A reader on SG had a comment regarding my piece here, where I essentially bullet-pointed the failings of all religions when compared to Catholicism. It was really a side-issue though relevant to the post, and in any case, the Orthobros came out best of the lot really, nevertheless, we have this comment from Anthony.
Hey man, il just reiterate point I made on SG as you requested. The Orthobros to my knowledge did not spread the Gospel as far as Rome did since they did not have a globe spanning empire to do so. Spain to my knowledge did most of the converting among the Catholics which I credit to this. Other Catholic nations were functionally as “insular” as the Orthodox in their missionary work. Also the Orthodox converted people spanning from the Mediterranean all the way up to Russia which is respectable given their sphere of influence of that time period.
I have alot of respect for you and your work and look forward to your reply.
He sort of missed out Portugal, but even if we were to concede the point, which I do not, because explain to me if the Orthos were so keen on spreading the gospel it was Catholic missionaries getting boiled alive in oil and crucified in Japan (and samurai secretly converting to Catholicism by putting little crosses on the tang of their katanas) and not orthobros who are literally next door?
But aside that point, it would do absolutely nothing to answer to the following questions:
If the Orthos were such good Christians, please explain how/why:
- They asked for help from the Catholics after failing to defend their own lands from the depredations of Muslims, some 40 years AFTER they supposedly split from Catholicism?
- When the Catholics went to help them they immediately turned against them after these won some battles with the muslims and variously, throughout the first and subsequent crusades:
- Lied about providing food and water and logistics to the fighting Catholics. They would leave them stranded in hope the Muslims killed them off.
- Made pacts with the Muslims and even joined muslims in battle against the Catholics that had come to rescue them a their request from Islam.
- Repeatedly failed to help and aid the Catholics and repeatedly sabotaged, lied did not fulfil any promises made to them.
- They did this for three crusades in a row. And the Catholics STILL came to help them. Then when on the fourth crusade the Catholics finally sacked Constantinople (a “ravaging” according to the Orthos but a very mild sacking by all other objective witnesses at the time that reported on it) they are still whining about it today.
- Despite all this the Catholic held the line in the Outremer for 200 YEARS! Having to fund it all from Catholic Europe because the Orthos wouldn’t lift a finger to help maintain and recover their own lands they had let the Muslims take until the Catholics put them in their place.
- When the Catholics finally could not justify the continued expense of maintaining a huge fighting force in lands they didn’t even lay claim to, and they offered to the Orthos to please at least take all the fortresses we built over and carry on protecting your own lands, they refused, letting it all go to the Muslims.
- The Filioque – It’s a retarded argument. If you actually read the Bible it’s pretty clear that the Catholics are right. The Ortho “argument” is basically Protestant nonsense where you have to twist things just so to “interpret” it so it fits your singular perspective.
- All the Orthos agreed the Pope was the main dude many times before 1054, and did so again after, including at the council of Florence in 1400-something.
- You still have the problem that if the Orthos are “right”, like the Protestants, they still need to explain how come they went along with everything for a thousand years plus. It’t the same retarded “argument” the Protties make. It makes zero sense.
In short, no my dude, Orthodoxy is simply not the answer. It comes a LOT closer than protestantism, and it probably fills some lack in the Protestant zeitgeist Anglos are all raised in for a sense of “tradition” just like the average American is bowled over by things like the fact my house dated back to some 300 years ago, but in Europe we have Churches that have stood where they are for well over a thousand years and it’s normal. Plus the Orthos are not in any way coherent among themselves and have various other practices that are in error.
Truth is a hard road, and only a few will take it, we know this, but an honest man cannot help but try and follow it.
I wish you all the best in what I hope will be your continued search.
The filioque is not so simple, because that phrase in the creed comes straight out of the gospel of John, and the gospel doesn’t have the filioque in it:
% “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you
% from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth
% who proceeds from the Father,
% He will testify about Me” John 15:26
Even the Douay-Rheims doesn’t have the filioque:
% But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you
% from the Father, the Spirit of truth,
% who proceedeth from the Father,
% he shall give testimony of me. John 15:26
The easiest thing for the various council fathers to do is to stick with scripture. To change the creed would require extraordinarily good arguments.
Instead of providing those arguments, Rome has agreed to allow the eastern Catholics, and the Orthodox when they re-unite, to keep the creed as they have always known it.
Truth hurts you too much?
What truth? You are a retard, and completely wrong, and while your abysmal stupidity, historical and scriptural ignorance could certainly be irritating, that would only be the case if I cared a tiny bit whether you even lived or died, which I do not. The only purpose you serve here is to prove yet again that you and people like you are mouth-breathing retards.
If you had any functional neurones this would be enough to teach you to be silent before your betters and slink away in silence, but that, is a vain and utopian hope, sadly.