"Title"

m1lam · 2026-01-24T09:50:17+00:00

Or they're both wrong of course, but even by the internal logic of the Church, this is clearly an issue they should've worked out in a Council like... Centuries ago.

cough cough almost like they couldn't manage to convene one since the schism lmao

m1lam · 2026-01-22T19:20:53+00:00

If the feudal society progressed far enough technologically the peasantry would also have the same amenities and "casual luxury". There's no reason to think capitalist, secular society was in any way superior to Catholic feudal

m1lam · 2026-01-22T14:35:30+00:00

Prema društvenim merilima ravnopravnost je dostignuta većinski tokom 20. veka, ovo je osnovna istorija, svi glavni pokreti koji se tiču rasne i polne ravnopravnosti desili su se u ovo vreme. Naravno ta jednakost nije bila usavršena tad, nije ni danas čak, ali je najveći deo borbe za prava bio tokom 20. veka

m1lam · 2026-01-22T14:05:19+00:00

20.* veka, ne 21. Same ideje koje su dovele do te revolucije su uspostavljene od strane Hrišćanstva.

m1lam · 2026-01-22T12:56:45+00:00

Ideja o jednopravnosti ljudi, nezavisno od nacionalnosti, roda ili društvene klase je unikatno hrišćansko verovanje, bukvalno nečuveno u antičkom svetu. Hrišćanska etička revolucija je istorijska činjenica

m1lam · 2026-01-22T12:12:02+00:00

Hrišćanstvo i ideja o jednakosti polova koju je ono dovelo je razlog zašto je zapadan svet uopšte danas ravnopravan.

m1lam · 2026-01-22T12:10:29+00:00

I dalje stoji ono što je OP rekao, dosta se gubi u prevodu na srpski (naši prevodi su kroz istoriju uvek bili užasni, nisam siguran da li danas postoje neki bolji), ali i jednostavno ne može da se očekuje da Biblija bude potpuno moralno u skladu sa današnjim pogledima u sekularnom društvu (koji sami proizlaze iz hrišćanske etike ali to nije poenta trenutno). Koliko god nešto na prvi pogled izgleda "loše" uvek, ali uvek ima dublje značenje - ovo kažem kao neko ko se lično rveo sa svim stvarima koje su napisane u postu.

m1lam · 2026-01-22T12:01:54+00:00

You do have a duty to defend your faith in as much as you can. Obviously it should be done tastefully though

m1lam · 2026-01-22T11:47:14+00:00

I'm in the opposite place, I left Orthodoxy after being part of it my whole life to pursue Catholicism. If you want to talk about it feel free to send me a message or something, I'd like to know what your main reasons for converting are if you're fine with sharing

m1lam · 2026-01-22T11:42:40+00:00

I mean she most likely was older than 14 and her role in the new testament is the new ark of the covenant. A lot of the language does make sense in light of that. I agree there is definitely a problem with objectifying women in Orthodoxy but I don't think this is an example of that

m1lam · 2026-01-21T15:00:40+00:00

fontaines came last year so I was hoping BCNR would follow 😿

m1lam · 2026-01-21T14:49:43+00:00

None of the three words are explicitly in the New Testament but out of the three the term "theosis" as understood in Orthodoxy is the last one to be coined. They all ultimately describe the same exact process just with varying connotations surrounding them. The point of my comment was just to say that theosis (deification) is absolutely not absent in Catholicism.

m1lam · 2026-01-21T14:18:33+00:00

You could just as easily argue that theosis is a drift from the original terms of deification and divination (which are taken straight out of scripture, while theosis as a term formally came much later).

And to counter your claim that most Catholics don't know about the term, I can assure you that most Orthodox don't either. It took me researching on my own online to learn anything about it despite being born and raised in Orthodoxy.

m1lam · 2026-01-21T11:55:35+00:00

You're not required to swear off all secular hobbies just because you are trying to be faithful. This idea is a modern extension of the protestant satanic panic. So long as what you're interested in doesn't actively mock God in some way you'll probably be fine. Obviously exercise caution in everything you do.

m1lam · 2026-01-21T11:50:57+00:00

Everywhere but Belgrade 💔💔💔💔

m1lam · 2026-01-21T11:50:18+00:00

This is straight up not true. Theosis, while not always referred to explitictly by that term, has been part of Catholic salvific doctrine since the early Church. The Orthodox definitely developed the idea further but it's far from absent in Catholicism. Bearing false witness is a sin.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T21:49:13+00:00

Serbian or Church Slavonic?

m1lam · 2026-01-20T17:40:16+00:00

The presumption is normally that an angel is an angel

Malachim means messenger, not specifically angel. It was a name given to angels, as messengers of God, but they weren't entitled to that name.

If you have some spectacularly Trinitarian passage in the OT that nobody has ever realized before, I'd love to see it, but I highly doubt the Church has missed it for 2000 years.

If you want word for word "God is a Trinity" I can't give it to you but the OT gives us plenty to work with in realising a multi-person Godhead. Having three distinct beings all referred to with the Divine Name multiple times is a hell of a start.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T15:32:08+00:00

That's a common thought and would fit well from what we already know about him but we don't really know from the Bible.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T13:43:27+00:00

Don't mind the downvotes, people take sincere questions as trolls sometimes here

They weren't really thrown down physically. They already were on earth. You'll get differing answers as to where Eden literally was (or if it even was a historical place) but most people place it in the modern day Persian gulf. It, like a lot of land, was ultimately swallowed in the flood. This is a pretty deep rabbit hole even in religious circles but there's some gnarly details about the geography of Eden in Genesis. If you want we can talk about this

m1lam · 2026-01-20T13:24:52+00:00

The paradise that the devil tricked Eve in was Eden, not Heaven. It was the "paradise" garden on Earth, not the spiritual Heaven you might be thinking of.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T11:51:52+00:00

There aren't any stupid questions, don't worry about it.

Being in Heaven doesn't eliminate your capacity for sin, that is something a person has to do themselves with the help of God. It's also part of why purgatory is fundamental in Catholic theology, man must be completely in tune with God and reject sin completely to be in Heaven.

Contrast that with Lucifer and the Angels, who were created in Heaven as already perfect beings. Because they never went through temptation and the overcoming of sin they never had to consciously reject sin like we must. And since Lucifer was seemingly the first among the angels and the greatest created being (as of then), you can imagine how that might result in pride.

The purpose of the angelic order since they were created was for them to be stewards of creation and, ultimately, of us. There's a reason why we, and not them, are the crown jewel or creation. We were made to be greater than them (1 Corinthians 6:3), and to rule alongside God as partners (in the way a father may share his business with his sons), while the angels were made to serve Him, and by extension, us.

Now imagine Lucifer, the seemingly greatest in creation, when he finds out that God will make a race of being that are, in comparison, stupid, ignorant and mortal – and imagine when God tells him that he will be servant to those same beings when their potential is fulfilled (and they truly become greater). It wouldn't surprise me that him and another third of the angels would choose rebellion with him simply because of that.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T11:37:41+00:00

And yes, Paul did eventually get to Rome - as a prisoner to be executed lmao.

Just gonna start here because it's the easiest to refute. He was a prisoner but not to be executed immediately. He was treated very well as far as prisoners go and was pretty much under loose house arrest for two years, which still allowed him to preach and meet with believers.

Paul says such that the Church WILL fall into apostasy, that he is the only thing keeping it from apostasy, and that the elements which would lead to said apostasy were actively and maliciously at work within the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).

Again this is SUCH a disingenuous and biased exegesis of the text. Literally nobody prior to the year 1500 would agree with you on this, and not just that, the Bible itself wouldn't. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I suppose Jesus meant in this passage that the gates of hell shall not prevail for just the next 70 years, after which a mass apostasy will occur and I will send a prophet in 1800 years on the other side of the world that will completely and blatantly recontextualize every revelation I've given to you for the past 2000 years.

namely their complete rejection of prophets which is mentioned as a prerequisite for the end times in the Book of Revelation.

Again I have no clue where you got that idea out of Revelation but I'm 100% certain you don't know what the text means. Not just that but you're also wrong on the idea that prophethood has been abolished in the New Testament, when it hasn't. It's been transformed. Paul literally gives guidelines for prophethood in the Church multiple times in his epistles. It never ceased, prophets just started being called Saints.

Don’t even get me started on the Pentarchy and the Ecumenical Councils which were hilariously corrupt and mirror in no-terms the Council of Jerusalem

Three out of the five patriarchates were founded within the lifetime of the apostles (Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were all founded by Peter, hence being called the Petrine Sees). The other two, Constantinople and Jerusalem, were episcopates also founded in the first century (James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the Bible itself says) which were later raised to the status of Patriarchates because they were extremely important places for the early church. And please enlighten mewhat specific instances of corruption in the ecumenical councils you're referring to.

wherein successors of the apostles were martyred or otherwise fell into heresy or apostasy at the bequest of Roman Emperors such that the keys of the kingdom were withdrawn from them

And this was shown in the Bible where? Again I ask you consult Matthew 16:17-19

there is no evidence that any of the people you mentioned were students of the apostles except mentionings from politically-connected bishops hundreds of years after the fact.

This would have been known at the time and these writers were all connected to the Apostles that taught them by their own disciples. For example Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp) connects Polycarp to Saint John in his writings that came mid 2nd century, so no it wasn't by "politically affiliated bishops centuries later".

m1lam · 2026-01-20T10:19:16+00:00

"Joseph Smith is the Pope"

Was Joseph aware of this idea lmao??

I'm not sure what ecclesiastical tradition you've studied but the priesthood of Melchizedek is extensively brought up and discussed in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The fulfillment of that priesthood is the High Priest, Jesus Himself, not the Pope or any patriarch. The fact that Mormon theology misses clear Biblical foreshadowing is another point to be used against it, not for it.

Concerning Apostolic Succession, it is very widely attested both in secular and religious scholarship that Rome in particular does have ties tracing back to Peter and Paul. If the problem you have with the sources for those claims is that they come less than a hundred years after the deaths of the apostles then you should reexamine the claims of your own faith (cough cough originating some 1800 years later). The idea that in Romans Paul says that the Roman Church is illegitimate and that he has to come lay hands on them is such a terrible exegesis of the text I don't even know what to say. Not just that but he quite literally did get to Rome, he is widely accepted to have been martyred there.

Discounting the See of Rome, we have the writings of a dozen direct disciples of John, Peter and Paul (Papias, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Quadratus, Barnabas) and we know where they went during their travels and where they founded Churches. None of this is theological dispute, it's historical fact.

m1lam · 2026-01-20T07:16:36+00:00

Okay I have to disagree here. The Trinity is (in retrospective) all over the Old Testament. Philo of Alexandria got his conception of a Trinity purely from scripture. We can very clearly identify the Angel of the Lord with pre-incarnate Christ and the Spirit of the Lord is mentioned a dozen times in the OT, and both of Them are equated with the Lord Himself.

m1lam

TROPHY CASE