Raised with the bare minimum of catholic beliefs and dropped my faith in the pope and his circle but would it be bad to say that I think Jesus was a mortal in life but divine after he died? Anglicism just makes a bit more sense to me but the trinity would make sense as well.
This is the heresy of Nestorius. Its a question at least 1600 years old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
I would really recommend that you research orthodoxy. It's a liturgical, apostolic church very similar to Rome, but unlike Rome, the orthodox don't have a pope. Church government is conducted by council of bishops, and no bishop is able to speak with singular infallibility. Rather, we believe that because this is the church that Jesus founded, God will put it back on the right path, even if in a given age the majority of the church falls into heresy. You can see how that mechanism would never work if you believe a man who holds an office can speak infallibly. This has actually happened in the past, in the 3rd century the heresy of Arius had found favor in much of the church, but was eventually condemned at Nicaea.
Orthodoxy broadly rejects metaphysical dialectics, we dont think there is any tension between Christ as man and Christ as God. He is fully and always both. Fuck Hegel, Hegel sucks.
*I forgot but very much want to add, a lot of people get a false idea that Orthodoxy is comprised of ethnic sects (Ive even heard Josh express this before on MATI). That's just incorrect. The tradition of Orthodoxy is to have "autocephalous" (self-governing) churches which hold service in the local vernacular. This means that the bishops that oversee these churches have the freedom to govern as though they were their own "local pope", but are ultimately subject to rulings of councils held between them. "Greek Orthodox" is not to insinulate that its for Greek people, it just means theyre in communion with the Greek church and may hold services in Greek as well as the local vernacular. Ultimately the differences between different regional churches are quite small. Bartholomew is kind of a cuck though so I'm with the Antiochians.
Sorry for doublepost but I wanted to separate my slapfighting from my defense of orthodoxy.
At the end of the day there’s the acknowledgment that there are two natures in one hypostasis,
you mean three hypostases, one nature right? Everything else you said was on point so im assuming you meant it the other way. edit: i misunderstood what the homie was talking about
because God says you dont need to
Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
Saints are humans. they are not angels. they cannot operate on behalf of God
Apostolics do not pray to or worship saints. We ask saints to pray for us. You dont need to have the owner's brother as a reference when you apply to that job, but it damn sure won't hurt.
You're the one defending praying to idols and false gods and dead ppl. I prey to god alone
So lets say I show you a polaroid picture of my wife, right. I say, "This is my wife. I love her dearly." Do you think that when I say "this is my wife", I'm talking about the image on the piece of paper in my hand? Do you think I'm literally married to the photograph? And when I say I love her, am I saying I love the index card shaped object in my hand?
Or is this merely a representation meant to point your mind to the real thing?
of course it is possible to make unholy icons, or to make an idol of an icon. But icons are not idolatry any more than the photograph of my wife is literally my wife. Iconoclasm is peanut brained