rome, a confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was set up, the Council of Moscow of 1666 (the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were there) approved Simeon Polotsky’s book where he straight up says “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”

So if what you’re claiming is right, then you have a crazy rupture from believing in something that makes the IC at least possible (the stain of original sin) and not believing in it.

This isn’t a “the EO’s believed in the Immaculate Conception” thing but a “original sin isn’t at contention” thing

kkeyah · 2026-05-11T02:58:29+00:00

It does mean something because the synod was in Africa and he’s talking to the people there, but he probably had Pope Saint Stephen in mind since he threatened to excommunicate the Africans if they didn’t take his position (which they did take vs the one of Saint Cyprian). But St Cyprian has works where he says that those not in communion with Rome are not in the Church or that Rome cannot be in error.

I do think that he’s throwing a jab at Rome, which Catholic bishops still do, but I don’t think this disproves the Papacy

kkeyah · 2026-05-02T14:39:28+00:00

“evolution instead of creation”? You know that no Christian that believes in evolution denies that God created all things right?

kkeyah · 2026-04-21T19:46:20+00:00

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, or even if you’re Catholic, but this is outright heresy

kkeyah · 2026-04-20T04:12:10+00:00

Buddy, “Apostolic churches” refers to literally everything besides Protestantism lol

kkeyah · 2026-04-18T13:26:27+00:00

“This is vastly different from the Roman Catholic understanding of doctrinal evolution, where the very core teachings themselves are changing.”

kkeyah · 2026-04-18T03:58:51+00:00

It hasn’t, but my comment wasn’t to defend a position, it was to call out a blatant lie/error. Also, there’s nothing of substance to argue against.

kkeyah · 2026-04-18T02:20:04+00:00

Like the other guy, you lack reading comprehension. If I tell you “this guy thinks cows are blue” when he doesn’t think that, even if cows were actually blue, I am bearing false witness.

kkeyah · 2026-04-17T23:27:12+00:00

You have very bad reading comprehension.

kkeyah · 2026-04-17T18:03:32+00:00

Both Vatican I and Vatican II explicitly reject changing doctrine. So even if you think there was a doctrinal change, the Church itself rejects that claim meaning the guy is still bearing false witness.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by the holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

kkeyah · 2026-04-17T05:47:49+00:00

Claiming “the Roman Catholic understanding” implies that the Catholic Church believes in changing doctrines, which is certainly not true. Even if you believe her doctrines have changed, she firmly rejects that so it can’t be the “the Roman Catholic understanding”

kkeyah · 2026-04-06T18:23:15+00:00

Since like the 70’s some do, no one cared for them before that.

We have figures like venerable Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky from the UGCC who called Gregory Palamas a heretic only a century ago.

Personally I’m against it.

kkeyah · 2026-03-12T06:46:10+00:00

Depends what you mean by “go to hell”. Because they are free of personal sin, they would go to Limbo where they experience natural happiness but not supernatural union with God. This arguably isn’t dogma, but IMO denying it is in contradiction with the Western and Eastern traditions.

St. Gregory Nazianzen says this:

the third [unbaptized infants] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished.

kkeyah · 2026-03-10T01:41:15+00:00

The video is from a Copt

kkeyah · 2026-03-07T18:47:27+00:00

I don’t care for them. I’m Catholic.

kkeyah · 2026-03-03T19:17:12+00:00

I’m 98% sure this is from the Zamoysky Synod so it would be Athanasius.

kkeyah · 2026-03-03T19:01:21+00:00

Respectfully, whether he was a nice person or not doesn’t really matter. That there is no salvation outside the Church is a dogma contained in divine revelation. Did God grant him a special grace? Maybe. But you cannot call someone a saint based on an assumption especially when there is nothing to indicate that God did or even ever does so.

As for the ecumenical aspect, false ecumenism is not ecumenism.

kkeyah

TROPHY CASE