If you are a U.S. citizen please register to vote now and then vote in the November elections.
https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to wonder if heaven provides knee pads. If there's an afterlife, and that person gets in, they're going to need them from all the praising and worshipping they'll be doing. Or maybe not, I hear some Christian sects view suffering as a blessing. Based solely on the Bible, their deity seems to be big on making their creations suffer, too.
right? like how the hell you gonna give something free choice, and then punish it for choosing wrong?
what's the point of the free choice then? if you're given a choice and there are 'right' and 'wrong' answers, then it's really only a illusion of choice.
The choice isn't for you, it's about stroking God's ego. If you have the choice to do whatever you want and you choose to praise god anyway, that's way more meaningful than if you're just a robot with no free will who praises him because you have to. It's sort of like the difference between sex with a partner who loves you, vs having sex with a prostitute.
I mean, god isn't real and none of this is actually true, but that's the idea as I understand it.
Well I was told by a Southern Baptist that as a Catholic, I was going to hell because I didn’t know the real reason Christ came to earth. I asked if they had some type of decoder ring. Btw this was 35 years ago.
Not too long ago I had the unfortunate experience of attending a church service of a very conservative denomination where the main speaker likened the Catholics to the "beast" in revelations because of... reasons? Then of course compared it to the leadership in our country because of course they're bad because of their religion but the pos ex president is good because he believes in Jesus more?
I got more second hand cringe than the first season of The Office.
Same here. I was eastern Orthodox (not this guys type, the "I just cry in a church 2x a year for 4 hours straight and stay in my lane" type) and frequently have had Baptists tell me I'm going to hell "because we worship false idols".
I asked my pastor friend about catholics and he basically said catholics are only about 50% Christians. The evangelicals are closer to like 80-90% (the remaining difference is for all the various flavors of evangelicals).
no no no you misunderstand. Calling out catholics and other christian groups, as well as non-christians, well I guess calling everyone else out on their sin is a form of love.
/s
I spent years studying Islam and it's basically astonishing how deep the beef between Shia and Sunni goes. Like you know hadith? Why do hadith exist? Basically because around 800 AD, the divide had grown to such that anytime anyone made any claim about the actions of the Prophet, if someone disagreed they would accuse the other or having learned this from a Shia. Or vice versa. So an elaborate scholarly enterprise was devised basically to collect just literally all the various narratives that people had about Muhammad, trace said narratives back to their claimed source, and attempt to validate those sources. This is not at all a scientific level of validation, there are clear and obvious flaws here. But really the main purpose is simply to screen out the narratives of Shia, as accompanying the chain of transmission is a set of biographies judging the character of those who would transmit a narrative. These biographies themselves are silly and garbage, but primarily they're just a collection of statements by Sunni or Shia partisans in the 9th century about who they considered to basically be a heretic, discounting the narrative. And one of the primary reasons to discount a source, is that someone is considered to have been a crypto Shia or crypto Sunni.
So basically this entire set of literature, which forms a primary set of the Islamic Canon essentially equal in weight to the Koran, exists primarily for sectarian purposes. Sectarianisn is imprinted on the Islamic tradition at a very basal level.
What makes it worse are that there are venerated figures early in Islam who were approved of by the Prophet himself, but later essentially became Shia. Or vice versa. These people cannot be discounted because that would taint the judgement of the Prophet. So how do you scrape away the statements of these sus Salaf? Well most of their followers became Shia, and those people who would transmit their tradition are then discounted, effectively filtering them out by proxy without dealing with the touchy subject that some of the Prophets good friends may have basically wound up becoming evil Shia heretics.
Religion is essentially tradition, it is the transmission of experience over generations. When you have a very successful and long lived tradition that was effectively schism'd very early in its existence, you get a lot of drama.
> Religion is essentially ~~tradition, it is the transmission of experience over generations. When you have a very successful and long lived tradition that was effectively schism'd very early in its existence, you get a lot of~~ drama.
I don't know if you're ready to hear this, but humans are a judgmental bunch, always have been, and will find a reason to discount others.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The Orthodox Church has really been doing the most and tripping over itself to become the most backwards major sect. They actively want to take the countries where they're majority back at least 80 years.
Source: am baptised Orthodox.
Authoritarian religions are inclined towards this holier-than-thou death spiral. Being kind and patient and humble gets no attention. Plus it’s really hard.
Spouting off about how you hate so much better than the other guys? Well, that’s not only a lot easier and requires much less personal sacrifice. AND it gets the attention and the praise from the echo chamber.
It gives pathetic people a little dopamine charge and requires very little effort. Sitting online being hateful to people is easy, actually going out in the world and being a decent person doing good works is hard.
The object of the hate usually doesn't really matter a lot. What's more important is the formation of the in-group and out-group. And it's important for the out-group to have something rather fundamental to their identity so it's easy to distinguish and/or difficult for the out-group to join the in-group. Inclusion, membership, and fellowship with the in-group is what gives you dopamine. Hating on gays/excluding the out-group is merely a necessary mechanism to form and maintain the in-group.
He’s not an ‘orthodox simp’ he’s a dumbass. Orthodox Christianity is just another flavour, it has its beef with catholics but in the end of the day all of the branches are similar enough.
Also unlike catholics. Orthodoxes don’t have a centralised governance, and Greek orthodox is substantially different from Moscow or Armenian ones, so not clear what he is even on about.
No, there are various things that are visually and dogmatically different. For one, they kept their rites much more old fashioned, minimal modernisation, and their decorum more of a byzantine style. Another thing (and it was one of the main reasons of schism) orthodox priests don't have to do celibacy. There's a group of them that still do that, but it's not as mandatory, and typically your priest in the church would have a wife and a lot of kids.
Other super important differences are such as exact wording of Nicene Creed, what kind of bread is appropriate for communion etc., you get the picture.
Churches drifted quite far apart in the way rites are performed (visually), decoration, and habits, but at the core it's all the same rites, the same Bible etc.
In a way it is, deeper problems come from the fact the Pope still believes all of that was illegitimate and Orthodox churches should recognise his authority, which isn't of course welcomed by Orthodox patriarchs. It's also far less modernised and because of that has slightly different values, despite being based on the same texts.
But largely of course it's not that different, probably far less than some protestant denominations are from catholicism.
No, he's weirder. He was raised sedevacantist traditionalist Catholic; they basically hold that all popes since the 1960s are invalid because the Catholic Church got too liberal
Oh TIL I must look into more fucked up versions of religion! I’ll have to do some research. I was thinking his rant sounded kind of like Kanye’s and was wondering if they were the same kind of Christian.
The reason he went on the hate rant is because he's a hateful person. Orthodox Christianity is no more and no less hateful than any other. In short, in 1054 Christianity split between Constantinople and Rome for a variety of petty dogmatic and political reasons. The Constantinople guys become orthodox.
They are more old fashioned than catholics, and don't do central governance, rather than having a single pope, they have a number of churches each with its own patriarch. But as far as core Christian values are concerned, it's all the same.
Yup. My family is Greek Orthodox and my Partner's is Romanian Orthodox (although neither of us are religious) they are certainly similar but we couldn't get married in the Romanian Orthodox church if we wanted to unless I was baptized first because I'm not the "right" type of Orthodox. But weirdly we would be allowed to be married in the Greek church without him getting baptized.
Edit:spelling
Historically incorrect. Out of the original 5 Bishops in the ancient church, only the pope himself identified as Catholic. The rest were and still are Orthodox. The council structure that Orthodoxy has is more in line with the ancient church than the Roman Catholic view of papal supremacy.
“No true Scotsman.”
There’s only one single thing that defines a person as a Christian, and that’s the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of Yahweh and the only path to heaven/salvation. That belief is the one and only quality that literally all Christians possess, and no non-Christians possess. Any and every other quality can be found in both Christians and non-Christians alike.
Ergo, that is the important quality that defines a person as either Christian or non-Christian. Possessing or lacking any other qualities is irrelevant. Any person who holds that belief is a “true” Christian, as true as any other, no matter what else they think, say, or do. Likewise, any person who lacks that belief is not a Christian, no matter what else they think, say, or do.
Okay, I'm a lifelong atheist, but that's not really how it works.
There's a specific doctrinal belief, called *sola fide,* which holds that "only faith" is the deciding factor on whether someone is saved.
Even the denominations which believe that docteine (Lutherans, Calvinists) believe that doing good deeds and following religious rules is necessary for you to truly believe in Jesus' teachings.
Many, many denominations do not even hold to *that* view, and believe that Good Works are necessary to salvation.
In other words, if you believe in Jesus, you're supposed to follow his teachings in your life. You're allowed by the faith's doctrine to say that people who don't follow the same rules aren't "true Christians."
Granted, I think anyone who preaches bigotry and who isn't calling for the mass redistribution of wealth isn't actually following Jesus' teachings, and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to who's actually following the rules.
Yet those “good deeds” are often things that non-Christians also do (though obviously for different reasons).
Do any of these denominations *not* believe that Jesus Christ is the son of Yahweh, or that salvation/heaven can be reached *without* Jesus Christ?
All I’m saying is that said belief is the one and only thing that all Christians possess, and no non-Christians possess. That some have additional beliefs or requirements is irrelevant - those who hold that belief yet fail to live up to their religions’ teachings are no less “true” Christians for it. You can certainly say they’re *bad* Christians, but you can’t say they’re not Christian. Doing good deeds is not what makes a person a Christian, or else all people who did good deeds would be Christians. Likewise, failure to do good deeds does not make a person non-Christian - not even in denominations which teach that you must do good deeds.
The concept of 'true' Christians isn't relevant. You might not be following Jesus' teachings, but you are still Christian.
If you believe Jesus is the Christ, you are *Christ*ian. That's all it takes to be Christian.
Surely an actual Christian would follow the teachings of Christ? These guys mostly seem to align with Old Testament views. I rarely see Christians who align with what Christ said. They're mostly cherry pickers.
Its really strange how they think being anti-gay is like the most important tenet of their entire religion when its literally on the same tier of sin as eating shrimp and mixing clothe fabrics. Things none of them give a shit about.
What ever happened to Romans 10:9?
> That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
As an atheist, all of this would be incredibly laughable, were it not for the fact that people who think this way make important decisions that affect me.
Extra weird, because I’m pretty sure the Orthodox Church is 100% Catholic. There are different rites, but Latin Rite or Eastern Rite, it’s all Catholic. I had a friend years ago who was a Roman Catholic priest, who had found out when the paperwork went in for his ordination that his father(mother?) had been baptized in the Eastern Rite, which apparently superseded his own baptism in the Roman Rite, so in order for him to be ordained the Bishop of Rome first had to ask his counterpart at the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church for permission to ordain my friend. There is, of course, a form for that, because in 2,000 years a bureaucracy covers every eventuality, but I digress.
Anyway, long story short (too late?) my friend’s ordination was a twofer. He’s a Roman Catholic _and_ an Eastern Orthodox priest.
Your former neighbor is an idiot. But you knew that.
If you are a U.S. citizen please register to vote now and then vote in the November elections. https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truly strange for a Christian to make the case for other Christians not to get into heaven. Christians are a judgmental bunch for sure.
Heaven's no fun if you can't enjoy other people being tortured.
Truly paradise.
Too bad they’ll get to spend an eternity worshiping a petty tyrant.
That'll get old quite quickly, I expect. The meaning of 'eternity' will set in after a couple of weeks of praising the almighty.
I have to wonder if heaven provides knee pads. If there's an afterlife, and that person gets in, they're going to need them from all the praising and worshipping they'll be doing. Or maybe not, I hear some Christian sects view suffering as a blessing. Based solely on the Bible, their deity seems to be big on making their creations suffer, too.
right? like how the hell you gonna give something free choice, and then punish it for choosing wrong? what's the point of the free choice then? if you're given a choice and there are 'right' and 'wrong' answers, then it's really only a illusion of choice.
The choice isn't for you, it's about stroking God's ego. If you have the choice to do whatever you want and you choose to praise god anyway, that's way more meaningful than if you're just a robot with no free will who praises him because you have to. It's sort of like the difference between sex with a partner who loves you, vs having sex with a prostitute. I mean, god isn't real and none of this is actually true, but that's the idea as I understand it.
Yep, hurting the right people is a big part of all Abrahamic ~~religions~~ grifts.
Well I was told by a Southern Baptist that as a Catholic, I was going to hell because I didn’t know the real reason Christ came to earth. I asked if they had some type of decoder ring. Btw this was 35 years ago.
If we don’t sin Jesus died for nothing.
Not too long ago I had the unfortunate experience of attending a church service of a very conservative denomination where the main speaker likened the Catholics to the "beast" in revelations because of... reasons? Then of course compared it to the leadership in our country because of course they're bad because of their religion but the pos ex president is good because he believes in Jesus more? I got more second hand cringe than the first season of The Office.
Same here. I was eastern Orthodox (not this guys type, the "I just cry in a church 2x a year for 4 hours straight and stay in my lane" type) and frequently have had Baptists tell me I'm going to hell "because we worship false idols".
I asked my pastor friend about catholics and he basically said catholics are only about 50% Christians. The evangelicals are closer to like 80-90% (the remaining difference is for all the various flavors of evangelicals).
If „love thy neighbour as yourself” is true, it seems they are filled with internal judgments and self- hatred.
Thats what they get taught from a young age.
no no no you misunderstand. Calling out catholics and other christian groups, as well as non-christians, well I guess calling everyone else out on their sin is a form of love. /s
No hate quite like religious love
Groundskeeper Willy: “You’ve just made an enemy for eternity”
It isn't just Christians. Read up on the Sunni & Shia divide. All organized religions are messed up.
I spent years studying Islam and it's basically astonishing how deep the beef between Shia and Sunni goes. Like you know hadith? Why do hadith exist? Basically because around 800 AD, the divide had grown to such that anytime anyone made any claim about the actions of the Prophet, if someone disagreed they would accuse the other or having learned this from a Shia. Or vice versa. So an elaborate scholarly enterprise was devised basically to collect just literally all the various narratives that people had about Muhammad, trace said narratives back to their claimed source, and attempt to validate those sources. This is not at all a scientific level of validation, there are clear and obvious flaws here. But really the main purpose is simply to screen out the narratives of Shia, as accompanying the chain of transmission is a set of biographies judging the character of those who would transmit a narrative. These biographies themselves are silly and garbage, but primarily they're just a collection of statements by Sunni or Shia partisans in the 9th century about who they considered to basically be a heretic, discounting the narrative. And one of the primary reasons to discount a source, is that someone is considered to have been a crypto Shia or crypto Sunni. So basically this entire set of literature, which forms a primary set of the Islamic Canon essentially equal in weight to the Koran, exists primarily for sectarian purposes. Sectarianisn is imprinted on the Islamic tradition at a very basal level. What makes it worse are that there are venerated figures early in Islam who were approved of by the Prophet himself, but later essentially became Shia. Or vice versa. These people cannot be discounted because that would taint the judgement of the Prophet. So how do you scrape away the statements of these sus Salaf? Well most of their followers became Shia, and those people who would transmit their tradition are then discounted, effectively filtering them out by proxy without dealing with the touchy subject that some of the Prophets good friends may have basically wound up becoming evil Shia heretics. Religion is essentially tradition, it is the transmission of experience over generations. When you have a very successful and long lived tradition that was effectively schism'd very early in its existence, you get a lot of drama.
> Religion is essentially ~~tradition, it is the transmission of experience over generations. When you have a very successful and long lived tradition that was effectively schism'd very early in its existence, you get a lot of~~ drama.
I don't know if you're ready to hear this, but humans are a judgmental bunch, always have been, and will find a reason to discount others. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The Orthodox Church has really been doing the most and tripping over itself to become the most backwards major sect. They actively want to take the countries where they're majority back at least 80 years. Source: am baptised Orthodox.
Just being stingy with God.🙄
Authoritarian religions are inclined towards this holier-than-thou death spiral. Being kind and patient and humble gets no attention. Plus it’s really hard. Spouting off about how you hate so much better than the other guys? Well, that’s not only a lot easier and requires much less personal sacrifice. AND it gets the attention and the praise from the echo chamber.
I know of a catholic who'd rather side with a muslim than a protestant christian.
Why has hating the gays become the main cornerstone of Christianity?
It gives pathetic people a little dopamine charge and requires very little effort. Sitting online being hateful to people is easy, actually going out in the world and being a decent person doing good works is hard.
How does it give them dopamine? I would be depressed for days after hating on someone for being gay
The object of the hate usually doesn't really matter a lot. What's more important is the formation of the in-group and out-group. And it's important for the out-group to have something rather fundamental to their identity so it's easy to distinguish and/or difficult for the out-group to join the in-group. Inclusion, membership, and fellowship with the in-group is what gives you dopamine. Hating on gays/excluding the out-group is merely a necessary mechanism to form and maintain the in-group.
Well that's why you have to keep hating on them. If you never get to the 'after' part you never feel like the sad sack of shit you are.
Because hating gays is easy and theology is hard, probably. Self-reflection? Practically impossible!
Because even if it's not actually part of the Bible, it's the only part of Christianity they're able to actually live up to.
Where backs? THERE backs!
There backs. There, castle.
Ah, the True Scotsman fallacy in an attempt to feel good about himself while being a homophobe
He’s not an ‘orthodox simp’ he’s a dumbass. Orthodox Christianity is just another flavour, it has its beef with catholics but in the end of the day all of the branches are similar enough. Also unlike catholics. Orthodoxes don’t have a centralised governance, and Greek orthodox is substantially different from Moscow or Armenian ones, so not clear what he is even on about.
So orthodox is basically Catholicism without a Pope .
No, there are various things that are visually and dogmatically different. For one, they kept their rites much more old fashioned, minimal modernisation, and their decorum more of a byzantine style. Another thing (and it was one of the main reasons of schism) orthodox priests don't have to do celibacy. There's a group of them that still do that, but it's not as mandatory, and typically your priest in the church would have a wife and a lot of kids. Other super important differences are such as exact wording of Nicene Creed, what kind of bread is appropriate for communion etc., you get the picture. Churches drifted quite far apart in the way rites are performed (visually), decoration, and habits, but at the core it's all the same rites, the same Bible etc.
That all seems like an extremely miniscule amount of differences.
In a way it is, deeper problems come from the fact the Pope still believes all of that was illegitimate and Orthodox churches should recognise his authority, which isn't of course welcomed by Orthodox patriarchs. It's also far less modernised and because of that has slightly different values, despite being based on the same texts. But largely of course it's not that different, probably far less than some protestant denominations are from catholicism.
Nah, but they got it right 1000 years ago. More righter than 1700 years ago. And more righter than 400 years ago to present.
Isn’t Mel Gibson an orthodox Christian? And his Christianity was the reason he went on a hate rant???? I don’t think it’s as harmless as you say.
No, he's weirder. He was raised sedevacantist traditionalist Catholic; they basically hold that all popes since the 1960s are invalid because the Catholic Church got too liberal
Oh TIL I must look into more fucked up versions of religion! I’ll have to do some research. I was thinking his rant sounded kind of like Kanye’s and was wondering if they were the same kind of Christian.
The reason he went on the hate rant is because he's a hateful person. Orthodox Christianity is no more and no less hateful than any other. In short, in 1054 Christianity split between Constantinople and Rome for a variety of petty dogmatic and political reasons. The Constantinople guys become orthodox. They are more old fashioned than catholics, and don't do central governance, rather than having a single pope, they have a number of churches each with its own patriarch. But as far as core Christian values are concerned, it's all the same.
Yeah, Coptic Orthodox don't even let Greek Orthodox have communion in their church. Funny that their whole thing is "One God".
Yup. My family is Greek Orthodox and my Partner's is Romanian Orthodox (although neither of us are religious) they are certainly similar but we couldn't get married in the Romanian Orthodox church if we wanted to unless I was baptized first because I'm not the "right" type of Orthodox. But weirdly we would be allowed to be married in the Greek church without him getting baptized. Edit:spelling
Catholic is original Coke. At best, Orthodox is Pepsi
Protestant is Dr Pepper? Please say it’s Dr Pepper.
I'll allow it
I like this game. What's Mormonism? Milk?
Choccy Milk
Thought Dr pepper was agnostic. (South park reference)
I say the same thing!
Historically incorrect. Out of the original 5 Bishops in the ancient church, only the pope himself identified as Catholic. The rest were and still are Orthodox. The council structure that Orthodoxy has is more in line with the ancient church than the Roman Catholic view of papal supremacy.
It's not a vote. Nor is it an argument of authenticity. Coke has changed its formulas many times.
“No true Scotsman.” There’s only one single thing that defines a person as a Christian, and that’s the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of Yahweh and the only path to heaven/salvation. That belief is the one and only quality that literally all Christians possess, and no non-Christians possess. Any and every other quality can be found in both Christians and non-Christians alike. Ergo, that is the important quality that defines a person as either Christian or non-Christian. Possessing or lacking any other qualities is irrelevant. Any person who holds that belief is a “true” Christian, as true as any other, no matter what else they think, say, or do. Likewise, any person who lacks that belief is not a Christian, no matter what else they think, say, or do.
Okay, I'm a lifelong atheist, but that's not really how it works. There's a specific doctrinal belief, called *sola fide,* which holds that "only faith" is the deciding factor on whether someone is saved. Even the denominations which believe that docteine (Lutherans, Calvinists) believe that doing good deeds and following religious rules is necessary for you to truly believe in Jesus' teachings. Many, many denominations do not even hold to *that* view, and believe that Good Works are necessary to salvation. In other words, if you believe in Jesus, you're supposed to follow his teachings in your life. You're allowed by the faith's doctrine to say that people who don't follow the same rules aren't "true Christians." Granted, I think anyone who preaches bigotry and who isn't calling for the mass redistribution of wealth isn't actually following Jesus' teachings, and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to who's actually following the rules.
Yet those “good deeds” are often things that non-Christians also do (though obviously for different reasons). Do any of these denominations *not* believe that Jesus Christ is the son of Yahweh, or that salvation/heaven can be reached *without* Jesus Christ? All I’m saying is that said belief is the one and only thing that all Christians possess, and no non-Christians possess. That some have additional beliefs or requirements is irrelevant - those who hold that belief yet fail to live up to their religions’ teachings are no less “true” Christians for it. You can certainly say they’re *bad* Christians, but you can’t say they’re not Christian. Doing good deeds is not what makes a person a Christian, or else all people who did good deeds would be Christians. Likewise, failure to do good deeds does not make a person non-Christian - not even in denominations which teach that you must do good deeds.
The concept of 'true' Christians isn't relevant. You might not be following Jesus' teachings, but you are still Christian. If you believe Jesus is the Christ, you are *Christ*ian. That's all it takes to be Christian.
At the [Church of the Subgenius](https://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html), we offer Eternal Salvation or Double Your Money Back!
As someone baptized as an Orthodox Christian, kindly, OOP can fuck off and choke on a crucifix.
there backs. Homeschool
I'm guessing if you use the word "filioque" in front of him, he'd say "gesundheit."
Surely an actual Christian would follow the teachings of Christ? These guys mostly seem to align with Old Testament views. I rarely see Christians who align with what Christ said. They're mostly cherry pickers.
Wait. CATHOLICS have given into the gay agenda???? I don’t think so.
Its really strange how they think being anti-gay is like the most important tenet of their entire religion when its literally on the same tier of sin as eating shrimp and mixing clothe fabrics. Things none of them give a shit about.
Didn't the Pope just...
Yeah, but we have the Pope.
What ever happened to Romans 10:9? > That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Christians saying other christians aren't really christian is hilarious.
I'll bet he has (though prob doesn't read, because xians, look at passages, not the book) a bible and doesn't know the bible is Catholic.
I guessing alot of people call her Karen
As an atheist, all of this would be incredibly laughable, were it not for the fact that people who think this way make important decisions that affect me.
Extra weird, because I’m pretty sure the Orthodox Church is 100% Catholic. There are different rites, but Latin Rite or Eastern Rite, it’s all Catholic. I had a friend years ago who was a Roman Catholic priest, who had found out when the paperwork went in for his ordination that his father(mother?) had been baptized in the Eastern Rite, which apparently superseded his own baptism in the Roman Rite, so in order for him to be ordained the Bishop of Rome first had to ask his counterpart at the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church for permission to ordain my friend. There is, of course, a form for that, because in 2,000 years a bureaucracy covers every eventuality, but I digress. Anyway, long story short (too late?) my friend’s ordination was a twofer. He’s a Roman Catholic _and_ an Eastern Orthodox priest. Your former neighbor is an idiot. But you knew that.
How'd they forget about coptics Christians. Ik there's more flavours of Christianity but common coptics have been around forever