On that I would agree in principle. The Catholics are the only ones left with International State recognition. The problem remains that the Pope must humble himself and renounce the doctrine of papal infallibility as a pre-requisite for calling a new ecumenical council that anyone outside the catholic communion would even consider attending.
Why? It's basically never used by the Pope, and only non-Catholics even seem to care about it, mostly because they assume it means Catholics think the Pope can't be wrong.
We somehow had the foresight to foresee Protestantism, but our counter was a religion that would largely trouble Catholic and Orthodox peoples even after the rise of Protestantism and when Protestantism did arise it was dismissed for years as some minor theological dispute between German monks that didn't really need a response from Rome.
I know you're being sarcastic but my autism compels me to say that no, the Archbishop of the UK is not the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Archbishop of the UK is Archbishop Nikitas of Great Britain and Thyateira.
As a Catholic
Ironically it isn't a little thing, it's the reason why the Old Catholics had their schism to begin with.
I may be double posting but papal infalibility has only been used in theological contexts and even then only really once with the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. It has limits and isn't the end all trump card non-Catholics make it out to be. It's more of a means to announce and formalize doctrines that more likely than not have existed in one form or another in the Magisteriun for centuries as formal dogma. The Pope just can't use it willy nilly. It has to have some spiritual relevance and meaning behind it. It's more of a means to formalize dogma that's existed in one way for centuries.
Possibly twice. There is a lot of evidence Pope John Paul II's statement on the ordination of women was an ex cathedra proclamation subject to papal infallibility.
This either means Catholic theology has become so fluid that the rock of St. Peter has turned into quicksand, or that Uniates have diverged so drastically that they've become a church of Ukrainian skinwalkers.
I've spoken to a lot of Catholics recently who definitely feel like the former.
What are the theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?
I'm not the biggest fan of the Moscow Patriarchate, all things considered, but at the same time I'm not going to LARP about the UOC being anything other than a political grift that no-one with any sense wants to get involved with.
They're all dying in the former Soviet Union, religion isn't making a comeback there and if it is it's going into strange directions like neopaganism. The Bolsheviks mortally wounded all of the churches there and they are most likely past the point of recovery. It's hard to overemphasize how much destruction was done, to the ROC included.
Sounds more like cowardice to me, like all "religious". Isolate yourself on your mountain and do nothing instead of actually engage with real issues impacting the world. None of the great philosophers of Greece or Rome did that, they all engaged with people and made an actual difference vs. sitting around in a monastery doing nothing but repeating empty words for endless hours.
This is literally a trap from the devil to get us to focus on the World. Take what good you can from the Greek Philosophers and from the Romans, and then drop the rest like a sack of potatoes because it is of absolutely no significance whatsoever in the hereafter.
Filioque, sacred heart, purgatory, atonement theory, soteriology, beatific vision, and hesychastic practice for starters.
It's as Orthodox as Greek, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Antiochian, Georgian, or any other legitimate branch of the Orthodox Church. What authority do you have to anathematize an entire church from a religion that isn't even yours?
I feel like if Hell is some twisted, mirrored version of reality, Scranton would be the infernal version of Rome or Constantinople and the citadel of Satan. Or maybe Buffalo.
