You must be Mr. Paul Hernandez, aka Pablo, aka Pablo the Mexican, aka the lay exorcist, aka chief in charge, because I heard him use that phrase near a decade ago.

Never heard of him, no matter how many names he was known by.  I have used the term, publicly and in writing, since at least 2009.  Whatever, as it isn't important.

Since I am not a sensitive douche-bag, aka loser, aka wimpy wack-job, aka gutless tool-bag -- like my apparently numerous non-fans -- I chose, as I always do, to respond to your comment rather than down-vote it. 

There was an indult dude here that I used to butt heads with all the time (Pete Vere), but I actually liked him: Motorcycles, MMA, hunting, cheap beer, etc.  What’s not to like?

... cheap beer.

Maybe I’m wrong, but while Assisi would be an act of idolatry it wouldn’t technically be apostasy right?  Like I’d assume the SIN of worshipping with Muslims is different than repudiating Christianity in favor of Islam, at least if we’re being technical which clearly we are here

Correct.  Canon Law holds that someone who participates in non-Catholic worship becomes SUSPECT of heresy (or apostasy) and that if the activity continues for 6 months, there's a presumption of heresy (or apostasy).

It is my understanding that within the EO they dispute amongst themselves whether or not He actually does proceed from the Son.

There was a series of YT videos put out by this protestant (he had grown up both S. Baptist and non-denominational) who went around and had dinner interviews with all manner of different "christian" religions (Conservative novus ordo guy, novus ordo priest, Orthodox, Episcopalian, pentacostal) to discuss the differences and learn.  His goal was to ask questions and learn about the "other side".  Very enjoyable talks and good points made on all sides.


But when the protestant had the discussion with the orthodox cleric, this cleric admitted that they didn't really have a problem with the Trinity as explained by Rome.  The problem was with authority and how the first ecuмenical councils decided on doctrine vs in the 11th century when the pope "started to take control".  It was pretty fascinating to hear the orthodox story. 

In a human sense, I get that the Eastern world is more "committee oriented" when it comes to making decisions, while they view the Western world as more "authoritarian".  And when you look at the history of Church councils the early doctrines were just agreed to by everyone in attendance, so there was no problem.  The committee approach worked (not saying the pope wasn't the head of the Church then, but when you read the docuмents, it says "we affirm" very often and I think the Orthodox view that to mean "committee" vs the pope's use of "we", which means "papal authority for all time".)  Anyway, as time went on, heresies got more complex, the world got bigger and the committee approach failed, so the pope had to make a decision.  The orthodox answer to error would have endless committees and no results; it's kinda naive in my opinion.  But I thought it was an interesting talk.








If you want to see the talk between the protestant and the conservative catholic guy, I also recommend it.  The catholic guy converted in high school and then studied theology in college.  He's not a Trad but he did a far better job than I could on the topics of church history and some of his theological explanations.  There are 5 parts to this interview.